If you are an atheist, how do you explain the love humans are capable of ?
When unbelievers seek to scientifically analyze why we love our children, spouses, or friends, their answer is most likely “because it helps to sustain the species”. And this is largely true.
Many other animals (mostly mammals and birds) nurture and protect their offspring and fellow members who work together, and this behavior can be viewed as love.
But, the difference is, they (other animals) seem to engage in ‘loving’ behavior solely for sustaining the species, whereas humans’ love will go beyond it.
Other animals won’t raise their offspring that are born defective, but abandon them. We may think that’s cold and cruel, but it is logical, biologically. Why waste time and energy on those who can’t contribute to the prosperity of the species?
A man can fall in love with a dying woman fully knowing she is not going to carry his children. And we find something beautiful about it. How do you explain this other than “soul connection”, and “soul” is a concept that atheism doesn’t have. (We are a bag of random chemical reactions, they say.)
Why the difference . . . If humans are just another animal that happens to be smarter (this is the typical atheistic view, isn’t it?), why are we the only animal engaging in ‘loving’ behavior that does not advance the prosperity of the species?
Or, is our love special . . . coming from somewhere else outside the instinct for sustaining our existence? . . . but then, where from, if not from the Above ??
Just a guess but, evolution, becoming a sentient animal. A more complex brain activity will cause more thought and emotion. Not all animals abandon their young and not all of any species does. There are times when a parent or parents try hard to take care of the invalid infant above and beyond the species normal habits… evolution at work.
Kriswest, Thanks for your reply. (I love cats too by the way!)
Then how about the fact that humans would still care for the seniors with severe mental problems, or even the seriously deranged individual who can be a great risk to the society?
If there is no divine anything, our psychology must have been shaped solely by our biological needs for species-preservation (Isn’t that what evolution is for?) …
So, my question is, how have we developed the mentality to value the life of those who are a negative factor (burden or threat) to the prosperity of the species?
But seriously, what does this have to do with atheism? How does the existence of a God make any difference? If anything, the existence of God raises more issues.
How do you know animals don’t love each other? Of course their love won’t be the same as human love, as humans are more intelligent, but that’s not to say that they don’t hold feelings similar to love towards other animals. I have a female and male dog and the male is neutered and he still seems to “love” or at least “like” the female, play with her a lot and other dog stuff.
You think humans never do that? That we’re perfect? Oh sure, let’s ignore all the times that animals are more humane than humans (such as when you find f.e. a mother wolf taking care of a young lamb and similar stories) and let’s ignore all the times that humans act like animals. I’m pretty sure that you can find examples of animals taking care of defective offspring, I’ve seen it.
That’s an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Oh, we don’t know how something happens, therefore SOUL. Besides, the concept of a soul is rendered ridiculous by basic scientific education in biology and psychology.
Random? Not sure what you mean by that. Chemical reactions occur according to natural law, I don’t see how that’s random.
Again, argument from ignorance. And I also assume you haven’t heard of something called EMPATHY.
Above us is sky and ultimately the universe.
I am sorry that you are unsatisfied with reality so much that you have to make up fantasies to believe in. Us atheists simply learn to accept the truth and live with it, at least it’s honest. And if I don’t know something, I’ll admit I don’t know and wait for a decent explanation. Not make up an answer I find preferable and then close my mind to everything else.
The love you mean, Yuujin, most likely evolved as a fitness indicator. The flaw in your reasoning is a faulty premise: your teleological view of evolution. There is no concern with the species in evolution. The love you mean was selected precisely because it did not serve, but rather even hampered, self-preservation. It was selected because, being wasteful, it was interpreted by other members of the species, especially members of the opposite sex, as evidence of abundance. For more on this I highly recommend Geoffrey Miller’s book, The Mating Mind.
Study behaviorisms of social omnivores. We are not herbivores nor carnivores, we are both. As I said we have developed complex thought and emotions. Study about the brain and how diet affects it. I would be typing all day in order to explain the studies done. Then think about how tools and use of objects change development, study this too. There are reputable published studies done on this. Again this would cause me to type all day to explain this fully.
There are social omnivores that support their elders and handicapped, we are not the only social species that do this. The benefits to society to love and to care is emotional and ego. Its more about self centered individuality then species. We figured out our kids do what we do. We don’t want our kids to kill us off so we treat others in decent ways in order to preserve our life. Our evolution can be duplicated by a similar species given the right circumstances.
Omnivore, social, tool and object using, hunter, gatherers, all affect intellect. All change the mind from simple to complex.
This is just simple explanation, please study the subjects I proposed. There are more subjects to study but, those will give you information that you ask.
There maybe a god but, even gods must follow science, not magic.
Oh men of little faith, as the saying goes, did not the Father sacrifice His Son, for he so loved the world? Is this simply an empty utterance, or even as an anthropomorphic projection infinitely more? How we have lost the meaning of what it means to be a man!
Let me mention here that swans also mate for life.
And, in most of the cases (though it is changing now) either partner does not find another mate, even his/her mate dies untimely. Thus, it cheats the pemise that other species mate only for reproduction.
Secondly, every species, whether human or anyone else, would have to let go their children ater a certain time.
Yes, that time may differ in each cases. And, that is true this time is maximum in humans.
I am not sure but it seems to me that the complexity/level of evolution decides that time. The more complex any species would be, the more time its children will take to become independant.
No such thing as Love. Just another man made placebo to cure the fear of being alone. Like God is the man made placebo to cure the fear of whats after this life. So do I need to explain more? I don’t need to know where I came from or where I’m going my life is to short to worry about it.
I thank everyone who contributed to this thread. I’m sorry I don’t have time to reply to you all now. I’ll try my best one at a time when I can find time, could be weeks later (sadly I’m not rich enough and have to work for a living). I may not reply in the order of the posts. When I hear similar arguments to what I’ve had in the past in other forums, I can reply quicker as I can copy and paste what I wrote before more or less. But for an argument I hear for the first time, I need to research about what’s said and formulate my thoughts accordingly before I respond… that may take a while.
But in the mean time, can I ask a question to those who consider themselves atheists?
If there’s no god, do our lives have a purpose?
If so, what is it? (I hear “species-preservation” most often.)
BTW, when I say “god”, I don’t mean the bearded man in the sky. I define god, not as any tangible figure, but as a force (Mind) of supreme goodness that governs the universe, and it emanates its will like telepathic radio waves, and we all have an ability to catch them. Some people are more receptive than others.
But it doesn’t mean believers are always more receptive. One doesn’t have to believe in this Mind of the universe to be guided by the signals it sends out (that’s what some would refer to as an inner voice), in the same way homing pigeons follow the earth’s magnetic field without knowing that’s what they’re doing.
Oh, and, it seems this forum moderates each one of my submissions. (Is it because I’m a new member?) So, my post may not reflect what others posted between the time of submission of my post and the actual appearance of it.
Also, English is not my first language, if my writing was hard to follow (grammar mistakes and so on), apologies.
I didn’t say animals don’t love each other. I’m saying the majority of them (there’s always a case of anomaly in any animals) seems to love based on the biological instinct to survive better, whereas the majority of humans love regardless.
What you’re saying about your dogs is a typical social animal behavior. Love doesn’t always have to be of a sexual nature, as we love our parents, siblings and friends of either gender, without being sexually attracted. And even this asexual love for one another can be explained by the instinct for survival, as social animals are less likely to survive without bonding and staying with others.
No, I didn’t say that either. But when humans abandon defective offspring, we consider that abnormal, whereas in other animals’ cases, it’s normal (if they do take care of the defective, that is an abnormal case), and they’re making more sense, biologically. I’m questioning why the difference, if humans are just animals too, but only smarter, why the majority of us engage in the ‘love’ behavior that doesn’t make biological sense?
Okay, if you don’t believe in souls, then you don’t pray either, correct? How about the moment of silence at someone’s passing or in his/her memory? Don’t you ever say “rest in peace”, not even in your head? That’s a prayer for departed souls. (If there were no souls, what else is there that you wish rest in peace?) Do you think it’s a completely inane gesture if you don’t believe in souls?
And what/who is the author of this natural law? Einstein thought the law(=order) does not come to existence by accident.
We see a universe MARVELOUSLY ARRANGED, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the MYSTERIOUS FORCE that sways the constellations.
~ from an interview in G. S. Viereck’s book Glimpses of the Great (emphasis is mine)
MYSTERIOUS FORCE, I believe Einstein is referring to a higher “something” in the universe, as he says he’s not an atheist in this interview.
He also said; “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”
I have discussed about the nature of empathy quite a bit on a different forum. Here’s some of what I argued.
I have no problem accepting the argument that social animals (dogs, apes, humans also) have developed empathy for species’ survival, to form harmonious communities for bettering survivability, enabling cooperation and prevention from harming each other. “I’ll be nice to you, so you’ll be nice to me in return”.
If I have to stick with an atheistic view, I have to conclude that humans have overdeveloped this empathy function. Now many of us are capable of “unconditional love”. Our love is not conditional to the biological needs of our survival anymore.
Feeling even-more-so strong love for a child with terminal illness is one example. You know that the child is not going to help pass your genes, or take care of you when you’re old. This type of love is not based on one’s biological needs. It’s unconditional.
I think that excessive empathy humans have developed is counter-productive to our survival. Look at the cases of survivors guilt. I heard that many holocaust survivors feel guilty, even though they did not do anything wrong, often live in agony to the point it compromises the quality and productivity of their lives. Excessive empathy often makes us feel guilty for what we are not guilty for, and gives us anguish for not being able to save the un-savable.
There are people who dive into deep depression after losing their loved ones and can’t come out of it, sometimes resulting in seriously ruining their lives or even in severe cases, taking their own lives. Even if other animals may mourn for their members’ deaths, they’ll get over it much quicker than humans. This makes their empathy level more biologically reasonable than humans. This is why I consider excessive empathy to be a degeneration than an advancement, “IF” our sole purpose was to survive.
So, should we start conditioning our children to have less empathy, or to coldly calculate what’s best for the species when acting altruistically? (ex. young firefighters or police officers should not risk their lives for seniors, we should not give a second chance to criminals). . . No, we don’t want to do that, because then we’d lose what makes us human. Our capability of unconditional love makes us who we are supposed to be, and it comes not from our biology, but from somewhere else, and I feel something divine about it.
Oh please don’t feel sorry for me. I’m exceedingly happier than ever, after becoming a theist. (I grew up as an agnostic in a highly secular country.)
I agree with you, there’s no such thing as true love in the atheistic worldview. It will either be a caring behavior based on reciprocal effect (expecting a return, so ultimately self-serving), or the biological instinct for passing genes.
As you say, fear of being alone (for social animals, being alone can mean death) is a strong motivator for animals to bond with others (again, ultimately self-serving, you bond with others because you want to survive).
But then why humans’ love can go to the extreme of scarifying one’s life for others?
There have been people who had thrown themselves on others in a shooting rampage, trying to protect his/her friend. If love was a placebo, why should anyone risk his/her life for it? And we call those people heroes and extol them. In your eyes, people who act heroically are being stupid, tricked and went overboard by the placebo effect called love?
This is another thing I don’t understand scientifically. Surely all other animals survive just fine without having the question “what’s after this life?”, or they don’t use their cognitive function for any philosophical concepts, or more likely, their brains haven’t developed enough to do so, which means, philosophical pondering is an “advancement” seen in “more evolved” species like humans . . . ??
If that’s the case, doesn’t the “advancement” have to do with aiding our survival? But I don’t see how pondering on “what’s after this life?” can help us survive better, so why is it an advancement?
If we are so burning to know (or fearing for not knowing) “what’s after this life?”, couldn’t it be because there’s an answer and “someone” wants us to know why, and is trying to tell us?
No, you don’t owe me any explanation, no more than I owe you an explanation for becoming a theist (I used to be an agnostic). But I give it to you anyway. I realized how the things that I embrace as valuable, such as love, selflessness, morality, heroism, quickly become meaningless if I employed a purely naturalistic worldview, and I decided I don’t want to live that way.
And if you’ve decided you don’t want to spend time worrying about where you’re going, I respect your decision. It’s entirely an individual’s choice as to what each one of us wants to believe.
According to Dennett, in a Ted talk discussing Rev.Warren’s book, atheists can and do experience “transcendent” awe, wonder ecstasy, love etc. These are not experiences known by God believers only.
He also admits that belief in religion has biological origins, has evolved, and should be taught in schools as comparative religion. i.e, exposure to all faiths. Since the talk was anti intelligent design, one could ask why belief in religion is a part of our design.
One survives by what he does during life.
What he does is determined by what he thinks and cares about.
And what he thinks and cares about is determined by what he believes of his future, his options, “purpose”, and/or “fate”.
Void of purpose, rational decisions cannot be made.
The current Godwannabes want to dictate purposes of their own, thus much prefer the machine mind in their slaves. By removing the thought of any purpose from the humans, they whither, become useless, and die, removing the problem of having to deal with “human rights” and possible betrayal. Loveless, aimless, disorganized Atheism is merely the residue of their lust.
I do not believe in the notion that any state of affairs is totally determined, or negatively, totally random and co-incidental. In re-integration of residual power, a seeming vortex of inevitability appears, setting the stage for the destruction of souls. However, and we did talk briefly about this yesterday, in terms of the abandoned, or at least, not seriously thought up theories of psychic economy and mathematical theories relating to Lewin's concept of topical psychological vectors, - it it's not a far stretch from these, to draw a line to the idea of Marx's concept of diminishing returns.
A mechanistic interpretation of love may be seen as connecting the variables hinging on the economy of partial ID contents, as that exemplified by 'love' And in fact, it could be shown in a very loosely woven fashion, that as the material economy shifts more and more to itself, the less will 'love' be bound to the sources of it's origin.And since that source ultimately has been described and related to the concept of God, There have been, since the last 250 years or so, a gradual turning away from this source. The baal, has replaced god as the source of happiness and love has become a subsidiary , another acquisition. It is no less love, since the emotional ties attached to 'things' and 'people' have become in partly objective.
Rightly so, psychology speaks of 'object relations', where subjective expereince has been replaced. (Because it is not as much measurable)
The point is, atheism can still experience love, but as far as intersubjective forms of it is concerned, the evaluation takes indirect forms, of roundabout ways of trying to experience it, weighing in situations, factors etc. Before this trend took off, the ideas, the ideals of love, friendship, alliance, affiliation, belonging and responsibility were way far more anchored in definite meaning. The result is loosely defined 'knots' and webs of realization, often coming to the fore in forms of partial entities, existential bits, and a general passing by, rather then digging in.
However, this is what love has come to be, and although transformed, it is still considered to be love. A son and daughter, for instance, often measures the love of the father by the kind of graduation gift, the bride, the grooms depth of feeling by the worth of the engagement ring.
This evaluation, usually subsumed under erotic longing of life long satiation creates a semblance of underlying depth, to those who share such exchanges of value.
The point is that Love is strongly associated with Christianity and thus is not permitted to “exist”. Note that atheists never announce that “hate” is merely a chemical reaction or the DNA trying to fool the person into overly rationalized behavior. Hate is always permitted and justified. Hate is “real”. Love is just a trick of the foolish mind.
It is all merely the politics of people who want the masses to worship them instead of the other religions.
To me I don’t have a problem with you needing a placebo. I do wish like myself you didn’t need the placebo. I do have problems with you forcing your placebo on me. And when it comes to the “my placebo is the right one and yours is not, and I’m willing to kill you over it” than I have a big problem with your placebo. I can’t fathom the amount of human life lost over “My placebo is better than yours” or my placebo told me to do it.
As far as the other emotions you talk about “selflessness, morality, heroism are nothing more than part of the brain washing process that is developed by society in which you live and were reared in. Most of the time the split second decision to become a hero or not was based on which fear was the overriding factor of common sense. Protection of the species is instinct though out all life forms. We have been taught though out this lifetime to 1st protect young then protect the weak and lastly protect yourself, if not done in this order than you get the feared label of being a “coward”. Just look to any military for an example of brain washing a fellow human to be a non thinking killing machine, being fed the “fear this other group humans” placebo to keep them inline.
The 1st and main “purpose” of life is to survive. It is universal and simple. We are all slaves to our basic needs of survival. There is no time as a human that you are not a slave. All the terms such as friendship, alliance, affiliation, belonging and responsibility were created by man to use as tools to maintain survival of the species.
Ok James let’s talk “hate” through the eyes of military. Ex: “I hate the enemy” I was told they want to kill me and my family. I fear being killed so I fear the enemy. Again James no such thing as “Hate” just another man made placebo “tool” to help cure the fear. James fear again like survival in if is universal and simple. I fear the enemy so if I kill him first fear cured till next time.
I think that unless we remove the placebos from our minds (which will allow us to think freely) we will destroy humanity instead of coming together as the human race to build a paradise here on Earth.
People who need the placebo are like a person who wears a life jacket in 6 inches of water. They have worn it all their lives and even though they see people walking by with water up to their ankles they still are afraid to stand up and remove the life jacket.
That actually made me lol since atheists are no more, no less, human than any of us. I immediately thought of the lepers on the old leper colony of Molokai for some reason. We can only hope that at some point in history, the atheists will not be ostracized as the lepers were albeit they were, in those days, for good cause but not with much compassion. Awe, wonder, ecstasy comes about because of the way our senses interface with the world around and thus create those wonderful chemicals within the brain. We all have our own personal supply of this or that chemical, depending on who we are, what we do with our lives, and also what we eat, et cetera.
Ierrellus, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. I’m just responding in my own way to this.
.
Hmmm, insofar as my children are concerned, I would have no problem with that. I think that might only enhance a child’s way of thinking, enrich him/her but I’m not sure how popular that might be amongst others. Some people are really chauvinist (?) about their own religion and might not accept that.
Whether there is a personal or impersonal, God who deliberately designed and determined us (UGH) or we came about through beautifully random evidents - like the roll of the dice, evolution still had its own way. I don’t think it is so much about religion, per se, but about the evolution of the human’s need to worship, to affirm something greater than itself, to stand in awe and wonder in order to be able to find that deeper self and to resonate to it’s music. …so to speak. lol
I think it’s an individual thing. The atheist just might feel a deeper connection with what sourrounds him than does the Jew, the christian, the muslim, ad continuum but not because he’s an atheist, although who knows.
