I fear that you have painfully misunderstood me, and request that you give another shot at reading my posts. You've come away with a completely skewed and inaccurate view of what I've typed, as evidenced by the strange response you offered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
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.
|
Read again. My point was that the concept of love is very well explained using science. My point is that belief in god is getting more explained each day using those same sciences. My point was NOT that we spend time with professors lecturing about these explanations during marriage ceremonies.
To restate: The concept of love is well defined in the sciences of psychology, neurobiology, sociology, and evolution. Please... don't put words in my mouth. My point is clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
You said you were married.
|
No, actually... I did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
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.
|
My point remains. Your assertion that god equals love is equivalent to saying that leprechauns equal euphoria. It doesn't matter how many people in the past (in "history") have held this view, as truth is not determined by popularity. You have not defined either god or love in a way that is accepted by all readers, so perhaps you should start there.
As it stands right now, you are making up your own meanings to words which we all use, and we don't all agree with the personal meanings you are using. For example, with me and others, love has nothing whatsoever to do with human mythology (the aforementioned god concept). It's as if you're talking about a banana, but keep saying that bananas equal unicorns. If you want to use the word unicorn to define a banana, that's fine, but you're doing so does not necessitate that the rest of us accept that a unicorn is the same as a banana.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? You even conceded that love can exist without god, so I consider my point made. To restate, though, two people can love one another, and they can be married, and they can do so all without god ever factoring into the equation, especially since proof of the existence of god is sorely lacking, despite millenia of people like you trying to find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
You can pretend I'm all alone in these views, though that would be inaccurate.
|
Frankly, I don't need your permission to do any damned thing, and, further, I agree that pretending you're all alone in these views would be inaccurate. I never once claimed, nor even insinuated, that you were alone in your views. So, really... please... read my post again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
There is for me. And I would argue for thousands, if not millions, of others.
|
See point above about truth not being based, or in any way whatsoever contingent, on popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
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?
|
Yes, it's very easily explained in context of psychology, belief, and the fallacies and tendencies of the human mind. You should review my thread about how religion hijacks neocortical mechanisms, and why so many believe in a deity (although, it hasn't gained much traction here at Hypo, I've contributed somewhat extensively on the topic at another site and would be glad to elaborate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
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.
|
Sure. Simple, really. Humans are a social species. We've evolved as pack/troop animals. Love has different forms. We love family, friends, kin, and reproductive partners. That love gets reinforced with oxytocin, dopamine, and other chemicals such as vasopressin. Those who in our evolutionary past formed strong bonds with others tended to be more reproductively successful than those who did not, so the ability to love and care for non-self pack members was heavily selected for.
We love because we are social animals, but the things we love exist on a long spectrum. We love our parents. We love our children. We love our brothers and sisters. We love our friends, and we love our pets. I struggle to understand why you cannot understand why somebody would love someone of the same sex.
Put rather simply: We love the person, not the gender. Your feelings and desires for a person are not somehow dormant until you've looked down their pants (checked under the hood). They are there from the start, and you don't generally "choose" who you love. You just "find" them... that is, if you're lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
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."
So, it would be (perhaps) completely irrelevant in those cases, while completely relevant to cases where persons were married in presence of God.
|
The point being, we are discussing marriage itself, and if god is completely irrelevant in some cases, then you cannot in the next breath claim that the concept of marriage is in any way dependent upon he/she/it.
Either marriage can happen without god, or it cannot. It's an either/or state, and you've already conceded that it CAN happen without god. Ergo, my point is confirmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
I mean Source. But I feel Cause is more applicable.
|
What evidence can you offer... evidence which is replicable and falsifiable... of this "source?" What consistent definition of this concept can you share, and is that definition universal and accepted by everyone? If not, then you've got nothing. You may as well be saying that the walking tree creatures from Lord of the Rings are required for a marriage.
Either way, your continued request for me to give examples of weddings which discussed evolution of love or the psychology of god suggests to me that you've completely missed my point, and I ask you again to please re-read what I've previously posted.
