Mourdock: 2+2=5

[Antilogic]

Men can be impregnated, and it is just as much a crime for them to kill babies as it is for women. Just as it's a crime to kill the baby whether the baby is male or female, though abortionists favor themselves feminists either way.

Man, now I have to worry about God raping me and having to give butt-birth to the savior of mankind. I can't catch a break.

 

[peter grimes]

Unconditional love taken to its fullest extent is actually quite anti-evolutionary, since its implications can contradict the general principles of self-perpetuation and survival.

Didn't you say you weren't going to make any more scientific claims? I could be wrong, but I think you admitted earlier that you aren't familiar enough with some of the concepts and implications. Here I see you reference self-perpetuation and survival. This makes me think that you haven't read much on evolutionary theory, or at least you haven't read deeply. Since at least the 1970's there's been a comprehensive framework to explain the superficial paradox presented by altruism.

But in case you're talking about the challenge that altruism presents to the caricature of evolution as 'nature, red in tooth and claw, survival of the fittest style', be assured that altruism is completely compatible with natural selection. There are actually several competing methods to explain it. This is not a mystery - even Darwin could see that, over a century and a half ago.

you're speaking as if "love" is a phenomenon whose objective qualities I'm struggling to define. "Love" has already been defined, and if any particulars do not fit its criteria, then it's not the definition of love that is wrong but the classification of it as being love.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that you want to define love as something more than just psychology, something that ab initio involves something divine, and anyone who rejects your definition is wrong? Am I reading that right? Because that's how it sounds.

I don't think anybody except Cartesians have opined under the assumption that the mind always works perfectly from beginning to end, and then are shocked to discover that there's biological and experiential factors involved. You're speaking as if faithful people are stupid and are constantly shocked by the implications of scientific discoveries. I bet you yourself would be shocked at how clever some ancient and medieval people were when they wrote the opinions that you're eager to dismiss as "superstition." They didn't attribute everything to magic, I'll tell you that much.

I'm well aware of the accomplishments as well as limits of pre-renaissance natural philosophy. I'm also aware of the nearly continuous stream of [mostly western] religions using the god of the gaps fallacy. Which is why I brought it up. Specifically because it seems that you're using the exact same reasoning when you claim the love is anything more than chemistry without providing any evidence to support your claims.

Something has to exist for it to be good. Nothing would exist without a First Mover, whom we call God.

Oh please.

And what is the prime mover that caused god? Really, thinking along these lines doesn't advance an argument. It stalls it. And it certainly isn't evidence for the existence of any gods.

Love isn't psychological.

I thought you said earlier that you weren't going to make biological claims?