I just answered a question about why a mother would sacrifice herself for her child. It was directed to atheists, and was answered very pragmatically by most...simply about propagation and survival of the DNA. But do you feel a little cold and disappointed with these concepts when we know that "the heartfelt love of a mother and child is more powerful than death" is the traditional alternative? I do. I feel disillusioned with the world in many ways, now that I learn more and more. Thoughts?
2007-03-01 04:15:09 · 7 answers · asked by vehement_chemical 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
My life is full of romance and adventure. Just not nonsense.
2007-03-01 04:18:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really feel that those people are foolish who said that.
Just because you are atheist (or in my case, agnostic) does not mean that you can't love. The only difference between atheists/agnostics and the rest of the world is lack of faith. Being religious does not make you a better person, more capable of love.
Of course, from a biological standpoint, the theory of propagation and survival of the DNA makes perfect sense. Look at dogs. A female dog (didn't like when i put B*tch) will fight to defend her pups. Does this mean she loves them? Maybe, but I doubt that dogs are capable of love. At least love as humans define it.
This does not mean that is why a HUMAN mother would sacrifice to save her child. That would be done out of love. Not every mother would do that for their child. That is because of human logic and reasoning. I'm afraid that some would find it illogical to sacrifice themselves.
Those atheists you spoke to are not looking at the whole picture. Sorry if this was all a bit disjointed but I'm in a hurry.
2007-03-01 12:18:59 · answer #2 · answered by Nathan H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Understanding the chemical basis for our wonderful life experiences doesn't have to make them any less wonderful. Just because there is a physical explanation for "the heartfelt love of a mother and child [being] more powerful than death", doesn't make it any less incredible.
I can still live a "romantic" life, even as I know there are chemical reactions going on in my brain based on very simple needs for survival.
2007-03-01 12:21:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm comfortable embracing both concepts. That DNA and survival may motivate it, but that a mother's love is stronger than anything.
It's just when dealing with the silly Fundies, that I find atheists go into "robot mode" and only speak with pragmatism and pure science about such matters. If they do otherwise and mention feelings, the fundies invariably try to bring their gods into the equation, which is rude, pointless, and annoying. but typical.
2007-03-01 12:21:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't. I know the biological and social necessity for emotions like love, but that doesn't lessen the love that I have felt in my own life. I'm glad I'm able to look at the world objectively. Not once have I felt *less* awe and wonder at the universe because I knew how something worked.
2007-03-01 12:19:31 · answer #5 · answered by N 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No different from a dog & her pups. Even the chemical reaction between k-9 and puppies is almost exactly the same as the"love" for a mother & child
I could care less were social animals its what we do
2007-03-01 12:20:42 · answer #6 · answered by nihilist 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't. One of my favourite philosophers is Rousseau because he strikes a balance between using reason and having a subjective reverence for nature and the world. Reason is the tool that we should use but we should never become hard headed pragmatists-there is always room for emotion and sentiment.
2007-03-01 12:21:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋