Atheists... A genuine question...?

Question

This is a question I have been asked recently, and in all honesty I'm not really sure, so I thought I'd throw it out for some input on what you think.
We obviously reject the notion of God based on reason, and empirical scientific data failing to provide us with any proof.

Now when it comes to us as physical human beings we can explain things like attraction, and natural sexual instincts.
But what is love? I and many atheists I know would declare ourselves either in love, or to have been in love at some point. So how do we account for our "belief" in a concept which has no real proof?
The accusation is that love is just a feeling, or a notion, upon which I should not base any sensible thought or action when it can't be proved.
Part of the argument is that what happens when we are in love can be recreated through endorphins/serotonin, even chocolate! If it's just a chemical reaction shouldn't we dismiss love in a similar way to we dismiss faith?

Your thoughts will be appreciated...

re: tamyp.

deeply sorry for not thinking exactly the same way as you do and so you question my non-belief!?
jeez!
By the way - what do you base your non-belief in god on if it's not reason?

Anyway, what I was asking was not the reality of love as a chemical reaction in the brain but the fact that I do put a lot of stead in my love for my partner. I base a lot on it and in many ways I am questioning how much weight I give to the impulses of "love."

I wondered if anyone else had considered this.

Not questioning my non-belief in god, just considering the argument put to me.

Is that such a bad thing? To think through a question and not to jump to the same answer as you or as quickly as you do?

Thank you to those who have read and thought about what I have asked.

thank you sceptic and eleventy.
great answers

Answer 1

We who? The word atheist doesn't explicitly or implicitly say why someone doesn't believe only that they don't.

"dismiss love in a similar way to we dismiss faith"
Chemical reactions exist and there is ample evidence. Faith & love exist and there is ample evidence. Atheists are simply 'not theists'. It's a descriptive word that indicates people who don't believe in the existence of deities. Again it doesn't say why or what they believe beyond a lack of belief.

I have two thoughts about this question in general
A. You're not really an atheist.
B. You're someone who claims to be atheist but hasn't thought through why. I call these people future theists.

==
"deeply sorry for not thinking exactly the same way as you do and so you question my non-belief!?"

Stop being a drama queen. I'm not asking you to believe anything. In fact you're the one strongly implying all atheists are some single minded homogeneous group.

You forgot option B by the way. If I accept you're not a theist troll in spite of asking an old tired theistic troll question. Then I have little choice but to conclude you haven't put much thought into why you don't believe.

"By the way - what do you base your non-belief in god on if it's not reason?"

I never said I didn't base it on reason you're being presumptuous again. I was simply pointing pointing out your presumptuous statement "We obviously reject the notion of God based on reason"

The best part about being a non-theist is that no one speaks for me but me, not even other non-theists.

Answer 2

I'm not sure exactly why we're supposed to dismiss love simply because it's "just a chemical reaction." Rational thought is also a chemical reaction, and we obviously wouldn't want to dismiss that.

I also don't understand what people mean when they say you can't "prove" love. Love is an ambiguous term without a rigorous scientific definition. Without such a definition, it cannot even be examined. The people who say love can't be proven never seem to provide a definition or an experiment based on that definition that would fail verify the existence of love. However, I can provide a definition of love and an experiment proving the existence of the thing I defined, so it seems that we must conclude love exists.

For example, one could define love as "a feeling of empathy for others in which their happiness is significant to your own happiness." It could then be tested by seeing if people would ever act in such a way that makes others happy, even if the person performing the action received no benefit from it. Since you and I can see that happening, we have just proven the existence of love.

Answer 3

Huh?

You're right, we have no evidence of the existence of any god.

We DO have evidence of love, as it's a real thing we actually experience.

It's NOT a physical thing, in the way a rock is a physical thing. It's somewhat more abstract, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing.

We all have the feeling, and we all have evidence of it's effects -- such as doing something just to make a loved one happy, or feeling their joys and sorrows with them, etc. (I'm mostly talking about the broader concept of love, not just the romantic variety.)

The reason for my "huh?" is that I don't see the connection. Believers want us to believe a completely absurd notion, for which there is no reason or evidence.

Love is neither of those.

Yes, it's an evolutionarily "created" thing; that is, we're born with the capacity to form bonds of love with others, and this is because having that capacity has survival advantage for the sub-set of the species that has it; those without are at a disadvantage.

And, yes, there's physiologica processes associated with it.

But it's a category mistake to reduce love itself with those processes.

The word 'love' isn't used in the same way as the word 'rock' -- to represent a physical object. It's an abstract concept, and a summary word that encompasses an aspect of existence.

To "believe in love" in the sense of acknowledging the existence of that sort of feeling, that aspect of experience, doesn't require any faith at all. Believing there is one or more supernatural beings does.

Answer 4

Love is an emotion, and like all emotions, it is one of the processes that occur in our brain. Like most emotions, love can have useful aspects, but it can also harm when taken to extremes.

The love a mother feels for her children has definitely played a large role in the survival of our species, so it is easy to see why such a mental state would exist from an evolutionary standpoint.

However, just as you would not want to make any major decisions based entirely on unreasoning fear, you should also not make decisions based entirely on love, (or any other emotion).

Emotions can be useful at times, but it is unwise to allow yourself to be dominated by them.

Answer 5

Love is just a word used as a catch all for several emotional states. Human emotions are the internal expression of instinctual behaviors. Love can be classified as lust, need, protectiveness, desire, appreciation, attraction, and on and on.
The Greeks and several other cultures use different words to distinguish between the separate forms of love. The English use of a single word to cover different emotions just shows how little the English culture valued the concept of love.

There is still no need for god.

Answer 6

The chemical reaction is real and it serves a real and beneficial purpose in our lives. As you said we can know its real since we are able to recreated it. I think the origins of romantic love probably have their roots in the evolutionary advantage partners had in raising young and dividing the burden between two. This lead to more and fitter offspring. There are animals that mate for life. As social animals love and affection bond us to each other and allow us to care for one another. I think the purely chemical aspect is not all that is going on though in humans. When you fall in love with someone in a romantic sense what triggers it aside from physical attraction is also the complex interactions between the naturalistic response and psychological uniqueness based on each person's unique life experiences. This makes certain people uniquely appreciated by you and you by them. Its not just anyone who would appeal to you. If you removed the false chemically recreated sensation you would still be attracted to this person over someone else less compatible. This is special in itself. It doesn't make love less special to me in that it is rooted in a naturalistic phenomenon with a practical purpose. It is quite real in the sense we have studied and observed in ourselves and nature so its not a faith based thing.

Answer 7

I think it's important to note the difference between existence and experience. Love isn't an entity that exists outside of the brain. But the brain experiencing love is very real.

If we define God as a subjective experience that only exists in the mind, I agree.

Answer 8

Ah, yes. The existentialist argument. Nothing that we experience is real...

Unfortunately, how would adding God into the explanation make it better? Love is a chemical reaction in the brain. So is pain. We are conscious beings. Everything we experience is just another chemical and neural reaction!

Answer 9

love is a word to describe feelings,not a word to describe or prove that we were created by a 'higher' being,proof of love is in every individuals hearts and minds,even those who don't believe,can love,anyhow why should you dismiss love when it's here and now and a chemical reaction isn't the same as faith,so if love can be created then that's proof!

Answer 10

Well, you've touched on it... there is evidence for love.

It's effects as an emotion are not only expressed by many animals, it can be imaged by MRI the way other thought patterns are.

Remember, love is not an external object, but a product of the brain that can be measured.