[Codo]

In the latest religious threat we talked about how to decide whether to do good or bad.

Now, I have another question: Why do we love?

I can understand ethical behaviour with or without God. I can understand many feelings without needing religion to explain them.

But I have a "problem" with love.
I can understand the need to find company or a partner to reproduce. I can understand why someone "loves" his kids, bridge, hockey or Sandra Bullock.

But how do we explain the strong feelings between partners? Do some people really think that this is just a chemical process? And if so, why does this process happen?

For theists, the explanation can be quite simple, but is there an explanation for our atheists members?

Disclaimer: No this is not intended as being offensive, I really try to understand different explanations for something what is really had to understand for me...

[Trinidad]

When I analyze it, it is based on chemicals: endorphins in my brain, pheromones in the air, imprinted memories... and more of that kind of stuff.

But why would I analyze something as beautiful as love? I prefer to just happily enjoy it.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Codo, on 2013-January-15, 05:38, said:

But how do we explain the strong feelings between partners? Do some people really think that this is just a chemical process? And if so, why does this process happen?

For theists, the explanation can be quite simple, but is there an explanation for our atheists members?

I must be missing something, because I don't see what the difference is. Unless it is loving God, and seeing him in other people, that sort of thing?

[Codo]

No, we can just pretend that love is godgiven, so we need not to explain it in another way.
But this explanation is surely not suitable for non belivers.

[Vampyr]

Codo, on 2013-January-15, 07:53, said:

No, we can just pretend that love is godgiven, so we need not to explain it in another way.

Why just love? Why isn't everything pleasurable a gift from God?

What sort of answer are you looking for? Mine would be "I don't think so". Is that good enough?

[Trinidad]

Codo, on 2013-January-15, 07:53, said:

No, we can just pretend that love is godgiven, so we need not to explain it in another way.
But this explanation is surely not suitable for non belivers.

For this non believer the answer is remarkably similar to yours:

It is evolution-given, so we need not to explain it in another way.
But this explanation is surely not suitable for those who don't believe in evolution.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Seems to me before you can talk about "why" you have to define it. So what, exactly, is "love"?

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-15, 09:25, said:

It is evolution-given, so we need not to explain it in another way.

Of course it must have evolved (since our pre-biologic ancestors 4G years ago presumably didn't have such emotions) but can you envision the details about how it evolved? Are there genes that can be said to code for the ability to feel love? If so, at what stage of evolution were they subject to positive selection pressure? Which, if any, evolutionary advantages are there of genuinely felt love, as opposed to fake love? Is there a biological relation between the different kinds of love (sexual affection, love for children, love for good food, love for the country etc.) or is the relationship merely a notional one?

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-15, 09:25, said:

Seems to me before you can talk about "why" you have to define it. So what, exactly, is "love"?

The last few minutes of When Harry met Sally sums it up.

A give and take that tries my patience in so many ways along with producing the perfect cup of coffee the moment I roll out of bed. The sum of the high points is far greater than the lows or at least both feel that way.

Maybe it's selective memory. I remembered many more of my good golf shots than the flubs and when that changed, I took up Bridge.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2013-January-15, 09:59, said:

Of course it must have evolved

What do you mean, "of course"? Codo, the OP, doesn't seem to think so.

helene_t, on 2013-January-15, 09:59, said:

but can you envision the details about how it evolved? Are there genes that can be said to code for the ability to feel love?

I'll leave that for the evolutionary psychologists to answer. After all, I can't be expected to know all the details of Physical Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, The Handbook of How to Raise my Children?, The Carribean Club system, the recipe for canneloni, my wife's calendar and Evolutionary Psychology, can I?

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-15, 10:22, said:

What do you mean, "of course"? Codo, the OP, doesn't seem to think so.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

But theists might argue that experiences like love are spiritual, not biological.

[mikeh]

Many animals bond for life in mating pairs. Many animals appear to be upset when deprived of the company of their mate.

Many animals appear to experience a range of emotions: anyone who has owned a dog will know this well.

This notion, that appears implicit in the OP, that we are unique in this way is similar to the thinking of many religious people. The pope (and I think it was the current one, but I may be wrong) was reported to have complained that Italians spend too much money on their pet dogs and not enough on the poor and needy humans. He complained that dogs don't have souls...and humans do.

I remember this well. I don't believe in souls but if I were inclined to do so, one of my many questions would be why only humans get to have them? And when, in the course of the evolution of life on this planet did this god decide to start ensouling people? Who was the very first real homo sapiens?

As I understand it, evolution doesn't suddenly produce a radically new species from the womb (for those with wombs) of a former species: the transition may be rapid in geological terms but still requires a process of speciation that occurs spread over generations. So where and why did god draw the line?

The same hubris seems to be attached to the concept that only humans love each other, in the sense of love referred to above. Why do we think that way?

As it happens, while 'why we love' has an academic interest and is a worthy subject for the right kind of researcher, for me it is enough that I do.

[y66]

Paraphrasing Diane Ackerman: Loving, supportive relationships rewire brain circuitry in ways that align dopamine production and interactions with loved ones that tend to increase survival.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-15, 09:25, said:

Seems to me before you can talk about "why" you have to define it. So what, exactly, is "love"?

That's easy. It is:

• A many-splendored thing
  
• The April rose that only grows in the early spring
  
• Nature's way of giving a reason to be living
  
• The golden crown that makes a man a king

[JLOGIC]

Grunch: No doubt everyone has said this but EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?!

[JLOGIC]

Codo, surely even (smart) theists believe it is a chemical process? All of our feelings and emotions are chemical processes. I would think theists believed that god made these chemical processes for a grand reason, but how is it possible to deny that it is a chemical process. Do you also deny atoms? I don't get it.

[JLOGIC]

First link found on google:

http://serendip.bryn...b2/Hoegler.html

I am sure there are even books written on this. Do you think all of this stuff is BS? If I believed in god, my position would be god created it all this way, not that all this science is BS.

[kenberg]

Intermission:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UaRWMgVsofs


In a way, the question gets to the heart of how we see the world. Why is there love? Or, why is there unbearable suffering? Why were we not designed to live a thousand years? Why do we need calcium? Why does E equal m c squared?

From my college days we go to Alexander Pope:

Quote

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;

And this is written by a theist.


If we are lucky, we love. And why should we be lucky? God only knows. To borrow an expression.

[Codo]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-15, 14:11, said:

Codo, surely even (smart) theists believe it is a chemical process? All of our feelings and emotions are chemical processes. I would think theists believed that god made these chemical processes for a grand reason, but how is it possible to deny that it is a chemical process. Do you also deny atoms? I don't get it.

I cannot see a single line where I gave a solution for this myself. I asked questions So what are you talking about?
I did not deny that there are chemical processes- actually I wrote:

Quote

Do some people really think that this is just a chemical process?

So I "know" about the chemical aspect, I asked about what else is there?

But why do we have this feeling? I cannot see an evolutionary sense in loving one partner- And the emphasis is on I cannot see...

Of course, if love would be a starting point for a relationship which may lead to children, I can see an evolutionary sense. But we all know examples where love grew between people much too old to reproduce any more....

[Codo]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-15, 14:16, said:

First link found on google:

http://serendip.bryn...b2/Hoegler.html

I am sure there are even books written on this. Do you think all of this stuff is BS? If I believed in god, my position would be god created it all this way, not that all this science is BS.

Really nice read, tthank you and she comes to the same conclusion as me (so far):Scientifcly spoken, we do not know yet why love exists...