Philosophy Now Forum

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.)

We 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.

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 biological instinct for sustaining our existence? . . . but then, where from, if not from the Divine ?

No, but psychology can -- mutual need satisfaction.

Psychology can, but I don't think anyone can truly epitomise it either atheist or religionist.

It's false dichotomy, no one can explain it precisely all they can do is either imprecisely objectivise it, or even more imprecisely subjectivise it.

Yes, I'm talking about human psychology and "love" is one of the phenomena.

If there is no divine anything, our psychology must have been shaped solely by our biological needs for species-preservation.

So, my question is, how have we developed the psychology to value the life of those who'd become a negative factor (burden or threat) to the prosperity of the species??

Yuujin wrote:Yes, I'm talking about human psychology and "love" is one of the phenomena.

And you expect the full explanation from faith in some invisible entity or rejection of that faith? Might more usefully look for it in the sciences. Even there, you'll only find partial explanations, plus theories, observations, hypotheses, experiments, debates, conjectures, and mountains of data in the process of being investigated and evaluated. You may have a long wait.

If there is no divine anything, our psychology must have been shaped solely by our biological needs for species-preservation.

Biological needs encompass more than species preservation. Complex organisms have many and varied needs, many and varied means of expressing, interpreting and prioritizing those needs, many and varied options of method. As organisms evolve and become increasingly complex, so do their motivations, relationships and activities.

So, my question is, how have we developed the psychology to value the life of those who'd become a negative factor (burden or threat) to the prosperity of the species??

Because no organism is motivated by preservation of the species. Biologically, organisms are driven to 1. preserve their own life and 2. perpetuate their own genes, in competition - and very often in direct conflict (see feuds, war, conquest, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.) - with, all other members of their own species. In a complex organism, many impulses are in play at once, and in a complex environment, many factors affect the individual organism at any given moment. Plus, complexity is prone to malfunction: rarely is any single biological requirement being serviced in the most effective and efficient manner.

The aggregate outcome is a species that grows too numerous, exhausts its resources and fouls its habitat. That aggregate contains a huge variety of individual outcomes.

Yuujin wrote:If you are an atheist, how do you explain the love humans are capable of ?

Or indeed the hatred. Some of it is religious intolerance.

Yuujin wrote: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.

I think more sophisticated atheists might argue that certain behaviours have evolved that are beneficial to reproduction and caring for offspring.

Yuujin wrote: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.

Many creatures mate for life, including earwigs apparently. I doubt it has much advantage to insects, but the most obvious outcome is that parents can share the feeding and care of infants that have a long term dependency. This is particularly true of humans which have an unusually long childhood.

Yuujin wrote: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.

What do you actually feel? For all that it can be described beautifully by us, how can you be sure that the actual sensations aren't what animals feel?

Yuujin wrote: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?

Many animals will attempt to nurture even stillborn offspring and display behaviour that looks very like mourning.

Yuujin wrote: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.

There were tribes who apparently weren't aware of the connection between sex and pregnancy, believing children to be gifts from gods. There have been instances of 'fathers' being absent from their wives for months at a time who were delighted to find their betrothed expecting. There are also men who fall in love with other men, neither of whom is ever going to bear the others child; the same is true of women, dontcha know. That is probably the strongest evidence for your thesis, if you are arguing that human love is more than just gene splicing.

Yuujin wrote:How do you explain this other than "soul connection", and "soul" is a concept that atheism doesn't have.

This is effectively a god of the gaps argument. You are claiming that there is no physical explanation, therefore the solution must be metaphysical. I don't think you have made a very strong case that there is no physical explanation.

Yuujin wrote:(We are a bag of random chemical reactions, they say.)

Not all of us. That is what some theists wish to portray atheism as saying, because they can refute such a position with relative ease. It's a strawman.

Yuujin wrote:We 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.

In a species that is seriously outgunned in terms of teeth, claws, muscle and venom, we have to make the most of experience. In evolutionary terms, it makes sense that we should protect our experienced members.

Yuujin wrote: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?

'Loving' is a series of complex behaviours. None of them are exclusive to humans and none of them shared by all humans.

Yuujin wrote:Or, is our love special . . . coming from somewhere else outside the biological instinct for sustaining our existence? . . . but then, where from, if not from the Divine ?

God of the gaps again. Tell me; why do some theists believe that a god who hides his methods more beautiful than an animal that can explore the world in the exquisite detail we are doing?

Atheists need to explain love in the same way that people who don't collect stamps need to.

love is for bad tennis players...

-Imp

Yuujin wrote:Yes, I'm talking about human psychology and "love" is one of the phenomena.

If there is no divine anything, our psychology must have been shaped solely by our biological needs for species-preservation.

So, my question is, how have we developed the psychology to value the life of those who'd become a negative factor (burden or threat) to the prosperity of the species??

Solely biological needs ftw it's not complicated. The question IMHO does not need to be asked, but then I have one perspective some have others, mine is the world of evolution just keeps ticking on with the blind watchmaker in control. It is not shared by religionists, but each to their own. Love is what keeps us animals "together", without that reward system nature would fail. Birds bees even Argentines do it. It exists simply because if it did not we would not. Call it eros call caritas call it what you will, evolution has made a watch, how it ticks is no concern of logic, pragmatism maybe by selection, which is blind, it does keep ticking if you wind it, that is it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cuArUG6sOc

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Atheists need to explain love in the same way that people who don't collect stamps need to.

hehe.

Well said.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Atheists need to explain love in the same way that people who don't collect stamps need to.

They need, but do they explain the same way ?

As the believer I am, I hope to continue to love and live with my promise in the Heaven.

Giving a reason as to perpetuate the species seem to me to be ridiculously reductive, as it does concern the next, and no the lovers.

yeah love is self sacrifice and is nonlocal existance as consciousness.fallen existance is selfish and local but in the exact same loveconsciousness.the local event causes selfishness thus making nonlocal consciousness fall away from eternal life into selfish locality.example hitler.

Yuujin

Have you been shelterd as a kid? ..or bumped your head? ..or just born this way?

NielsBohr wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Atheists need to explain love in the same way that people who don't collect stamps need to.

They need, but do they explain the same way ?

As the believer I am, I hope to continue to love and live with my promise in the Heaven.

Giving a reason as to perpetuate the species seem to me to be ridiculously reductive, as it does concern the next, and no the lovers.

Nothing you have said here relates to what I wrote. Perhaps it's a language thing.

Sorry VT,

The answer to you was only the first sentence.

The second ones are rather to Yujin, and the other ideas about biological love.

I should write some line as this "-" to make a separation.

"Can atheism explain love?"

What's to explain?

Love (loving of any stripe) is simply valuing another.

Why does a person 'value' another?

Because of the benefit the object or subject of valuing brings to the valuer.

So: fundamentally, love (loving) is an act of self-interest.