Question for Atheists on the definition of Love

Onesimus

Hi everyone, I'm here to ask you what your definition of love is? What does Love mean to you...I want your personal individualistic response, off the top of your head on what love means to you. What I dont want is you going ahead and looking up wiki and then coming to me with Richard dawkins idea of love, for that would mean your a brainwashed disciple of Dawkins and not being yourself and giving your own response.

This isnt a post by the way in which I build you up to knock you down with debates, this is a genuine question I have that I hope will not cause dissension but rather a pleasant discussion amongst all of you.

Dades

Surely "love" is the same for atheists, Christians, Muslims and Scientologists?

I don't get the theological connection.

Zillah

Very smart people have spent their entire lives trying to fashion a worthy answer to your question. I suppose I've had enough wine to give it a shot: Love is that transcendent sensation between unconditional loyalty and uncompromising joy one shares with another person.

What, pray tell, has that to do with atheism? I take it you're not an atheist. What is love to you, then? And why do you assume it would be any different?

strobe

Just because....Hidy hidy hidy Hi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6JUA8cjoY

You define love for me, Onesimus. I'll give you a shiny gold calf. That's the deal. Over to you...

Goduznt Xzst

Love is... sharing a freshly deep fried baby, and not having to ask her to pass the hot sauce.

bad2dabone

love for me i'm sure is the same as love for a theist. It has no connection to believing in fairy tales about a supernatural creator.

I assume you're speaking of the love one feels for their family, friends etc.
I don't see what the connection is between love and "faith in god"?

strobe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn5tiuZU4JI

Exactly....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHy5OvJJN1A

marco_polo

I think you may be confusing atheists with androids.

Nemi

Dades wrote: »

I don't get the theological connection.

But that's simples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZWEEm6xZvU

Zillah

marco_polo wrote: »

I think you may be confusing atheists with androids.

Oddly enough, this is actually not the first time someone has made this mistake. I remember a poster who seemed to think that beng an atheist meant that you didn't experience emotions like a normal human being, that you would demand evidence for love and consider everyone unworthy souless monsters.

He was an odd fellow.

Ickle Magoo

I think my definition of love will be the same as everyone elses, just minus the love of a god or religion...

So, Onesimus, a bit like the capability to love you know doubt claim remaining unaffected by your lacking faith in ganesha or zeus.

Pygmalion

Oh good, I'm not the only one who hasn't got a clue what love and (a)theism have to do with each other.

To answer the OP, I suppose feeling a very strong sense of empathy and affection towards someone, and a strong emotional connection to them?
It's not quite so easy to describe IMO, it's one of those words people simply seem to grow up understanding without needing an explanation.
I'm not sure if (s)he's talking about a romantic or platonic love*, but the above describes both I guess.

*Or the love that a man feels for his magical, omnipotent god, but that's one type of love I definitely can't explain

bad2dabone

Pygmalion wrote: »

*Or the love that a man feels for his magical, omnipotent god, but that's one type of love I definitely can't explain

well we all love characters from movies and books etc. They're fictional so i suppose you know, it's the same thing as loving god, who is also fictional, isn't it?

Although I don't have conversations with them in my head.
That would be mental.

raah!

Zillah wrote: »

Very smart people have spent their entire lives trying to fashion a worthy answer to your question. I suppose I've had enough wine to give it a shot: Love is that transcendent sensation between unconditional loyalty and uncompromising joy one shares with another person.

What, pray tell, has that to do with atheism? I take it you're not an atheist. What is love to you, then? And why do you assume it would be any different?

For one thing, things like "transcendent sensation" will require some further explanation from an atheist, as they don't really fit into a materialistic naturalistic frame.

I don't mean to start an argument (or rather, I don't mean to start bickering) with anyone, but if people genuinely can't see why someone would think atheists/naturalists would have differing conceptions of love to theists then this is a place to start.

Pygmalion

bad2dabone wrote: »

well we all love characters from movies and books etc. They're fictional so i suppose you know, it's the same thing as loving god, who is also fictional, isn't it?

There are characters I like a lot, and/or relate to, but to be honest I'm not sure I'd say I love the character.
I might throw out an "Oh I loved <character> in <show>", but that's more me abusing the word "love" when I actually mean "like" in my opinion.

Improbable

raah! wrote: »

For one thing, things like "transcendent sensation" will require some further explanation from an atheist, as they don't really fit into a materialistic naturalistic frame.

I don't mean to start an argument (or rather, I don't mean to start bickering) with anyone, but if people genuinely can't see why someone would think atheists/naturalists would have differing conceptions of love to theists then this is a place to start.

I suppose by "transcendent" that you just mean beyond natural. How do you know that it simply isn't part of the materialistic naturalistic frame? That's a bit of an assumption isn't it?

raah!

Well if materialism means that the only real things are the material ones, and if naturalism means that there is nothing beyond nature/beyond explanation with reference to natural events, then there is no leap whatsoever. (that is what they mean by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29)

It seems clearly evident when you phrase it in a way like "I suppose by transcendent you mean beyoned natural, how do you know this isn't part of the frame that says there is nothing beyond the natural?"

Improbable

raah! wrote: »

Well if materialism means that the only real things are the material ones, and if naturalism means that there is nothing beyond nature/beyond explanation with reference to natural events, then there is no leap whatsoever. (that is what they mean by the way)

It seems clearly evident when you phrase it in a way like "I suppose by transcendent you mean beyoned natural, how do you know this isn't part of the frame that says there is nothing beyond the natural?"

I'm sorry, I actually have no clue what you're trying to say here...

My point is that it may be entirely possible for the feeling of love to be a physical state in the brain.

Snickers Man

Sometimes you have to let more articulate people articulate things for you.

Screw Dawkins. Just have a listen to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG8JxpitqOM

Ickle Magoo

Zillah wrote: »

Oddly enough, this is actually not the first time someone has made this mistake. I remember a poster who seemed to think that beng an atheist meant that you didn't experience emotions like a normal human being, that you would demand evidence for love and consider everyone unworthy souless monsters.

He was an odd fellow.

Some theists do like to think they are somehow so very special & perish the thought it's all "just" hormones, neurotransmitters & evolution at work. :eek: :pac:

raah!

I'm sorry, I actually have no clue what you're trying to say here...

My point is that it may be entirely possible for the feeling of love to be a physical state in the brain.

Your sentence structure seemed to suggest that you were referring to "transcendent" I guess I should have paid more attention to the piece being quoted.

Yes, that's possible. Some re-working of language is necessary here, as the concept of love has long had "trancendental" connotations. I think once these are goine it is very hard to reconcile the term with what people actually use it to mean.

Improbable

raah! wrote: »

Your sentence structure seemed to suggest that you were refering to "transcendent" I guess I should have paid more attention to the piece being quoted.

Yes, that's possible. Some re-working of language is necessary here, as the concept of love has long had "trancendental" connotations. I think once these are goine it is very hard to reconcile the term with what people actually use it to mean.

So what, religion has dibs on the word love? Sorry, but no.

raah!

Yeah, that was clearly implied in my post.

Improbable

So how would you define love?

FionnMatthew

There is a tradition within philosophy that uses the concept of transcendence not to describe something extra-natural, but merely something which exceeds an individual's cognitive capacity. The universe transcends individual experience, no matter how much understanding based on abstracted general laws we know to govern the universe makes it intelligible to us. There is still more there than we can know.

The body of human knowledge transcends every human knower. This sort of thing.

Personally, I think 'love' is a concept best decomposed into the many phenomena which are conflated under it.

Love is a heterogenous category under which fall various strong phenomenal emotional states which encourages certain different but analogous sets of mutually adaptive social bonding behaviours, and rewards us in short-term neurochemical terms for enacting those behaviours.

behaviours ensuring in-group loyalty for collective survival,
behaviours ensuring exclusive long-term access to a mate so as to ensure progeny,
behavious ensuring cooperation of a mate in ensuring the survival of progeny,
behaviours ensuring the survival of progeny

etc.

But I think, even in phenomenal terms, there are a lot of distinct feelings which are haphazardly conflated as sorts of "love."

As beings which are self-conscous, and are by and large out of our evolutionary niche, but are relatively recent from it, we are still totally overrun by these adapted psychological traits. But I really don't think 'love' as spoken about in ordinary language, is anything more than the above, although often applied in ways that don't necessarily increase fitness.

raah!

I don't know, it's a very difficult word to define. I can only look at how it's used. And I was simply pointing out that a materialistic definition would render incorrect much of the word's modern and historical usage. I think in the case of words like this Wittgenstein's quote becomes a very good guide for finding its meaning

For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word ''meaning'' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.

Mrmoe

Love is no different from any other emotion such as fear, anger or happiness. It is very difficult to describe what it is. Not even the best musicians and poets can. It has it's root cause in base chemical reactions. There is nothing magical or transcendental about love but that doesn't diminish it in any way.

Improbable

I think I would call it an ineffable emotion rather than a transcendental one. From what I can tell, it comes down to a matter of articulation of definition rather than a reference to something beyond natural. How would taking religion/god out of the equation change that? How does religion/god fit into the modern and historical uses of the term?

raah!

FionnMatthew wrote: »

There is a tradition within philosophy that uses the concept of transcendence not to describe something extra-natural, but merely something which exceeds an individual's cognitive capacity. The universe transcends individual experience, no matter how much understanding based on abstracted general laws we know to govern the universe makes it intelligible to us. There is still more there than we can know.

The body of human knowledge transcends every human knower. This sort of thing.

Do you see the term "transcendent sensation" as fitting in with this sort of thing?

The term "transcendent" can of course be used to relate how one thing is beyond another, but what does it mean when used in the general sense? Without direct reference to some limit, are we not left with the meaning that those americans and religious groups use?

But even to say that it transcends human cognitive capabilities, does this not imply that it cannot be studied scientifically? Does this not then contradict any naturalistic explanations we may give of it?

FionnMatthew

Improbable wrote: »

I think I would call it an ineffable emotion rather than a transcendental one. From what I can tell, it comes down to a matter of articulation of definition rather than a reference to something beyond natural. How would taking religion/god out of the equation change that? How does religion/god fit into the modern and historical uses of the term?

If you want to look at it in a cultural context, most people's ideas of, expectations of, and norms of behaviour within romantic love are structured by the Western monogamous tradition, which is itself historically bound up with the society-structuring influence of the monotheistic faiths, and before them, the pagan cults. You could look on the complete saturation of every aspect of family life with norms derived from the Church in European history as way of inserting Catholic power relations into every aspect of how we relate to each other.

Then it used to play into the Church's hands, and the hands of domestic authorities, that people organized themselves in small atomic breeding groups, and channeled all of their energies away from the political, and into the family, thereby becoming less able to collectively organize, and threaten the status quo. Radical political philosophies like Marxism challenged this as the basic form of human life. Nowadays, the ecclesial power has waned, but the new corporate status quo has firmly co-opted the dissipating effect of family structures on political activity.

But these institutions, such as marriage, have a large part of their history in a time when religious power structures shaped human lives powerfully. And if our Western ideals about 'love' invoke these institutional ways of organizing lives, like marriage, it's worth considering the idea that there may well be a larger than expected religious element in them.

FionnMatthew

raah! wrote: »

But even to say that it transcends human cognitive capabilities, does this not imply that it cannot be studied scientifically? Does this not then contradict any naturalistic explanations we may give of it?

The best way of studying it is probably through brain science, and by correlation with phenomenological reports.

But many people find this to be a 'reductive' way of doing it, exactly because it feels 'transcendent.'

Personally, I'd take this as evidence that the first-personal, phenomenological way of investigating it is doomed to failure because it simply cannot be scientific. That transcendent feeling is a cognitive illusion induced by brain activity. Studying the brain activity/neurochemistry is the only scientific way to study it.

raah!

What does it mean for something to "feel" transcendent, exactly?

It seems to me that there is a difference between a feeling which is transcendent, and something which feels transcendent.

Personally, I'd take this as evidence that the first-personal, phenomenological way of investigating it is doomed to failure because it simply cannot be scientific. That transcendent feeling is a cognitive illusion induced by brain activity. Studying the brain activity/neurochemistry is the only scientific way to study it.

Do you think this reflects negatively on psychological studies in general or is this an isolated case?

Overheal

Love is religious now? Ha. Not likely. Rather it seems religion tends to refer to love a lot and in some cases never explains it. Jesus goes around spreading a lot of love around the world for a few years before he's crucified and apparently comes back from the dead (if im to go ahead and call it a historical account) but I don't recall which part of the bible actualy tried to explain the concept or accredit it to religion.

I'm quite with Dades on this, I'm still a little confused as to why this is an A&A question?

raah!

Improbable wrote: »

I think I would call it an ineffable emotion rather than a transcendental one. From what I can tell, it comes down to a matter of articulation of definition rather than a reference to something beyond natural. How would taking religion/god out of the equation change that? How does religion/god fit into the modern and historical uses of the term?

Well not quite religion/god, but the term has always had 'transcendental' or rationalistic connotations, and it was to those I was referring, and religion is often accompanied by such philosophies. I am not saying that the concept requires religion, I am saying that materialism/naturalism rejects those transcendental/rationalistic descriptions of love.

We can say that the "transcendental feeling" is an illusion, but it is that feeling, and not the underlying explanation, that the word refers to. It's not hard to see that this is the case, reading some romance novels or any kind of poetry will assure you of this. It is not explained through reductive science, but rather explained away.

I've brought up this example alot before, but it's like using the term spiritual to describe a process you see as entirely naturalistic. When you describe it naturalistically it is not a spiritual experience. Rather, that experience formerly attributed to things like spirits.
Another example would be to find a cognitive example for our apparent free will, you could find this and give a deterministic explanation of it, but a deterministic explanation of free will is nonsense. When people talk about free will, they are not talking about "an illusion caused by my brain that I'm convinced I have", just as when they talk about love they are not talking about "an illusion I'm convinced I have"

Just as in this case, we can describe love as "that collection of emotions leading to advantageous behaviours formerly attributed to something above emotions/normal interactions".

Turtwig

raah! wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that a materialistic definition would render incorrect much of the word's modern and historical usage.

Materialism has rendered most things incorrect - and rightly so.:D

The Mad Hatter

Onesimus wrote: »

What I dont want is you going ahead and looking up wiki and then coming to me with Richard dawkins idea of love, for that would mean your a brainwashed disciple of Dawkins and not being yourself and giving your own response.

I didn't know Richard Dawkins wrote Wikipedia.

Or did he write the book on love?

robindch

Onesimus wrote: »

Atheist responses only

Just FYI - we don't really do "atheist responses only" threads in A+A.

Dades

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Or did he write the book on love?

I think he wrote a book after he broke up with Gene.

Delirium

That's a diificult question to answer OP. Especially since Fr.Seamus shot me with an Emotion Removing gun for deciding that religion just wasn't for me.

Thankfully I was able to find someone to help me through this difficult transition. You may have heard of him. He answers to the name of Spock:p

Dougla2

I'm an atheist i feel love, proof that atheists can feel love, I am an atheist I am moral , proof atheists can have morals. what more do you want?

I'm tempted to make a snide comment on some of the "love" the biblical god displays :pac:

I don't know, I think it's based on appreciating so much about a person, wanting them to be happy, a fairly unselfish emotion.

MagicMarker

Love is that special feeling in your pants.

Also, can we please edit out the ''atheist responses only'' thing? Let's not go there.

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

can we please edit out the ''atheist responses only'' thing?

Agreed -- this has been removed from the thread title.

raah!

Malty_T wrote: »

Materialism has rendered most things incorrect - and rightly so.:D

Materialism renders itself incorrect

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Materialism renders itself incorrect

How?

Onesimus

Mrmoe wrote: »

Love is no different from any other emotion such as fear, anger or happiness. It is very difficult to describe what it is. Not even the best musicians and poets can. It has it's root cause in base chemical reactions. There is nothing magical or transcendental about love but that doesn't diminish it in any way.

If we cannot explain Love then why believe in it?

If we say that I cannot describe love and we tell someone the only way to know what it is is to experience it. If they then experience Love but they come back to you with a different definition of it than you have then how do you know which feeling was right? and whose version of Love is correct?

Finally, would it be true to say that, if a Scientist tryed to explain love, it wouldnt be Love? that it would only be a formula but in order to experience what he has given us one has to experience Love for themselves in order to believe? and would it be fair to say that the scientists formula for love would in no way be anywhere near love?

I'm thinking of me going to a friend and describing to him the face of another person I saw, even if I was a good artist, it would be close but no cigar, my painting would never be a true image of the person I'm trying to portray, I would have to take my friend to the person in question in order for him to have a good look at him. Do you think its the same with Love? scientists create formulas, but is the formula anywhere close or near to what he is talking about?

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How?

I expanded on this in another thread. The concept of a logical argument is changed in a context of no free will. Of course, this is just my own argument, and there for liable to being very wrong. But I wouldn't mind seeing it analysed by someone else. The second slice is, that if it is logically sound, then it's a sweet piece of argument.

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were Malty_T there, you haven't seen that thread :P
Well it's to do with free will. And it's not solely materialism, but the materialistic/naturalistic ideas combined with the notion that all things in nature are governed by laws. Well, once that's established and we have no free will, and there is determinism. We must examine what logic means then.

Improbable

Onesimus wrote: »

If we cannot explain Love then why believe in it?

That's not quite correct. It would probably be more accurate to say our brains cannot articulate the emotions that are created by the electrochemical impulses in our brain. Just because our brains are poorly evolved things for that purpose does not mean it does not exist purely in a physical state.

Onesimus wrote: »

If we say that I cannot describe love and we tell someone the only way to know what it is is to experience it. If they then experience Love but they come back to you with a different definition of it than you have then how do you know which feeling was right? and whose version of Love is correct?

Nobody said love wasnt a subjective emotion. Emotions are of course very subjective because it is down to the individual's interpretation of it.

Onesimus wrote: »

Finally, would it be true to say that, if a Scientist tryed to explain love, it wouldnt be Love? that it would only be a formula but in order to experience what he has given us one has to experience Love for themselves in order to believe? and would it be fair to say that the scientists formula for love would in no way be anywhere near love?

Would it be true to say that if a theist tried to explain love, it wouldn't be love? It would only be a reference to something which they think exists and therefore, not as real as how an atheist feels love.

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm thinking of me going to a friend and describing to him the face of another person I saw, even if I was a good artist, it would be close but no cigar, my painting would never be a true image of the person I'm trying to portray, I would have to take my friend to the person in question in order for him to have a good look at him. Do you think its the same with Love? scientists create formulas, but is the formula anywhere close or near to what he is talking about?

That's not a distinction between someone who is a theist versus someone who is an atheist. That is like someone who has experienced love explaining it to somebody who hasn't. Religion, or a lack thereof does not come into it.

Herbal Deity

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm thinking of me going to a friend and describing to him the face of another person I saw, even if I was a good artist, it would be close but no cigar, my painting would never be a true image of the person I'm trying to portray, I would have to take my friend to the person in question in order for him to have a good look at him.

Huh?

What about a HD camera with shots from multiple angles?

Turtwig

Question for OP, have you actually bothered to read up on what scientists think love is? Or are you just going with some notion that you yourself has thought scientists think love is? Because in all honesty here is not the place to ask lay people what science says love is. Ask in the pyschology or anthropology forum, maybe ask in a different forum on a different website altogether. You have also made it quite clear that you have conflated materialism with atheism, even though the too can be quite independent of one another. Many atheists, particularly buddhists, Pirahã's tribe, etc see love as spiritual thing that transcends nature in a supernatural way.

Oh and you asked why if we cannot explain love should we believe in it? Leaving aside the obvious flaw in your logic, which I sure others will address. Because even though we cannot explain it, we can approximate it, model it and in time, such approximations may help us to fully understand it and explain it - we might not, but in the past few years we have made some inroads. For example, some poker tables exploit the fact that men are attracted to various female Pheromones in a bid to keep them at the table longer. That would a direct chemical side to sexual attractions, but love isn't purely about sex and that is misconception many people have who think that science says love is a chemical reaction. It is far far more than that.

In any case, reading this would be a good place to start.

@Raah, I think materialism has made human's lives in general more comfortable, longer and healthier. If you can show how non materialistic philosophies contributed directly to our new improved standards of life then please enlighten us. As far as I'm concerned materialism attempts to gather cold hard facts, it might not always be right, but it a far better tool than wishy washy speculation that must be true because....because..