Science Forums 2

[Jway]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Nope, but we call it "love" for good reason. It's a different concept, and is hardly a "myth."

Agreed on the final part. For me the concepts are synonymous, especially when considering Apape Love and/or unconditional Love.

It's well grounded in the science of psychology, neurobiology, sociology, and evolution.

As it is in the traditions of spirituality and religion. If it is so well grounded in these other disciplines and this thread is (indirectly) about marriages, please share with us the marriages you are aware of where the ceremonial event utilized the "well grounded" language of these disciplines while presenting the love between the two persons marrying. You said you were married. Did your vows and/or words shared by public speaker at the event delve into the science of love? Did it delve into the neurobiological component as what is bringing the two together? How about evolution? How many references to evolutionary theory were brought up in your own ceremony? Feel free to cite whatever human marriage ceremonies you are aware of in which love as union was talked about from the basis of science. I feel very open to the idea that this could occur and that you may present such cases.

To suggest somehow that "love=god" is to equivocate the two terms,

This is correct.

and really is nothing more than a bald assertion with no basis.

There is much historical basis for why one might assert this. I base it on that partly, and I would say mostly on my philosophical / spiritual views. You can pretend I'm all alone in these views, though that would be inaccurate. I also base it on feeling and Identity. Though I don't feel dogmatic in the term that forms the Identity. If I got into habit of calling God - Flying Spaghetti Monster, I feel it would work about the same way. Love equals FSM.

You may define this god-concept using terms of love, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence.

There is for me. And I would argue for thousands, if not millions, of others.

Love is a concept which does not need god for definition. In much the say way, god is a concept which does not need love for definition.

I agree with this. And yet, we live in a world where spiritual teachers correlate (Agape) Love with God. The definition is not needed, though I observe that it is desired.

Love is perfectly explainable using reality and empirically based science.

LOL, if only that were true. Well, depends on what you mean by "reality" I guess. Does science perfectly allow for the experience of (Divine) Love?

I guess more to the point of this thread, would you care to take a gander at explaining homosexual love via empirically based science. You've made the claim, and I'm interested in said explanation. Again, I feel very open to idea that you can do this, and am just hoping you will.

There is no need for metaphysical, unprovable, speculations... no matter how poetic or appealing someone may find them.

Again, it is not a matter of need, but of desire and applicability. Are the scientific explanations applicable to marriage ceremonies? Perhaps they are. If so, is there case history that suggest such a trend? If little or no history, is it (only) because such explanations and languages would be unappealing, and/or is it (also) because it is collectively deemed not applicable?

It is also said that little green aliens abduct people and insert probes into their anus late at night, and it is said that relativity and evolution are wrong, and that dancing and chanting in a special way makes it rain. It doesn't mean it's true. It just means "it is said."

.... in vast majority of human marriage ceremonies.

In my view, atheist could take "God" out and say something along lines of, "what Life has joined together in this union we have come today to celebrate, let no human put this asunder," and it would mean essentially same thing to me, while not giving allegiance to "skyman."

As stated previously... religion and belief in deity is completely irrelevant to marriage, as atheists have been getting married for decades.

So, it would be (perhaps) completely irrelevant in those cases, while completely relevant to cases where persons were married in presence of God.

Like saying that neurbiological explanations of love would be completely irrelevant to marriage, because orthodox religious folk have been getting married for years.

Even I wouldn't care to make that logical fallacy, but it could be asserted. Maybe if you bolded "completely irrelevant" it would seem to carry more weight.

Define what you mean by "Cause," as I see you've used a capital "C," so you appear to be positing a priori some designer... some cosmic dictator... some idea which I personally dismiss as a silly remnant of our neocortical and social mechanisms.

I mean Source. But I feel Cause is more applicable. Are you living in effect of civil union? Did you have ceremony which as a result of that and legal documentation means that you are married? If yes, now think back to this union that you may either feel or believe is there between you and the other? Got that? What, if anything, do you see as cause of that union? If you are really not sure what I'm asking, feel free to ask me more questions. I think I can explain it further, as desired.

Just out of curiosity... In what way does polygamy have any impact on you whatsoever? Basically, why do you (and others) care whether or not it's legal? Does it really cause you some sort of harm, or impact you and your own family in any way?

I think from legal perspective, and sense of benefits and/or entitlements, it could have impact on me. I think it could arguably drain the system. What if there is no limit. People who are in polygamous marriage where their stated goal is to have as many spouses as human possible? Perhaps ridiculous in today's mindset, but IMO, not far fetched based on human behavior. So, this woman now has 14,000 spouses and is looking to get all the same legal benefits that come with monogamous marriages, but times 14,000 or at a proportion that is deemed sufficient.

Personally, I'd vote for allowing polygamous marriages if legal entitlements were not tied in with them. But for me, same goes with monogamous marriage.