This relates to the scientism issue: what you "believe in" (faith) is different in kind from what you assent to as true (belief). Do you agree?

[danieldemol]

If you scientically looked at the effect of hormones
on teenage romance you'd be cautious about it.

I suppose I should have been clearer, I agree with @viole that humans are the product of their biology and that biology can be investigated by science.

But long term love may have more to do with the survival of groups over that of individuals than it does with child rearing if I had to make my personal best guess.

 

[Audie]

I suppose I should have been clearer, I agree with @viole that humans are the product of their biology and that biology can be investigated by science.

But long term love may have more to do with the survival of groups over that of individuals than it does with child rearing if I had to make my personal best guess.

Both are about group survival

 

[viole]

Maybe, but if you look at humans many of them grow old together long after the kids matured in my view.

Well, we might argue that evolution is not interested in fine tuning. If it is easier to evolve a love-for-ever feeling, without negative side effects, then be it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Whateverist]

the fact that we tend to ascribe importance to long lasting love is mainly because of our biology. It is nothing but an evolved characteristics that leverage joined efforts of man and woman when raising offsprings who take so long to become independent.

Spit balling reductionism. A little categorization into a field of study, biology, a few observation of observed patterns in other species and presto - we know all about it. Certainty is simple if you think so little about it. I suppose if Dawkins can glibly opine that we are slaves of our genes why not suggest that “evolved characteristics that leverage joined efforts of man and woman”. But this whole effort to understand ourselves as mechanistically determined by underlying causes is absurd. How does any of that account for our obvious agency?

 

[Audie]

Spit balling reductionism. A little categorization into a field of study, biology, a few observation of observed patterns in other species and presto - we know all about it. Certainty is simple if you think so little about it. I suppose if Dawkins can glibly opine that we are slaves of our genes why not suggest that “evolved characteristics that leverage joined efforts of man and woman”. But this whole effort to understand ourselves as mechanistically determined by underlying causes is absurd. How does any of that account for our obvious agency?

Nothing simpler than "goddidit".
And no need to spray unjustifiable calumny.
Just say "goddidit" and think no more.

 

[Whateverist]

Nothing simpler than "goddidit".
And no need to spray unjustifiable calumny.
Just say "goddidit" and think no more.

Yeah goddidit and scientism are probably the two most traveled highways to stupid still in use. I just have no desire to get to stupid.

 

[Audie]

Yeah goddidit and scientism are probably the two most traveled highways to stupid still in use. I just have no desire to get to stupid.

I see a great deal of godidit, but I've yet to
see anyone display scientism.

You have a example?

 

[Whateverist]

You have a example?

I've seen you use this incantation before. I guess this is how you hold at bay thoughts you don't want to let in.

But I don't take requests. You write what you like and I'll do the same.

 

[Audie]

I've seen you use this incantation before. I guess this is how you hold at bay thoughts you don't want to let in.

But I don't take requests. You write what you like and I'll do the same.

Write your idiocies and I won't read them