continued from the 1-1 thread

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Reposting part of a conversation between Hope and I on the 1-1 thread, as Gordon quite rightly points out that is not the correct board. So here is an opportunity for Hope to carry on if he wishes.

In summary. I made the statement below:

Another perfect example is right and wrong. Again it is trivially easy to show that behaviours are definitely influenced by material / natural factors.

Hope replied:

Alright then, let's see how 'trivially easy' it is to do this.  In the various threads that this has been discussed here, no-one has produced anything like what you promise.  The same goes for 3 other similar internet boards I've belonged to since 2000, and for countless f2f debates I've been involved in.

My response.

Are you absolutely sure you meant to say this? Read what I said again carefully and you should be able to come up with an answer yourself within less than 1 minute.

[Hope]

Reposting part of a conversation between Hope and I on the 1-1 thread, as Gordon quite rightly points out that is not the correct board. So here is an opportunity for Hope to carry on if he wishes.

In summary. I made the statement below:


Hope replied:

My response.

As I saw the reference to this thread on the Romans 16 thread, I have responded there.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As I saw the reference to this thread on the Romans 16 thread, I have responded there.

Wouldn't it be better to respond here so as not to derail the other thread?

I still find it hard to believe that you can't think of a single example.

[Hope]

Wouldn't it be better to respond here so as not to derail the other thread?

I still find it hard to believe that you can't think of a single example.

Well, that suggests that the examples I've heard and read have been shown to be erroneous. You clearly believe that you have an example that can't be thus shown.  So, give it us.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well, that suggests that the examples I've heard and read have been shown to be erroneous. You clearly believe that you have an example that can't be thus shown.  So, give it us.

Sigh..

Here is what I said

"Again it is trivially easy to show that behaviours are definitely influenced by material / natural factors."

All you have to do is walk through a town centre at 2 pm and then again at 2 am to observe this.

In just a few minutes we could write a list of further examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour.

How long do you think that the list would be that show non-naturalist changes (whatever the hell they are) occurring and subsequent changes in behaviour?

[Hope]

"Again it is trivially easy to show that behaviours are definitely influenced by material / natural factors."

All you have to do is walk through a town centre at 2 pm and then again at 2 am to observe this.

In just a few minutes we could write a list of further examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour.

How long do you think that the list would be that show non-naturalist changes (whatever the hell they are) occurring and subsequent changes in behaviour?

Oddly enough, Stephen, one only has to produce a single opposing example to show that your case is dead in the water.  So, here goes.  Love.  We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated).  However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love.  Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.  As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.  Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.  Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.

You can have a list the length of your arm, or the distance from London to Sydney giving "examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour", but that doesn't cut anything for those of us who 1) see no clash between science and faith; 2) see science for the importance it has in our every day lives yet don't regard it as having primacy in how our lives happen.

Therein lies the problem of all such debates.  For some, it is effectively science or bust; for others it's science as one tool of several to explain life.

[Nearly Sane]

Quick question to Hope, why are you conflating 'not currently, and possibly never explained scientifically' with 'non naturalistic'? This seems to indicate a basic misunderstanding.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Oddly enough, Stephen, one only has to produce a single opposing example to show that your case is dead in the water.

Errm no. I made a claim and all I have to do is to show two examples to demonstrate my case behaviour(s). Since you haven't argued with the first point I only need to produce one more. Since I have a list as long as my arm this won't be difficult. Do you really need me to carry on?

What you need to do is to produce one example of behaviours driven by non-naturalistic means.

So, here goes.  Love.  We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated).  However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love.  Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.

How do you know that the chemical's are the symptom of being in love, or that love is caused by the chemicals? You simply seem to have asserted that. Personally I wouldn't go with either extreme. But each to their own.

Incidentally a cursory look at the literature reveals at least some evidence that it is the chemicals that are playing a role in love, rather than the other way round as you state.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.febslet.2007.03.095/full

In particular read the part on trust; chapter 8

 As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.  Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.

Whether or not there is a scientific explanation available does not mean that a non-naturalistic element has been demonstrated.

Identical twins are not identical in many ways. However, no one is claiming love is solely determined by genes, that I am aware. Just because it might not be genetic doesn't show that it is non-naturalistic.

  Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.

Just because people have been brought up in the same setting doesn't mean they have gone around glued together 24/7.


So after all this we still see no example. Just an assertion that love is non-naturalistic, no working, no logic, It just is.

I will repeat again.

Whether or not there is a scientific explanation available it does not mean that a non-naturalistic element has been demonstrated.

[Gordon]

We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated).  However, that is not love,

Says who? This sounds like an argument from authority, so what is your authority for this claim?

... nor is it the cause of love.

So, what is this cause?
 

Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.

So, again, what is the cause?

As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.

You may have read extensively. but whether you have understood is another matter. So, which scientists have confirmed that 'love' is out-of-scope? You see that in order to say this you'll need to demonstrate that; a) 'love' has a cause that is other than biology by providing details of this cause, and b) show how these 'symptoms' are the direct effect of this cause. So, the details are?

Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.  Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.

You've now lurched into twin studies for some reason, which makes me think you are kite-flying again.

You can have a list the length of your arm, or the distance from London to Sydney giving "examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour", but that doesn't cut anything for those of us who 1) see no clash between science and faith; 2) see science for the importance it has in our every day lives yet don't regard it as having primacy in how our lives happen.

That would be just your opinion though.

Therein lies the problem of all such debates.  For some, it is effectively science or bust; for others it's science as one tool of several to explain life.

Problem is you've yet to explain just one of these several other 'tools' without falling headfirst into fallacies.

[jeremyp]

Love.  We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated).  However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love.  Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.

How do you know?

As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.  Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.  Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.

I don't see how any of that makes love, or appreciation of beauty non natural.

[wigginhall]

You might as well say that scientists don't understand how gravity works, so therefore it's not natural.   It could be because of God pulling things down to earth, or any other body, but generally, that is discounted, and natural explanations are sought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You might as well say that scientists don't understand how gravity works, so therefore it's not natural.   It could be because of God pulling things down to earth, or any other body, but generally, that is discounted, and natural explanations are sought.

s'funny I never saw a science book which say's God is discounted and only one popular science book written by a Dawkins wannabe.

[wigginhall]

I think Newton argued that gravity could not work without God :

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect."  (Wiki).

[Hope]

Quick question to Hope, why are you conflating 'not currently, and possibly never explained scientifically' with 'non naturalistic'? This seems to indicate a basic misunderstanding.

Am I?  The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.

[Nearly Sane]

Am I?  The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.

Where have I done this?


Note you did it in the post in post before the one you replied to me on this.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Am I?  The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.

Unbelievable!!!!

You do it constantly. As NS points out you just did in your previous post!!!!!

[jeremyp]

Am I?  The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.

Your post about love on this thread is a perfect example.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Am I?  The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.

Now that it has been pointed out to you that you do indeed conflate the two, do you wish to refine your views on how we know that there are non natural phenomena?

[Hope]

Now that it has been pointed out to you that you do indeed conflate the two, do you wish to refine your views on how we know that there are non natural phenomena?

Since I intentionally do not conflate the two - I've seen so many people do so that I ensure that I avoid it - I will simply repeat what I said before: that the only people I've actively noticed doing so are those who do so in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - which means that they (think they) don't have to address the point being made.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Since I intentionally do not conflate the two - I've seen so many people do so that I ensure that I avoid it -

But you don't avoid it. You have just given a text book example of it a few posts back.

 I will simply repeat what I said before: that the only people I've actively noticed doing so are those who do so in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - which means that they (think they) don't have to address the point being made.

Name and examples?

[Hope]

But you don't avoid it. You have just given a text book example of it a few posts back.

I think that this comment answers the question you followed it with.  Accusing me and others of this kind of thing is a convenient cop-out because you are either unable or unwilling to answer the questions posed/respond to the comments made in a sensible manner.

This is another reason why your suggestion for a 1 to 1 discussion system is so pointless. 

However, I'll give a different example, and see whether you are willing/able to respond to this.

As a Christian, I believe that God created everything in the universe.  Whether he did this in the fashion illustrated in Genesis 1 & 2, or whether he used evolution as his means is irrelevant to this particular question, but since I am not a Young Earth-er, I would suggest that the latter is perfectly possible.  If God created everything it would have been for a purpose - and as a result, everything within that creation has a purpose.  On the other hand, those who believe in accidental evolution also seem to believe that there is no purpose in anything.  If the latter is the case, why does humanity seem to have had a purposefulness inbuilt into its core being?  Why have humans of all races and ages had 'purpose'?

[Nearly Sane]

Since I intentionally do not conflate the two - I've seen so many people do so that I ensure that I avoid it - I will simply repeat what I said before: that the only people I've actively noticed doing so are those who do so in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - which means that they (think they) don't have to address the point being made.

You were asked for something non naturalistic and you went with love and did so on the basis of not being explained by science. Your post explicitly covers that.

Pointing out that is not conflating the two, it is pointing out what you did.

BTW this is where you do it, when asked for an example of the non naturalistic

 'Love.  We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated).  However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love.  Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.  As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.'


And again

'Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.' 


And again

'Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.'



so that's three times in the one post. Can you point to where I have done it as you stated?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I think that this comment answers the question you followed it with.  Accusing me and others of this kind of thing is a convenient cop-out because you are either unable or unwilling to answer the questions posed/respond to the comments made in a sensible manner.

I have responded, #7, so have Gordon, Wigginhall, Jeremyp, and NS. It is you who have failed to answer the questions raised.


 

However, I'll give a different example, and see whether you are willing/able to respond to this.

Hang about here, I responded to the previous one about love. This all started with your claim that right and wrong are examples of non naturalistic phenomena. I challenged you to show how this is the case whilst at the same time I also showed that it is easy to pick a behaviour or behaviours and show that they can be influenced by natural/material factors.

You then go on to choose love as another example. You made many assertions in your example but at no point explained how love could be shown to be something non naturalistic, other then by stating that it couldn't be explained by science.

This led to the question of why you conflate no current scientific explanation as positive evidence for non natural phenomena. Not only have you claimed never to have done this, even though it is there for all to see a few posts back, you have accused others of doing so. I am still waiting for a link to a post I or NS has made showing where we take that position.

Therefore, before we proceed with other examples, can you please either rebut the points raised by myself and other regarding love, or withdraw it as an example of non naturalistic phenomena.

[Gordon]

As a Christian, I believe that God created everything in the universe.

No doubt, but whether your belief is justified is another matter entirely.

Whether he did this in the fashion illustrated in Genesis 1 & 2, or whether he used evolution as his means is irrelevant to this particular question, but since I am not a Young Earth-er, I would suggest that the latter is perfectly possible.

You seem to be saying that since you don't accept one set of creationist nonsense this increases divine intervention on a basis you feel more comfortable with - how does that work? 

If God created everything it would have been for a purpose - and as a result, everything within that creation has a purpose.

There's that 'if' - if that is all you have then personal incredulity becomes an issue: you need to justify the 'if' else your 'if' is just more fallacious assertion.

On the other hand, those who believe in accidental evolution also seem to believe that there is no purpose in anything.

'Accidental' - how does that fit the TofE? Your 'purpose' statement is a straw man of course: I shall be visiting Ladbrokes later with a distinct purpose in mind.

If the latter is the case, why does humanity seem to have had a purposefulness inbuilt into its core being?  Why have humans of all races and ages had 'purpose'?

Depends on how you define 'purpose': I suspect that the way you use it is just grandiose assertion so as to create some space to squeeze in your need for 'God'.  Can't see it myself.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

And still we wait for responses to replies 21, 22 and 23.