the above quote is what a christian posted as an answer to a previous question. well i think there is an scientific explaination for imaginery concepts such as love and hate and right and wrong. like many other animals, humans are a social species. we survive by living in groups and co-operating. we care for one another as it aids our survival and therefore concepts of right and wrong developed as we evolved. a mother cat cares for its kittens not because it is a good cat, but because its built in its genes. a fish however may not care for its offspring and never see them again after they are born. that doesnt mean its a bad fish, its just that caring for the survival of other fish isnt in its genes. christians - could there not be a logical scientific explanation for our concepts of what is good/bad right/wrong? why do we need god to tells us how to treat one another? perhaps such ideas are just imaginery concepts inbuilt into the human condition through evolution?
2007-10-19 12:51:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no capitals or grammer or editing cos its just a stupid post on an internet site..... im not handing this in at ui or anything am i
2007-10-19 13:37:50 · update #1
The gist of what you are saying is excellent.
2007-10-19 13:35:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whether or not evolution can explain every little thing is irrelevant. Religion explains nothing. Goddidit is not an explanation. "Why do lightning bolts happen? Goddidit" See, that doesn't explain anything, in fact it stops everything dead in its tracks. If that was an acceptable answer we never would have learned about electric charges. If we don't want to learn anything or advance our knowledge as a species, we should say Goddidit for everything.
However, if we want to learn, if we realize that knowledge of the world is a good thing, we should most definitely "give science a chance." To not give science a chance is to admit that you want to be an ignorant fool.
2007-10-19 13:00:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"a fifteen 300 and sixty 5 days previous female with such sinful nature. purely the bible can clarify that." i could no longer anticipate you to have examine the Qur'an, or any of a handful of different religious texts or philosophical works that still describe this. for this reason, it purely is clever which you answer incorrectly from element of lack of expertise. of course, we could flow away out the philosophical and quite clarify it from the anthropological attitude, which leads to an be attentive to-how of the backside intuition for self renovation and putting ones' self first. So definite, technology CAN clarify it, DOES it clarify it, and the only reason you think approximately the Bible the only rationalization is considering the fact which you're predisposed to attain this by potential of your religious biases. try lower back - and next time, make it a project to instruct you incorrect.
2016-10-13 05:44:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have we got the cart in front of the horse? I think of love as part of the explanation for evolution, not the other way around. Anyway, no one needs to give science a chance; it gives us a chance. It is one way we have of knowing. But possessing all the knowledge there is, doesn't make us wise. Wisdom is based on love, not science. And let's not forget, it is love that is the foundation of Christianity.
2007-10-19 14:58:54 · answer #4 · answered by wowote 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Love is quite real emotion and is implies by the fact that each point of space/time does not fracture from the others into a unique evolutionary trajectory. Universal coherence implies love, ethics, etc. (This in no way is meant to suggest a deity)
2007-10-19 12:58:25 · answer #5 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
love is a chemical reaction in the brain, like all emotions.
as our brains evolved and became more complex, so did these chemical reactions. hence we have all the emotions, and mixture of emotions today.
there evolution explains love.
2007-10-19 13:08:04 · answer #6 · answered by alucard817 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This would be good except the complete lack of capitilization, grammar, and editing. Since it doesn't have any of those it fails.
Edit to your details: and that is why your argument fails.
2007-10-19 12:56:12 · answer #7 · answered by meissen97 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The quote is basically an argument from incredulity. "I don't understand it, therefore God exists."
2007-10-19 12:56:51 · answer #8 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Beautifully said... your examples have meaning...
2007-10-19 12:57:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋