Pictures of England

Search:

Historic Towns & Picturesque Villages

A picture of RyeBath AbbeyA picture of Bath AbbeyBag End?A picture of Barton Le ClayA picture of Barton Le Clay

Your thoughts on prayer

**Please support PoE by donating today - thank you**
 
John Ravenscroft
John Ravenscroft
Posts: 321
Joined: 21st Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posted at 12:25 on 26th August 2008
On 26th August 2008 00:30, Sue Gaffney-Ryder wrote:
Where does all this altruism leave  Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' John?  I can't answer for Alan or any other people of faith on this board, but your reasoning is limited by science. There is another world out there.


Sue, altruism within the group has great survival value.

In our distant past, groups of pre-humans who cared for and looked after other members of the tribe would have survived better than groups that did not. So the tendency to be altruistic has positive survival value.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
John Ravenscroft
John Ravenscroft
Posts: 321
Joined: 21st Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posted at 12:27 on 26th August 2008
On 26th August 2008 05:46, Wolf wrote:

Is there a scientific explanation for LOVE ????

I don't think so.



There is indeed, Wolf.

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

Worth reading the whole article.

 

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Wolf
Wolf
Posts: 3423
Joined: 9th Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posted at 12:33 on 26th August 2008

I find the article mainly refers to sex John, and as any woman will tellyou,

there is a HUGE difference between sex and love.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
John Ravenscroft
John Ravenscroft
Posts: 321
Joined: 21st Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posted at 12:43 on 26th August 2008

No, Wolf. It covers attraction and romantic love, too. 

Lust, of course, involves a craving for sex. Jim Pfaus, a psychologist at Concordia University, in Montreal, says the aftermath of lustful sex is similar to the state induced by taking opiates. A heady mix of chemical changes occurs, including increases in the levels of serotonin, oxytocin, vasopressin and endogenous opioids (the body's natural equivalent of heroin). “This may serve many functions, to relax the body, induce pleasure and satiety, and perhaps induce bonding to the very features that one has just experienced all this with”, says Dr Pfaus.

Then there is attraction, or the state of being in love (what is sometimes known as romantic or obsessive love). This is a refinement of mere lust that allows people to home in on a particular mate. This state is characterised by feelings of exhilaration, and intrusive, obsessive thoughts about the object of one's affection. Some researchers suggest this mental state might share neurochemical characteristics with the manic phase of manic depression. Dr Fisher's work, however, suggests that the actual behavioural patterns of those in love — such as attempting to evoke reciprocal responses in one's loved one — resemble obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

That raises the question of whether it is possible to “treat” this romantic state clinically, as can be done with OCD. The parents of any love-besotted teenager might want to know the answer to that. Dr Fisher suggests it might, indeed, be possible to inhibit feelings of romantic love, but only at its early stages. OCD is characterised by low levels of a chemical called serotonin. Drugs such as Prozac work by keeping serotonin hanging around in the brain for longer than normal, so they might stave off romantic feelings. (This also means that people taking anti-depressants may be jeopardising their ability to fall in love.) But once romantic love begins in earnest, it is one of the strongest drives on Earth. Dr Fisher says it seems to be more powerful than hunger. A little serotonin would be unlikely to stifle it.

Wonderful though it is, romantic love is unstable — not a good basis for child-rearing.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
John Ravenscroft
John Ravenscroft
Posts: 321
Joined: 21st Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posted at 12:52 on 26th August 2008
On 26th August 2008 05:10, Ruth Gregory wrote:

John, I don't think you'll ever have an answer from any human being that will satisfactorily answer the question of why suffering?  For nonbelievers and believers alike, it's a question we all wrestle with. 

 

Ruth, non-believers like me have no problem explaining suffering. There's nothing to explain.

Humans suffer, just as every other animal suffers, because we are the results of natural processes, and those processes don't 'care' about us.

The universe, wonderful though it is, has no mind, no consciousness, and no feelings. If the Earth were to be hit by an asteroid tomorrow and utterly destroyed, the universe would not care. There's no consciousness there TO care!

Life is a wonderful by-product of evolution, and we should enjoy it while we have it.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Wolf
Wolf
Posts: 3423
Joined: 9th Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posted at 12:58 on 26th August 2008
Sorry John, I have no wish to argue the point. But to clinically disect romance or loving feelings and study the effects in a test tube , does not do it for me.
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Andy Edwards
Andy Edwards
Posts: 1900
Joined: 14th Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posted at 13:01 on 26th August 2008
I find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with you John. We are mere mortals, for our sins, made of flesh and bone, easily bruised both physically and physcologically. Suffering is all part of the experience.
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
L
L
Posts: 5656
Joined: 10th Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posted at 13:28 on 26th August 2008
I just have to put my twopennyw'th in here although I said I won't be adding to this thread, but I have to agree with what Andy, John and Wolf are saying.
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Susan Wood
Susan Wood
Posts: 124
Joined: 24th Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posted at 13:40 on 26th August 2008
Hi Lyn, I caught a bit of this last night and decided not to get involved - usually say I have my own relationship with God and leave it at that, seems to me there are an awful lot of better things for good people (on both sides of the issue) to get all het up about.  It's the people that matter and their way of interacting - yep that was a good decision to not get involved...
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
John Ravenscroft
John Ravenscroft
Posts: 321
Joined: 21st Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posted at 13:57 on 26th August 2008
On 26th August 2008 12:58, Wolf wrote:
Sorry John, I have no wish to argue the point. But to clinically disect romance or loving feelings and study the effects in a test tube , does not do it for me.



I don't see this as arguing points, Wolf. It's just discussing a VERY interesting topic.

We each have out different viewpoints - but discussion is good. I've been delighted to see that in this forum, people don't get angry because I disagree with them. They seem happy to talk about our differences without feeling 'attacked'. I've had enough of these discussions to know that's pretty unusual!

My point is, if feelings of Love really ARE just the result of electro-chemical events in the brain (and current research indicates that is indeed the truth) - isn't that worth knowing?

And I don't for one second think that understanding the material cause of Love makes it one jot less wonderful. I love my wife - but knowing WHY I love my wife doesn't decrease the love I feel.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions