Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

This "almost" sounds spiritual.
In response to both you and photon. Our minds are programmed and hard wired from youth. Part of that programming is the entire theology question, or non-question. As we move along in life we either fully accept this choice, using one or more of Daniel Dennett's eight plausible reasons <see previous post #208>, or we simply begin to question the theories and toss out anything that doesn't make sense. (This usually takes years). My thoughts were typical to both you and photon during these years of question and dismissal...I continued to believe that if the God of the Bible was false; there must be something else. Faith in "something" is ingrained into our systems.
I think that after awhile you begin to understand that the faith we put into any religion/spirituality is misdirected, and you begin to transfer that faith into yourself first, then your fellow human. You see others for what they are, not for their beliefs. Its clarity in its simplest forms.
That redirection of faith is where both of you are at right now.
Wow what a babble LOL

Heh, that does sound spiritual. Spiritual is a nebulous word and I don't like to use it.

I agree that our minds are built to believe, to have faith. We couldn't survive otherwise; we can't go through the process of questioning every cause and effect and rebuilding our reality from first principles every time we hear a noise we don't recognize. Our brains are evolved to do the minimum amount possible to accomplish the goal of survival, and that includes attributing causes to things even if we don't actually know the cause.

Anyway, another reason a flavour of pantheism appeals to me because reality itself is the target of faith. Well maybe not faith, but hope. Hope for the future which I'm not going to get to see, for my fellow humans, for our understanding of it all.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And this is precisely why I wanted to keep this example out of any discussion surrounding whether or not a belief in God produces "morality" or "kindness". I have no qualms at all with insisting that people are innately "good"—but also, paradoxically, innately "wicked"—but what intrigues me is the instinct itself and the timing in it all: Are you not ever awed by what an amazing stroke of coincidences your life experience amounts to?

Honestly for me, not really. There are moments of some coincidence where I'm impressed by the timing, but not in any way relating that to something intended or 'meant to be.' I have a hard time with pre-planned, intended outcomes or anything relating to fate or force that pushed me in some way. Free will and reason makes me doubt and look at these situations in a analytical way, not spiritual. Who knows, maybe as we learn more about the human mind we will find some deeper complication to our connections to other humans, maybe on something similar to the quantum scale/theory where some really weird stuff happens.

No question. This is a problem. But what I think it does say about God, if such a God exists is two things: first, we are probably wrong to think that God ever "intervenes". Second, I think that if there is a God, he is not "all-powerful" or "all-knowing", at least not in the sense that we would expect.

I agree fully, as I've stated before I love to discuss the latter with people who could conceive or believe in that god, I find that idea more interesting and plausible; albeit in honesty its still a reach for me as I could only get closer to having a complex definition in a god based on natural not supernatural origins.

I'll go back to Miller's statement about whether or not the "Divine author" can in fact "intervene in his world at any time". I am presently writing a dissertation which I intend to publish as a book after my graduation. It is my creation full of my ideas. I own it and I am free to do whatever I want with it. But does that really mean that I can "intervene at any time"? If I decided to insert on p. 37 the following sentance: "If you are reading this you are too close", or the following random sequence of letters: "ddcvbqipvbwovqsivb1wrcv1qpuivbquifv", this would be a mistake. Or consider this: If you ever choose to read my book, will you be capable of detecting where the "original" material exists? What parts have been supplemented? Expanded? Changed? If I am a good enough writer, you should not. Part of my work in dealing with ancient literature is detecting those places where authors and editors have in fact "intervened." I am presently working on six mss. from the Dead Sea Scrolls that all contain the same composition, and I have actually managed to locate three separate layers of tradition that have resulted from redaction, or "intervention." So, whether or not God does intervene or even can intervene is not the point. We probably would not nor could not recognize "divine intervention" even if it did take place. But the fact that there are promptings and "instincts" within us that move us inexplicably to act on behalf of humanity suggests that it is—as life is—so much more than merely the sum of its parts.

Can't wait to read it

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

Heh, that does sound spiritual. Spiritual is a nebulous word and I don't like to use it.

I agree that our minds are built to believe, to have faith. We couldn't survive otherwise; we can't go through the process of questioning every cause and effect and rebuilding our reality from first principles every time we hear a noise we don't recognize. Our brains are evolved to do the minimum amount possible to accomplish the goal of survival, and that includes attributing causes to things even if we don't actually know the cause.

Anyway, another reason a flavour of pantheism appeals to me because reality itself is the target of faith. Well maybe not faith, but hope. Hope for the future which I'm not going to get to see, for my fellow humans, for our understanding of it all.

Good posit!
So let me see if I get this right...you dislike the position of spirituality, yet consider the possibilities of Pantheism?
Pantheism translated is "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature".
Sounds almost like a "naturalistic spirituality" to me LOL.
Sorry...really! I do understand your position...really!

[peter12]

Wow, when you three (photon, Cheese, Textcritic) get going, it makes for some good reading.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Good posit!
So let me see if I get this right...you dislike the position of spirituality, yet consider the possibilities of Pantheism?
Pantheism translated is "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature".
Sounds almost like a "naturalistic spirituality" to me LOL.
Sorry...really! I do understand your position...really!

What if we use a different term than God? The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be (Sagan).

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that (Joseph Campbell).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

Interesting, I'd sure like to read it when it's done...

Originally Posted by Thor

...Can't wait to read it

Anyone interested in doing so will likely require a good grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as well as a firm understanding of the theories of development for the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, a good grasp of the history of Judaism between the Persian and Roman periods, and is conversant with Jewish and Greek literature c. 500 b.c.e.–100 c.e. I have an 80,000 word limit, so many of these things I must presume of my audience.

To save you from ever having to become au fait with any of this stuff, I promise to post an intelligible abstract when I am closer to completion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I hear ya photon...but really the issues begin once they graduate a bunch of ignorant Creationists! How do you then re-program them to try and at least see it for what it really is after 12 years of school and perhaps another 4 years of Christian University?
I think its child abuse...teaching your children lies is abhorent and these parents should lose their right to breed.

This position is quite frightening, Cheese. Sometimes the worst evil is done when trying to do the most good.

The wording and emotions behind your statement have been the justification of some of history's most evil totalitarian regimes.

Not saying that is you or your intentions, but remember where some people can take these sentiments.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Having society dictate what's right thinking and banning everything else is sure a dangerous road to travel down.

I'm sure many people who committed horrible things believed the logic, facts and/or science behind their thinking was sound and justified slavery or genocide or any number of horrible things. If you stop people's ability to question norms (for better or for worse) you can get a pretty nasty situation which is damn near impossible to change.

What happened to you in the abortion thread, man!?

[Thor]

I think since human instincts and our actions are in the discussion I should clearly state that we have strong evolutionary reasons and explanations for so much of the way we behave.

There is a neat time in evolutionary biology today where there's a rather reinvigorated attempt by people to study religion scientifically and also to look into the great evolutionary question to all things "how does this benefit me?" in regards to why would evolution of religion occur. There's the discussion of the meme's, of group evolution benefit (controversial at best) that works only 'within' that religious group not outside.

There is a reason why our minds look for patterns in everything, its our brains ability to find patterns that has evolved us into such curious and insightful animals and a big reason for our success on this planet. The part that became religion, lets say real organized religion which we can safely say goes as far back as at least 5-10,000yrs; fills probably some evolutionary need that goes well back of that and became religion in our desires when it was something quite different in ancient Homosapien.

Some of the more interesting ideas are that Religion is there in our minds because something in our minds that shares a similar need like our desire for sweets; religion has usurped that place which our mind previous to religion has now taken up residence in that part of our mind.

I've found with my own journey that getting a real understanding of the big bang, understanding as much as I can about physics, astrophysics, evolution and the natural world... These things guide me to believe in there definitely not being a involved divinity and that natural processes have allowed us this very fortunate window to come into existence here in our little corner of this massive cosmos.

I think humans inherent need to assume something has to start and end is also a major reason why creators are 'created' to explain life and its meaning. For me its taken me some time, but I'm at peace with the idea that in terms of the cosmos, the big bang is a re-occurring incident that will happen over and over. That there is no beginning or end to it all, just a cycle that happens over such a immensity of time that we could barely hope to really grasp the size and scope of such a process.

Its that obvious flaw in our brains, that we can understand what we see and our minds evolve to look at our world in that sense since it benefits us evolutionarily speaking since we don't need to understand the micro world but we do need to understand that rock = hard = tool/weapon. But as we know the deeper we go into the rock we realize that in fact that rock is incredibly porous since as we get into atoms we realize that what makes this hard thing is actually immense space between tiny particles.

For us a start/end to everything we see is how we best deal with the rules/laws of this planet, but its a narrow field of vision as we do understand now much of not only the big bang (we can go back to the first milliseconds of it 10 to the power of 50 or whatever lol) but our natural world which only 200 years ago we couldn't conceive of the diversity of life and the natural world without assuming design.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

By the way, any feedback that any of you have on the ideas I cited from the book would be welcome and much appreciated. Particularly those of you who have a broad understanding of Western European history, and the development of "humanism". I fear that most of my expertise is restricted to the Classical era.

I'm quite interested on the development of Classical humanism, myself. I just finished Vidal's novel, "Julian" and it made me interested to find out more.

Any suggestions?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm quite interested on the development of Classical humanism, myself. I just finished Vidal's novel, "Julian" and it made me interested to find out more.

Any suggestions?

Coles Notes:

http://humanisteducation.com/class.h...le_id=1&page=1

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/historic...Rome_Italy.htm

http://www.questia.com/read/285891?t...0of%20Humanism

A Philosophy Prof from U of C came to speak to SHIC one time about the development of humanism. I'll see if I can find his name.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Good posit!
So let me see if I get this right...you dislike the position of spirituality, yet consider the possibilities of Pantheism?
Pantheism translated is "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature".
Sounds almost like a "naturalistic spirituality" to me LOL.
Sorry...really! I do understand your position...really!

Hehe, it's not so much I dislike the position of spirituality, I just don't like the word itself. Spiritual, pertaining to the spirit.. but the spirit isn't defined, so the word is nonsense to me. People use it to describe a state of mind, a feeling, a point of view, which to me is a natural thing (since it's in the brain), so the word spiritual is just.. goofy. I just can't think of a better word.

I can appreciate the emotion state of mind that people are actually talking about when they talk about a spiritual experience. I have no lack of spiritual experiences in my life, but they're all about emotion, about perspective, about depth of thought.

So when I try to comprehend the magnitude of the universe, try to imagine space and time being wrapped up together, to comprehend the ideas that describe our universe, it's a spiritual experience. When I appreciate where man has come from, and how we're all so interconnected, at the great beauty and terrible horror we've wrought, it's very spiritual.

Like I said earlier, functionally there's no difference between that and atheism, it's not like I'm going to worship the universe or anything. I guess it's just a spiritual wonder at our reality.

EDIT: And from a practical point of view, it might be easier on family members to tell them I'm a deist or a pantheist than it would to say I'm an atheist or an agnostic. I would like my son to keep seeing his grandma... not that I think she'd cut off ties if she knew how I really thought, but it would definitely change things and I'm not sure I can accurately predict the outcome of such a revelation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

For sure, it's crazy sometimes what happens and what leads to that event, but it's only amazing when viewing it in hindsight.

But that's just our perception. People are astounded when the 6/49 has the same series of digits 2 drawings in a row, or pulls numbers all right next to each other or something.. sure it looks amazing, but only because of our perceptions. In reality that sequence of numbers is no more or less likely than any other series. Our perception gives the coincidence meaning.

See, this is interesting as it is similar to one of my more recent ideas about how to talk meaningfully about God. The simple expression of what you are describing is that "hindsight is 20-20," and this is only so because we build our experiences into a narrative with some sort of purpose. But from a clinical perspective, there is no such thing as "purpose", and this is what I believe is horribly troubling for ALL Christians in their approach to evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology (this is regardless of whether one is a creationist or subscribes to some form of theistic evolution). A belief in God seems to presume that there is some sort of grand purpose or "meta-narrative" of which everything is a part. Yet the scientific dissection of the world according to empirical reason continues to chip away at any notion of purpose. At least purpose in a deterministic sense. Here is a snippet of something I wrote a few months ago on the subject. It begins with a scene from the film The Matrix Revolutions:

It is pointless to keep fighting.
The Matrix movie trilogy is a story about illusions. The illusion of life. The illusion of survival. The illusion of sight and experience. The illusion of control, as Morpheus described it in the first of the movies. The illusion of purpose.
Humanity is duped by what it perceives to be “real”, and from a purely naturalistic point of view, life indeed—the very presence and essence of humanity—is without purpose. It just is. And it is the bane of our existence. Even a cursory glance at contemporary Western culture will reveal what ails our society. Corruption, loneliness, disillussionment, greed, decadence, and individualism are only symptoms of a more pervasive scourge...

Religion bears the brunt of the blame and shame for its failure to rectify what our world persistently requires of it: vindication, and redemption from the unrelenting prison of endless emptiness: wanton purposelessness; cosmic "chaos". Our theology must begin here: In the affirmation that life and all it has to offer is tragically without meaning. The world is material. It only makes practical sense that our pursuit of what is real and actual finds its genesis in what actually is:
the void of purpose.

Originally Posted by photon

I can't honestly say that I've noticed anything unusual in the random events in my life that would lead me to believe in some kind of providence, and even if I did I know the human brain fallible enough that I'd question my perception of that providence; I'd need a lot stronger evidence for it.

Just to be clear, when I am speaking about glimpsing "God" in the synergism of random events, I am not speaking of "providence", which I would define as a deterministic sense of God who unfolds and oversees all of life and existence. No. I don't think that a providential God is particularly compelling (hence the problem with theodicy, once again). I think that "providential" belongs with those meaningless rubrics "omnipotent" and "omniscient". I think God may be part of life in a mysterious sense, but "living" through it just as we all are. There is no "plan" or "will" beyond what is beneficial for humankind (and at this point, I feel as though I've painted myself into a corner in recognizing that "beneficial" is a loaded term that remains open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I must be on my way to pick up my b'kor from school! I'll be back in an hour).

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by peter12

This position is quite frightening, Cheese. Sometimes the worst evil is done when trying to do the most good.

The wording and emotions behind your statement have been the justification of some of history's most evil totalitarian regimes.

Not saying that is you or your intentions, but remember where some people can take these sentiments.

Like Steven Weinberg said ..

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

See, this is interesting as it is similar to one of my more recent ideas about how to talk meaningfully about God. The simple expression of what you are describing is that "hindsight is 20-20," and this is only so because we build our experiences into a narrative with some sort of purpose. But from a clinical perspective, there is no such thing as "purpose", and this is what I believe is horribly troubling for ALL Christians in their approach to evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology (this is regardless of whether one is a creationist or subscribes to some form of theistic evolution). A belief in God seems to presume that there is some sort of grand purpose or "meta-narrative" of which everything is a part. Yet the scientific dissection of the world according to empirical reason continues to chip away at any notion of purpose. At least purpose in a deterministic sense. Here is a snippet of something I wrote a few months ago on the subject. It begins with a scene from the film The Matrix Revolutions:

Exactly! So I don't look back on the string of consequences that lead me to be where I am right now and attribute it to anything more than choices combined with the random noise of events in life. And I agree, that is a troubling proposition for some Christians, though some try to rationalize it by talking about God's A plan, B plan, C plan for our lives, etc.. They recognize at some level that the meta-narrative and free will are mutually exclusive, so they invent doctrines to account for it. Except Calvinists, they don't have to resolve it.

When I started seeing this, I saw I didn't need to believe in the Great Plan, in fact I couldn't because the reality I observe contravenes it. Which changes the definition of God, which means I couldn't believe in the God I once did.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Just to be clear, when I am speaking about glimpsing "God" in the synergism of random events, I am not speaking of "providence", which I would define as a deterministic sense of God who unfolds and oversees all of life and existence. No. I don't think that a providential God is particularly compelling (hence the problem with theodicy, once again). I think that "providential" belongs with those meaningless rubrics "omnipotent" and "omniscient". I think God may be part of life in a mysterious sense, but "living" through it just as we all are. There is no "plan" or "will" beyond what is beneficial for humankind (and at this point, I feel as though I've painted myself into a corner in recognizing that "beneficial" is a loaded term that remains open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I must be on my way to pick up my b'kor from school! I'll be back in an hour).

Fair enough, I misused the word providence. My intent was more to refer to those seemingly random events which in hindsight seem to lead somewhere. The difference between that and providence is simply one of degree, not nature. The same questions are raised in my mind, plus the additional ones of the apparent disparity of influence from person to person (which I recognize is holding something inscrutable up to a standard I am arbitrarily expecting).

(And I admit to having to Google b'kor)

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

Hehe, it's not so much I dislike the position of spirituality, I just don't like the word itself. Spiritual, pertaining to the spirit.. but the spirit isn't defined, so the word is nonsense to me. People use it to describe a state of mind, a feeling, a point of view, which to me is a natural thing (since it's in the brain), so the word spiritual is just.. goofy. I just can't think of a better word.

I agree with that, and I know thats why Harris has so much groaning against him within the Atheist community when he uses it, even though we understand the word and what 'he' means by it, its still so full of baggage at this point in our culture.

So when I try to comprehend the magnitude of the universe, try to imagine space and time being wrapped up together, to comprehend the ideas that describe our universe, it's a spiritual experience. When I appreciate where man has come from, and how we're all so interconnected, at the great beauty and terrible horror we've wrought, it's very spiritual.

Agree, and I think you would agree like Troutman's post that we all share the Carl Sagan spiritual view of the universe and the awe it has given us, especially for those of us who have a passion for science and understanding as much as we can.

EDIT: And from a practical point of view, it might be easier on family members to tell them I'm a deist or a pantheist than it would to say I'm an atheist or an agnostic. I would like my son to keep seeing his grandma... not that I think she'd cut off ties if she knew how I really thought, but it would definitely change things and I'm not sure I can accurately predict the outcome of such a revelation.

Just now on my way home, I was listening to am 1140, I'm guessing its a religious station as anytime I tune in its talk of religion, god, etc..

Anyhow there was a segment on this ministry looking for funds to help fight the war against Atheism and to help stop the extinction of Christianity in the west. This guy kept using the words, "we have to fight for truth, and for those who fight against truth we will never stop the fight."

I'm in the boat now fully with Sam Harris I think, its been nagging at me the last few years, but the more I hear the word Atheist the more I think we Atheists should stop using it.

Its had a long history of bad association, but more importantly its not the ideal descriptor I like for myself, I often find myself saying to people when they ask what I am: "I'm a rationalist, secular humanist, Atheist, Anti-Religionist, Socialist, Liberal."

Now theres no shortened word for me, but If I had to choose a word, rationalist or secular humanist fit and explain mostly what I am and what I think.

I just thought what if this guy on the radio said we had to fight the war against Secular Humanism, or fight the war against Rationalists. lol. Much harder to do

BTW here's the link to the guy on the radio:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMN...th_Matters.htm

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...(And I admit to having to Google b'kor)

Did you actually find anything?!

Originally Posted by photon

Exactly! So I don't look back on the string of consequences that lead me to be where I am right now and attribute it to anything more than choices combined with the random noise of events in life.

This is where I am at as well, although leaning towards the theistic end of the spuctrum, I leave some room for the presence (but not necessarily "intrevention") of an Other Being, that may or may not factor into the noise.

For me, thinking about God is like thinking about love, and here is where my predilection for the Hollywood version of Contact enters the fray. Are you married? You have posted that you have your own b'kor so I presume that you have some experience with intimate love. I love my wife, and after nearly sixteen years of marriage I believe that I always will. When thinking about what love is, or what my love for my wife is, or why I love her, I can point to all sorts of attributes and experiences, to feelings that I experience with her, or to how she "makes me feel", but really, does that say anything at all about the presence of love? This is one of the reasons why I stopped answering the question, "why do you love me?" a long time ago.

I married my wife because she is hot, and because I admire her, enjoy her, respect her, and am intrigued by her. But that is not to say that there are not other women among my acquaintances who I find attractive (I work at a University!). That's not to say that there are not other women whom I admire, or respect, or whose company I "enjoy", or who intrigue me. I know plenty of women who are smarter and maybe even "nicer" than my wife is, but she is the only woman for whom I have this intimate kind of love. So what is love and how can you know it? Love can remain common to human experience but ultimately very mysterious. And I think about "God"—Otherness—in such terms as these: believable, but incomprehensible.

[Thor]

My best friend wants to go back to school and study neuroscience, he's been a real passionate reader of any/all books he can get on neuroscience.

Its neat that we are peering into the mind to get a greater understanding of things like the brain on music, why we love, etc.. But boy there is this part of me and I'm sure most people that wonders if we truly learn down to the minute detail why music works, why we love, how we enjoy/experience love/music; does this not take away some of if not most of the thrill of music and love.

Its a difficult question for me, and I'm not the most spirtual person

Here's a old news story on some research that peaked my interest years ago on Neuroscience and love:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...879368529.html

This finding suggests that an important part of the reward we experience when we are romantically in love comes from understanding that another is in love with us.

It is intriguing that this brain area doesn't seem to be so important in parental love as it means that knowing our children don't reciprocate our feelings for them doesn't stop us loving them.

Now neuroscience is telling us that our brains dumb down and rule our hearts so we rush into sex, then produce children whom we also continue to care for no matter how little they reciprocate.

It would seem that one of love's mysteries has at last been cracked by science if we used our brains to their full capacity all the time and didn't deactivate clear thinking and critical judgment, the species would never have got off the ground.

Bolded the last point, we need some unclear and uncritical thinking for our species to have succeeded. haha!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

...the more I hear the word Atheist the more I think we Atheists should stop using it.

Its had a long history of bad association, but more importantly its not the ideal descriptor I like for myself, I often find myself saying to people when they ask what I am: "I'm a rationalist, secular humanist, Atheist, Anti-Religionist, Socialist, Liberal."

Now theres no shortened word for me, but If I had to choose a word, rationalist or secular humanist fit and explain mostly what I am and what I think.

I just thought what if this guy on the radio said we had to fight the war against Secular Humanism, or fight the war against Rationalists. lol. Much harder to do

So one would think. However, according to the book that I am presently reviewing (see post #202), "confessional secular humanism" is the real enemy.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Did you actually find anything?!

How old is he?

Yup, though it wasn't easy. My Google-fu is good, as is my ability to look confident while working on a WAG

Originally Posted by Textcritic

For me, thinking about God is like thinking about love. Are you married? You have posted that you have your own b'kor so I presume that you have some experience with intimate love. I love my wife, and after nearly sixteen years of marriage I believe that I always will. When thinking about what love is, or what my love for my wife is, or why I love her, I can point to all sorts of attributes and experiences, to feelings that I experience with her, or to how she "makes me feel", but really, does that say anything at all about the presence of love? This is one of the reasons why I stopped answering the question, "why do you love me?" a long time ago.

I married my wife because she is hot, and because I admire her, enjoy her, respect her, and am intrigued by her. But that is not to say that there are not other women among my acquaintances who I find attractive (I work at a University!). That's not to say that there are not other women whom I admire, or respect, or whose company I "enjoy", or who intrigue me. I know plenty of women who are smarter and maybe even "nicer" than my wife is, but she is the only woman for whom I have this intimate kind of love. So what is love and how can you know it? Love can remain common to human experience but ultimately very mysterious. And I think about "God"—Otherness—in such terms as these: believable, but incomprehensible.

Yup married. That's a good analogy I think because love can be different things to different people too. And love is also a choice, I can still love without feeling it, or I can choose not to even though I do feel it.

I still think there's a biological and evolutionary imperative that is the basis for love, and that's partly why it's so mysterious, because it's not based totally in rationality. There's patterns engraved in our brains which enable love, motivate us towards it, etc. But it's very complex so hard to define and understand. I think someday we'll understand it very well, which might be difficult because for some people knowing how the magic trick works spoils the trick. I love knowing how the trick works, but I'm probably in the minority.

As you say there are women out there which might have better attributes than my wife, and statistically speaking there's probably a "better" match out there too.. but I love my wife and I can't imagine even considering a "better" match, because there is none. That depth develops over time and with work, the infatuation stage goes away after a while and the deep love that replaces it is more powerful, but it's cultivated, and I think that had I made a different choice I could have cultivated that with someone else. (Though I'm glad I didn't, it's hard to talk in the abstract about one's relationship lol).

Similarly I think there's a definite biological need to understand and describe our world, which is the origin of religion maybe.

Now I have to pick up my b'kor, and figure out who's making supper today.