WTF is this supposed to mean? 

So, you're saying that immortality has been discovered through religion and can not be proven through science? I don't see how as people die daily.

There is no other way to rephrase the question. The question, simply put, is what exactly has religion figured out that science could not? Making a list makes it easier to discuss such things.

The reasoning behind this question is because some people say exactly what I asked. That there are some things science can never figure out that only religion can. I asked for examples. 

I'm afarid I'm sharing some of the same" confusion" that the other theist poster is perhaps feeling re your question / post.

What has religion figured out that science could not - or vice versa..???

Isn't it obvious..??

Let me ask you a question - if you have a toothache - who do you see - an architect or a dentist..??

If your finances are incredibly complicated and it's tax time, who are you going to see - your accountant or a plumber..??

If you're having a medical issue - you see a doctor (scientist).

If you're having a "spiritual" conflict / issue of faith, then you can speak to your priest / rabbai / iman / etc.

I'm sorry, but when I see these types of questions posed by atheists - or even theists for that matter - I seriously have to question how much basic understanding the poster must have on this subject..!!

 What is a spiritual conflict? How do you know the spiritualist you are seeing is qualified? Is there an accepted hierarchy?

 I would fear most spiritualists would be rather biased.

You are correct religion is like art, fiction and music. Their primary goal is to fabricate emotion.

Science on the other hand generally deals with discerning truths.

A "spiritual" conflict could be something as 'simple" as a Catholic questioning their faith (I went through this 20 years ago).

It could be something more complicated.

How do you know they're qualified..?? You do your homework and hope for the best..!

Is there an accepted hierarchy..?? For what - the Catholic Church..? The Protestant Church..?? The Baptists..??
The Jews ..?? Muslims..?? Hindus..??

Probably..!!

Biased - some may be - some may not..!! I guess it all depends on the person you're dealing with.

Yeah, it's a make believe story - like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or "A Christmas Carol", but the "truths" that it dealt with were / are every bit as real as E=MC (squared) or any other scientific "fact" you care to throw out..!

Yeah - you're right - art, literature and music have much in common with religion. For most of us, our lives would be " emptier" without them..!! "

I have lost friends also and did not turn to to a priest or the Church but to my friends and family for comfort.

The question then would be, is the Church simply creating it's own purpose and injecting itself into our lives for it's own needs?

The only thing you are demonstrating is the Church has simply created a mechanism for self-fulfillment.

FYI - This isn't meant to demean your loss, it is simply a rebuttal. 

I wouldn't think for a moment that you were trying to demean my loss. 

Isn't this what this whole website is all about - you turn ONLY to friends and family because you're an atheist - I turn to friends, family and my priest, because I believe.

Is the church and/or religious leaders creating it all for their own self- serving interests.?? Some are -some aren't.  I guess it all depends on the individual / institution. 

Again, it all comes down to what you believe I guess.

I look at my priest - who happens to be a friend as well. He lives on a meagre income - he doesn't drive a fancy car - he doesn't live in a palatial home - he doesn't get to take exotic holidays to the French Riviera - he doesn't wear a $10,000 ROLEX on his wrist - he doesn't wear $2,500 Armani suits.

 If he has some "ulterior" motive, he certainly is hiding it very well..!! 

Listen, I come from an investment banking background. I manage several billion dollars in pension fund assents.

 I learned a long time ago that ideas - like animal species - have a Darwinian component to them.

A good idea will ALWAYS trump a bad idea and bad ideas don't tend to have a terribly long life span.  

And the above doesn't just apply to finance - it applies to EVERYTHING.

Christanity has been around for about 2,000 years now.  

If it's a hoax - or a scam - or some kind of a mind disorder, then it's one hell of a hoax / scam/ mind disorder.

I learned a long time ago that

I've posted elsewhere on this site about my "loss of faith" when I was younger and how I got it back when I was in university doing my MBA 20 odd years ago. 

Suffice it to say that I read alot of books and spoke to alot of people - including atheists - over a two year period.

What qualities do I look for..?? Intelligence coupled with an open mind..!!

 I'm a Catholic, but I'm really not entirely sure what you mean when you say an accepted hierarchy - if you want to elaborate, then perhaps I can answer your question.

As for the "truths" in books like Uncle Tom'ss Cabin or a Christmas Carol or To Kill A Mockingbird, I really wouldn't want to spoil it for you. I would suggest you read them for yourself - you'll quickly discover what the truths are I'm referring to.

Lastly, you're right - it is just something that makes us feel something. However, I really have no idea why you would preface your comment with "unfortunately"

Argumentum ad antiquitatem... Sorry old doesn't mean it's correct.

No - old doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make it wrong either..!!

 Sure - in the year 2007, 1/3 of the world's population has embraced an idea - Christianity - that's survived for over 2,000 years. An idea that provides no "measureable" benefit and the non-measureable benefit can easily be obtained elsewhere.

Makes perfect sense to me..!!!

Dom Perignon did not discover champagne, he did create better ways to produce it though. 

The method of creating sparkling wine was imported to France. The french required stronger (english) bottles to be able to deal with the extra pressure generated by the bubbles. The inventer of sparkling wine is still not without dispute.

You're right - they are very silly questions.

Here's a question for any rational responder - provide me with measureable proof about how much you love your mother / father / boyfriend / girlfriend / husband / wife / son / daughter / dog / cat or whatever. 

Provide me with "measureable" proof. 

Is the love for your father 9 yards, but your mother is 11 yards.??

Iis the love for your brother 6.5 pints, but your sister is only 89 centimetres. 

 How about your emotions - what's denser - pity or love..??

What is more aerodynamic - envy or rage..??

Have fun with your responses - and don't forget to give me scientific, measureable proof in your response..!!

Your post has "proven" that you have very strong feelings for your cats, but you may only really, really, really, really like them alot. Your feelings may fall just short of love.

And no scientist nor no scientific apparatus can distinguish between love and really, really, really, really like. Your example about the cats sitting on your lap and you're wired up might "prove" that you're feeling something, but it doesn't prove that what you're feeling is love..!

But the above is just my opinion.

 So my challenge to you is a very, very simple one - do a google search and then come back to me with a CREDIBLE link that specifically addresses the scientific "proof" / evidence you referred to in your response.

Looking forward to your response.

Geez. I want you to really appreciate the depth of my devotion to your question. This research sucks. I can't find online any excerpts of the books I've read...

Anyway, I haven't read this book, but I'm seeing it all over the place...

http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2007May/LoveChemically.asp

Also, check out The Mating Mind:

http://www.amazon.com/Mating-Mind-Sexual-Choice-Evolution/dp/038549517X

I've read this one. It is a very good explanation of the evolutionary origins of sexual selection...

Other options:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Desire-Strategies-Human-Mating/dp/046500802X/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-5492366-8756845

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-5492366-8756845

Granted, most of these deal with the chemical and neurological nature of sexual attraction, and how it developed...

If you're interested in more platonic love, you could check this out:

ew theories in the history of science have revolutionized an entire field as Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has done for biology. Natural selection is the process by which an environment affects the genetic composition of a population over many generations. First, genetic mutations within the individuals of a population arise through errors in DNA replication. Some fraction of these mutations will lead to measurable differences in the traits comprising the affected individual. Those traits that increase their host’s reproductive success will ensure their greater representation in successive generations, thus slowly eliminating those traits that are less able to aid in an individual’s ability to reproduce. As generations pass, this process can significantly alter the relative proportion of traits within a population, causing the population to become more adapted for a particular environment. Despite the overwhelming success Darwin’s theory has had in explaining a wide variety of natural phenomena, great debate continues over the theory’s application in explaining the evolution of an aspect of animal behavior known as altruism.

Altruism is the deliberate sacrifice of a portion of an individual’s reproductive capacity in order to increase that of another. This reproductive capacity is more often described as an individual’s genetic fitness, and is precisely defined as the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of succeeding generations relative to the contributions of other individuals within a population. Thus, an altruist is defined as an individual who decreases his own genetic fitness to increase the fitness of another. The concept of altruism is best understood through example: an African wild dog voluntarily “babysitting” the pups of a pack, while the pack’s hunters search for food ; a bird giving an alarm call to warn others of an approaching hawk, and thus drawing attention to itself in the process ; a man jumping into a swimming pool to save a drowning stranger. While these acts obviously require different levels of sacrifice on the part of the altruist, on average we can expect all of them to decrease his number of expected offspring.

This is where the paradox of altruism arises. If, by definition, altruism reduces an individual’s fitness, we should expect Darwin’s natural selection to select against the altruistic trait and eventually reduce its representation within a population to zero. Even if a population existed that contained only altruists from the beginning, it would be vulnerable to subversion from within, whereby a single, mutant selfish individual could exploit the altruistic tendencies of his neighbors and eventually drive the altruistic trait to extinction.

Although the problem of altruism was largely ignored by early evolutionary theory, over the past several decades it has risen to become a central issue in the debate over the level at which natural selection operates - whether that be the level of the gene, individual, kin group, or even an entire population. Numerous theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, several of which are discussed bellow.

Group Selection

The first mechanism by which altruism can evolve does so under the process of group selection ^{(see note)}. The following model of E.O. Wilson’s is a good example. Consider a population of N individuals. Within this population, their exists two types of individuals: an altruistic type (A) and a selfish type (S) who exist in proportions p and (1-p) respectively. Due to the altruistic nature of A-type individuals, each member of the population will experience an increase in offspring equal to the product of a value b (a measure of relative offspring gain) and the proportion of the population’s “total available altruism” that the member will benefit from. For S-types, this value will equal b* [Np / (N-1)], while for A-types it will equal b* [Np-1 / (N-1)], the difference reflecting the fact that altruists cannot benefit from their own altruism. If we then assign values to c (A-types’ decrease in offspring due to their altruism) and X (the number of offspring each individual can expect in the absence of altruism), we can then express the average offspring expected, W, of each type in the presence of altruistic behavior.

Since b and c are always positive, and N is always greater than 1, we can immediately see that selfish individuals will always have more offspring within a given population than altruistic individuals. A specific numerical example is shown below using a hypothetical population of 100 individuals in which half are altruistic and half are selfish. N’ is equal to the total number of individuals in the next generation and p’ is the proportion of A-type individuals in the next generation.

In this example, we can see how the total percentage of altruistic individuals will decrease after one generation from 50% to 48%. Iterating this same mathematical procedure over many generations, we can see how the percentage of altruistic individuals within this population will soon become very small. If the population is near its carrying capacity and is at steady state, this example suggests that the altruistic trait within this population will disappear altogether. This is merely a mathematical model to describe the apparent paradox discussed above - how can altruism possibly evolve if nature always selects against it?

This paradox can be resolved with a slight modification of our model. In this case, we have two independent groups of equal size, differing only in their relative proportions of altruistic and selfish individuals. This example is shown here, using the same values for X, b, and c.

Although the proportion of altruistic individuals declines in each group when taken separately, if both groups are examined together, their overall proportion actually increases. This counterintuitive result arises from the condition that the group with the greater number of altruists is also the most productive. Thus, as long as a population contains multiple groups with differing proportions of altruistic and selfish individuals, and the groups occasionally mixed for reproductive purposes, the total proportion of altruists could increase indefinitely. Despite this model which demonstrates how an altruistic trait could increase its representation if already established, group selection theories fail to address the issue of how such a trait could arise in the first place. For this, we must turn our attention to another mode of selection.

Kin Selection

One of the great problems of Darwin’s theory of evolution was its apparent inability to explain the development of sterile worker castes among the social insects. How could such a caste evolve if its members could leave no offspring to propagate the sterile worker traits? This problem was overcome by invoking a special category of natural selection known as kin selection. The basic premise of kin selection is as follows: An individual can maximize the representation of his genes in succeeding generations by either increasing his own personal genetic fitness or by increasing the fitness of his relatives, as relatives are likely to share a great number of his genes. To fully understand kin selection, it is first necessary to introduce the terms relatedness and inclusive fitness. The degree of relatedness between two individuals is simply the fraction of genes they are likely to share due to common ancestry. For example, the relatedness between a parent and child is ½ since a child will inherit half of his genes from each parent. The relatedness between two siblings is also ½, between a grandparent and grandchild is ¼, and between first cousins is 1/8. Inclusive fitness is then defined as “the sum of an individual’s own fitness plus the sum of all the effects it causes to the related parts of the fitnesses of all its relatives” (Wilson, 1980). Thus, although a sterile insect may have a zero personal fitness, its inclusive fitness can actually be quite high if it devotes its life to providing for its relatives.

One can then use the ideas of relatedness and inclusive fitness to determine when altruism between kin might arise in nature. For example, suppose you are a blackbird who suddenly notices the approach of a hawk. If you give off a warning call to your neighbors, even if the call alerts the hawk of your location and you eventually perish, your waning could save a reasonable number of close relatives in the surrounding area. Therefore, the gene (or set of genes) encoding for the alarm call trait could still be successful under the pressures of natural selection since your inclusive fitness would be greater than that of individuals who do not warn relatives of approaching predators. But what exactly is meant by a “reasonable” number of close relatives?

W.D. Hamilton solved for this mathematically, deriving what is now known as Hamilton’s rule. Hamilton’s rule states that in order for altruism to occur between two individuals, the condition k>(1/r) must be met when k is the ratio of the relative’s gain in fitness to the altruist’s loss of fitness, and r is the degree of relatedness. In the case of two brothers, one brother will give his life for the other, if that sacrifice will more than double the representation of the other’s genes in the next generation (since r=½). This rule can also be applied to situations involving more than two individuals such that an individual will also give his life to save the lives of two of his brothers, four of his grandchildren (r=¼), or eight of his first cousins (r=1/8). These are extreme cases where the altruist’s personal fitness is reduced to zero (by death), but Hamilton’s rule still holds true for more subtle cases of altruism.

To better understand, let’s take a look at the following example. You are a rabbit searching for food in the woods when you come upon 9 carrots. Let’s suppose that you can only eat 4 carrots, and that each carrot consumed gives the consumer an arbitrary payoff of 2 units. If you keep the discovery secret and consume the carrots alone, your total payoff will be 4*2=8 units. However, if in the vicinity are your brother and your brother’s friend (no relation to you) and you call them over to share in your discovery, now the carrots will be split evenly among all three. Now the total inclusive payoff to your genes will be (3*2)(1) + (3*2)(½) + (3*2)(0) = 9 units. Despite your apparent loss of one carrot, and a non-relative’s gain of 3 carrots, in this particular case, it will still benefit your genes to give the food call and share your find.

One might be tempted to ask, how is it that a rabbit can either determine the complex kin relationships between other neighboring rabbits, or perform the necessary mathematical calculations to determine whether it should or should not behave altruistically in a given situation? The obvious answer is that it can’t. Genes are not clairvoyant and cannot necessarily detect copies of themselves in other individuals. However, they can be programmed to act favorably to other individuals who are more likely to contain copies of those same genes. There are multiple ways by which this can be accomplished. The first is known as the “green beard effect” as coined by Richard Dawkins. If a gene arose in a population that both gave individuals a conspicuous physical trait (such as a green beard) and a tendency to act favorably to others with that same trait, mutual altruism between green bearded individuals could evolve. In this particular case, one can see that it is not necessary for individuals to determine whether their identical genes are due to common descent or simply coincidental random mutation, as such a distinction would be a waste of time from the altruistic gene’s point of view. Although the green beard effect is a theoretical possibility, even Dawkins admits it is somewhat unlikely that a single gene will produce both a very distinguishable trait (such as a green beard) and altruistic tendencies.
Another way by which individuals are more likely to act altruistically to others who were genetically similar is by associating familiarity with kinship. Mothers can certainly know the exact relationships to their children, but siblings can infer the relationships amongst themselves also, since individuals who are raised together are more likely to be kin than non-kin. Related to this method of kin recognition is one dependent on similar location between individuals. For instance, if you are a member of a population that does not move around much, it is likely that many of your neighbors are also kin. Thus, a gene encoding for altruism could act not necessarily on kin, but rather more indiscriminately on any of your close neighbors. This kind of mechanism can be used to explain altruism within troops of monkeys and pods of whales, since any two members in these groups are likely to be highly related.

Although these approximate forms of kin recognition are likely to be the prime forces in kin selection, it should not be ignored that studies have shown that in certain cases closer relatives are sometimes treated preferentially over non-relatives, independent of other environmental factors such as proximity. An explanation of this phenomenon is not yet clear.

Reciprocal Altruism

Although kin selection provides a powerful explanation of altruism in much of the natural world, there are occasions (particularly in higher mammals) where this form of selection fails to explain altruism occurring between two unrelated individuals. To understand these situations, Robert Trivers has introduced the idea of reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism is the process by which one individual will commit an altruistic act towards another in exchange for the second individual returning the altruistic favor at some later time. The end result of this exchange leaves both with an increased personal fitness.

Let’s suppose a man is drowning, and an unrelated woman from nearby jumps in to rescue him. If not helped, the man has a ½ chance of drowning, as opposed to the woman who has a 1/20 chance of drowning if she attempts to save him. One might be inclined to conclude that she will never attempt a rescue, since the immediate effect would be a decrease in both her personal fitness and her inclusive fitness (since the man is not a relative). However, if at some later point in time the woman is drowning, and the man is nearby, he might be inclined to rescue her in return for her original help at the same personal risk (1/20) that the woman experienced when she saved him. We can now see that both people have exchanged a ½ chance of death for a 1/20 chance. Thus, a population full of altruistic individuals who enter into a series of reciprocal exchanges will increase their total genetic fitness as compared to competing population devoid of such altruism.

A problem with this idea arises however, when one asks why does the man in our above example bother to reciprocate? If his life has already been saved, what reason does he heave afterwards to continue to risk it unnecessarily? In human societies, this answer is simple - the cheater will be punished by both the individual he failed to reciprocate with and also be the greater society. The cheater will experience a greater decrease in fitness due to cheating than he would by reciprocating, and natural selection will select against him. However, in most species, the level of recognition and memory required for this type of selection is not possible, and this is the main reason reciprocal altruism is relatively infrequent in the natural world as compared to altruism due to kin selection.

Alarm Calling

Perhaps the most discussed example of altruistic behavior in animals is that dealing with alarm calls. As a predator approaches an area occupied by more than one individual of a prey species, the individual who first detects the predator may give an alarm call to alert its neighbors, drawing attention to itself in the process. As drawing attention to oneself in this situation is obviously disadvantageous, an explanation for this phenomenon has been actively sought. P.W. Sherman hypothesizes that any given alarm call may have one (or a combination of several) of the following six functions:

We can immediately conclude that theoretical functions 1, 2, and 3 would not classify as altruism because the caller would also benefits from the action. Although function 4 may sound reasonable, Trivers raises several objections to this possibility. First, it is difficult to see how a group of individuals would identify and discriminate against a single non-reciprocating “cheater”. Second, no evidence has been found to support the idea that animals in the wild refrain from sounding alarm calls because their neighbors fail to reciprocate. Function 5 is nearly identical to the mathematical model of group selection discussed above. This leaves function 6 to examine more in depth.

Sherman has shown kin selection to be a powerful force in the evolution of altruism in Belding’s ground squirrels. After studying a population of approximately 1100 individual squirrels over 3000 hours of observation, Sherman found that female squirrels who were currently in their reproductive years were both more likely to give an alarm call than would be predicted by chance alone, and more likely to give an alarm call than a control group of non-reproductive females. Although no significant disagreement was found between reproductive and non-reproductive males, Sherman argues that this is merely the result of both the matrilineal kin structure of Belding’s ground squirrels and the observation that the female is the more parental sex in this species.

Food Sharing

As best put by E.O. Wilson, “Other than suicide, no behavior is clearly more altruistic than the surrender of food.” Yet this form of altruistic behavior occurs frequently in a wide variety of animal species. Both gibbons and chimpanzees have been observed to offer food to others after solicitation, and African wild dogs are known to carry fresh meat back to the “babysitter” of their cubs after a successful hunt. One of the most well documented studies of food sharing however was done by Gerald Wilkinson on the vampire bat. Vampire bats feed on blood, and although a single bat will not always be successful in finding prey on any given night, if it does, its payoff will be big, and often bats will suck up a surplus of blood. Upon the bats’ return to the group, it is often seen that the successful hunters will regurgitate blood for the consumption of their less fortunate neighbors. While this sharing of food is often between relatives (usually a mother and child), there are numerous occasions when the two individuals involved in the exchange are not related. Wilkinson hypothesized that such generosity could be the result of reciprocal altruism if the following three conditions were met:

The first and second conditions were shown to be true from simple observation of wild bat populations. Wilkinson demonstrated that the third condition was also met. He selectively removed certain bats from the population and starved them. When the bats returned, the population was significantly more likely to feed these bats (who had likely shared food with them in the past) than they were with a control group of starved bats who were introduced to the population despite no previous contact with them. One can therefore conclude that food sharing in vampire bats is at least partly the result of reciprocal altruism.

Altruism in Humans

It is only logical that one might now be inclined to take these theories of altruism and apply them to our own species, especially considering that man is the most altruistic animal of all. Altruism pervades every aspect of our society, whether in the form of food sharing, helping the sick, gift giving, or even the sharing of knowledge through education. The use of money may even be seen as the prime example of reciprocal altruism in modern man, as money itself has no intrinsic value other than the assurance that another person will trade valuable goods for it at some point in the future.

It is easy to see how altruism in man could have evolved through kin selection. Bands of early hunter- gatherers during prehistory were almost certainly composed mainly of close kin. Also, through language and an increased mental capacity, early man had a much greater ability than other primates at not only recognizing kin, but also at distinguishing between subtle differences in degrees of relatedness. As evidence of the operation of altruism by kin selection, J. Rushton has showed that humans are more likely to favor not only those they definitely recognize as kin, but also those with whom they share genetic traits. Through a series of extensive studies, he demonstrated that on average there was greater genetic similarity between friends then between strangers, and he also made the remarkable discovery that sexually interacting couples were more likely to share similar blood markers than would be expected by chance alone. The idea that human behavior between two individuals may be governed by genetic similarity is profound, and its implications stretch far beyond a discussion of altruism.

Although there is no doubt that kin selection plays an important role in the formation of altruism in human societies, reciprocal altruism is generally more prominent. Our species easily fits the conditions for the rise of reciprocal altruism: long lasting relationships, an increased memory to distinguish reciprocators from non-reciprocators, and a method of punishing non-reciprocators. It has been hypothesized that some of man’s more complex emotions may have evolved to improve upon the system of reciprocal altruism. Gratitude and sympathy may increase one’s chances of receiving altruism by implying an increased chance of reciprocation, while guilt serves to discourage the non-reciprocator and causes him to demonstrate that he does not plan to refuse reciprocation in the future. On top of the development of emotions, Trivers even suggests that in a complicated form of coevolution, the combined selective pressures of finding subtler ways of cheating one’s neighbors and increasing one’s ability to detect such subtle cheaters may have contributed to the expansion of man’s mental capacities and led to his current state of high intellectual ability.

Conclusion

Altruism is one of the great mysteries of social behavior in animals, as it appears to contradict our understanding of natural selection. Even one hundred years after the birth of Darwinism, scientists are still continuing to debate the causes and effects of altruistic behavior. Whether the mathematical models of group selection, the instinctive qualities of kin selection, or the trusting attributes of reciprocal altruism, are the prime explanations of the development of this behavior is still largely unknown. In the end, it will probably be found that it is the combination of all three possibilities that plays a significant role in the natural world.

References:

Begon, M, Harper, JL, Townsend, CR. Ecology. 1996.
Barlow, C. From Gaia to Selfish Genes. 1997.
Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene. 1989.
Hamilton, WD. “The genetic evolution of social behavior (I&II)”. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1964, 7:1-52.
Maynard Smith, J. “The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflict”. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1974. 47:209-221.
Maynard Smith, J. “Group Selection”. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1975. 51:277-283.
Rushton, JP. “Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1989. 12:503-518.
Sherman, PW. “Nepotism and the Evolution of Alarm Calls”. Science. 1977. 197:1246-1253.
Simon, HA. “A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism”. Science. 1990. 250:1665-1668.
Trivers, RL. “The evolution of reciprocal altruism”. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1971. 46:35-55.
Wilkinson, GS. “Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat”. Nature. 1984. 308:181-184.
Wilson, DS. “Levels of Selection: An alternative to individualism in biology and the human sciences.” Social Networks. 1989. 11:257-272.
Wilson, EO. Sociobiology. 1980.

Nice avoidance! We are not discussing art teh question was about discoveries about the world.

I really don't know why you are smiling. You have completely dishonestly tried to change the subject and atempted to create the flimsiest strawman I have ever seen. 

By your own admission, you state that "you could probably come up with 100 definitions simply by interviewing 100 people". But then you turn around and say "I have no idea of what your conception of love is, but if an experiment was going to be done, you better believe a scientist would have a solid definition before he started".

So whose definition is he / she using when he/ she is conducting these experiments..?  

 And if there's so many definitions, then who's to say that the definition that he's chosen to use is solid..??

You also state that the word is "so culturally convoluted "that it doesn't have a single meaning worth quantifying".

But then you turn around in another post and say "You want to know about quantifying love? Well, it's been done, but you're not going to like the answers because they're not fuzzy. 

 So if the meaning is so convoluted that it can't be quantified, then how was it quantified in order to conduct the experiments that scientifically proved this thing called love can, in fact, be measured..? 

You also refer to "cultural vagueries" - does this imply that a Greek scientist might conduct his experiments with an entirely different set of "assumptions / opinions / beliefs'' than a Chinese scientist..? Or a scientist from Iceland or wherever..??

Thanks alot for your responses - I was always under the impression that poets and songwriters and philosophers and so many others have been trying to define "love" for hundreds of years.

And the whole time, the geeks in the white lab coats had all the answers.

 Who woulda thunk..!!!

Greetings CrimsonEdge!

 I find your challenge rather intriguing, so i'll try my best to answer it and hopefully, it will be to your satisfaction.

Firstly though, i'd like to limit my answer to the Christian perspective (since I'm a Christian) and using the Bible to be a bit more specific, since its the basis of my faith.

Secondly, though the Bible is a book of faith, and NOT a book of science, it does contain details that modern science has proven to be fact.  I cannot say what religion has invented that science has not, BUT i can try to point out what the Bible has been saying all along and that science has PROVEN it to be true, or usefull for human development/survival.

 Astronomy - Scientists didn't really know the number of stars in the universe and only recently discovered through powerful telescopes that their numbers are truly huge.  The Bible however, frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17
      Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

      Jeremiah 33:22
      “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10²¹ stars—which is a lot of stars.(The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10²⁵. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?) 

The Bible also says that each star is unique.
     
      1 Corinthians 15:41
      There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

<

Health

It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.

      Proverbs 12:4
      An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
      But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.


      Proverbs 14:30
      A sound heart is life to the body,
      But envy is rottenness to the bones.


      Proverbs 15:30
      The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
      And a good report makes the bones healthy.


      Proverbs 16:24
      Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
      Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.


      Proverbs 17:22
      A merry heart does good, like medicine,
      But a broken spirit dries the bones.

Circumcision - though circumcision was practiced in the ancient times by other races and not just the Israelites, its only in the Bible that they were commanded to circumcise their children on the 8th day.

Why the 8th day?  Modern science has proven that the amount of prothrombin (chemical needed for blood clotting) present in the blood is highest during that day, and actually dangerously low on the days before that.

For a more detailed explanation please refer to:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204

Dimentions of Noah's Ark -  though ancient stories of the flood abound, it is ONLY in the Bible where detailed dimentions of the Ark are given.  Modern shipbuilding technology recently proved that the Ark, when built to Biblical specifications, would be unusually stable and would be most suitable for a flood.

 The book of PROVERBS also provides numerous useful and practical advice on how to live.

There are other numerous articles that deal with Biblical consistency with science.  One need only use the near-almighty GOOGLE.  I hope that this would be satisfactory. 

Want to try and refute anything from the articles or do you think your assertions are sufficient?

Thank you Susan!   

It is reasonable, I wish more christians (and people of faith in general) actually did that, and examined it rationally.

You're right, but you fail to recognize that the lack of understanding lies with the people who wrote the bible.

So you assert, and this is incorrect. The wealth of information (which is supplied to you and me by science, btw) shows that the people who wrote the bible knew very little. As an example, I offer that the Genesis creation stories (there are two... iffy) both contradict almost everything which is known about the formation of the universe, earth and the evolution of life.

Wait, you're offering up something which isn't done as "evidence" of fulfillment? This is not how science works, this is how ignorance and delusion works. Your conclusion here begs the question.

Let's look at what it would mean though, if fulfilled. Let's say that the descendants of David do multiply to the estimated number of stars (10²²). If spread out evenly over the Earth, each person would have an area to live on which would be ~10^-7 m². This is smaller than a fraction of a square millimeter, the size of a pinhead. This is evenly over all of Earth, oceans, deserts, mountains included. Of course, the limit sets in far before this, due to limits in resources. So let's hope this one isn't fulfilled, shall we?

I am not telling you I can distinguish each and every star, where did I say that? The brightness resolution of my eyes isn't that good. I am telling you that the stars clearly differ in apparent brightness (hence the invention of the magnitude system), and that you can see that some of them differ in color with just your eyes. That is essentially what the bible is saying, it really isn't a profound statement. Sort of at the same level as "Hey, the Sun is brighter than everything else".

As a sidenote, I could mention that stars with the same mass do have the same radiation properties. But being well versed in astronomy, you probably knew that.

I always find it amusing when christians accuse me of doing what they are doing themselves. I urge you to stop this projection. My conclusions are based on the examination of the claims of christianity and the bible.

As for your link, I looked through it. It was very poor reasoning between the premises (which in themselves are unjustified) and tons of ad hoc assumptions stacked on each other. But what could you expect from a page which is largely adapted from stuff from the ICR site. Creation "science" isn't anywhere near qualifying as actual science.

It isn't, the inquisitors weren't rational, they were men of faith. I also apologize for the attempt to use humor.

Are you going to define "spirit" or not, like I asked? You threw it in here. Tell me what it is, I really want to know.

The bible verses are thoroughly unimpressive, tbh. It's like saying "don't eat poison, or you will die" in Hebrew prose. Profound indeed...

Edit: corrected the numbers in my estimate.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

Greetings! It's ok, we all have our lives to take care of.

Not all points of view are equally valid. I back mine up with evidence, as you'll see below. This is infinitely better than points of view held on faith, which are useless.

You find this convincing? Please allow me to shed some scientific light on this issue. Firstly, to find the same elements in the human body as on Earth suggests that humans evolved on Earth. See what I didn't do? I didn't make a huge unjustified assumption on the existance of any god and that this god is responsible for breathing life in nostrils. Such an idea is just ad hoc stacked on ad hoc with no evidence, and can therefore be discarded.

According to Genesis, God created the day and night before he created the Sun. That is just silly, day and night is caused by the rotation of the earth, and wouldn't exist without the Sun. Genesis also says that vegetation on land is created before the Sun is created, which is sort of strange since plants rely on sun light for survival. Genesis calls the Moon a luminary, but in reality the Moon just reflects sun light (if you live in Waco, Texas, this is news).

You seem fond of the elements we (and the Earth) are made of. According to Genesis, the Earth is formed, and then some days later, the stars are formed. This is absolutely unsupported by evidence. What is supported is that the elements we are made of are produced in stars. You are made of star dust, literally. Stars have to live and die first for the Earth to have the composition is has.

Statements aren't evidence. Statements can be valid if supported by evidence. Besides, you're changing what you said the verse meant earlier. Before, your "argument" was that there are many stars, and that the descendents of David would multiply and be as many. I show that this is absurd, so now you change what it was supposed to mean. I applaud your ability to change, and I urge you to consider that the bible might actually be wrong! If you can't consider this, you're being very close minded.

This does not include any complicated equations at all. It's a very simple estimate, high school level stuff. I encourage you to check my math, don't assume I am correct. Question everything.

I can imagine many planets. Now, where is the bible verse that tells you there are millions of other planets and that the descendents of David will populate them?

Are we reading the same verse? You call "glory of x" a specific concise statement? I'd love to see something you might call vague. Your interpretation relies on the word "glory", and you're reading knowledge you have into the verse through this vagueness. In the verse 1 Cor 15:43, the resurrection of the dead is raised in glory. Could the use of the word glory get any more ambiguous? Unless you can show that the word glory means specifically what you assume it means to support your preheld conclusion, how could you possibly argue that this verse is somehow scientific?

This statement looks quite like the Genesis account, which also devides the heaves into Sun, Moon and stars. That account also calls the Moon a luminary, and the Moon doesn't even shine on its own. You might want to consider that the new testament largely is rehashed stuff from the old testament.

How exactly does it need to be? And how do you know?

Then how can you claim what you did just a few lines above? Divine revelation?

Ehm, I asked you what you meant by it, and you throw a dictionary at me. Dictionaries contain all possible uses of the word. It's not a definition, or in this case several. Am I to take this display of copy-paste to mean you don't know what you mean by spirit?

Oh really. Tell me, which of those "explanations" is the most convincing to you, and why? And I didn't see any explanation how the old civilizations like the egyptians and sumerians failed to notice being destroyed. Care to elaborate on that?

You exclude what scientific websites have to say? You really don't care to know the world as it really is? Is your cocoon of faith that fragile? Don't you see that such behavior is the opposite of rationality?

Creationism and its latest incarnation ID are branded as unscientific because they are just that. The few things in there that can be falsified, such as irreducable complexity have indeed been falsified. It's false. This puts creationism on the same level as astrology, not a very flattering level.

Who ever told you that what you've shown is scientific proof for the bible is lying to you. I encourage you to stop listening to those people, and at least consider listening to what scientists have to say. If not, you're doing what you accuse me of.