Does love exist

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I would say that love is intangible, yes. And we all have a slightly different take on exactly that the definition of it would be. But nobody has said that it doesn't exist. How can that be?
This site has taught me that skeptics like proof, cold hard facts, perferrably measureable in a lab. Love doesn't fit that category, and yet nobody has denied its ...[text shortened]... skeptics accept that love exists without evidence and reject God for the same reason?

DF

I think people don't deny the existance of love because love isn't defined well enough. It's a necessarily vague moniker, but a useful handle for a range of emotions. I think we will be able to define love well one day, but only after we more fully understand how the brain works.

Originally posted by orfeo
Why is that relevant? Science is all about things that can be measured and quantified. Even if someone COULD completely describe love in terms of chemical reactions (a hopelessly complex task that would require measurement of all the things in my past that might have affected my preferences for certain kinds of people), the exercise would be entirely missing the point of the emotional experience.

Good point. After all, it says in the good word that God is love. Can God be measuered?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Give it time, eventually we'll even learn to measure love.

First, we'll have to wait a looooong time. I studied neurochemistry at university, and I can assure you that doing something like that at any sensible level of detail is not likely to happen until I'm old and grey.

Second, I ask again: would we really want to?

I'm all for science and understanding how the world works, but I can't come up with any USE for this particular information that doesn't feel cold, horrible and soulless.

Originally posted by whodey
Good point. After all, it says in the good word that God is love. Can God be measuered?

I'm a Christian, but I don't think it's helpful to bring up a religious connotation on this particular point. I want this aspect of the discussion to be in language that atheists are comfortable with.

Originally posted by orfeo
First, we'll have to wait a looooong time. I studied neurochemistry at university, and I can assure you that doing something like that at any sensible level of detail is not likely to happen until I'm old and grey.

Second, I ask again: would we really want to?

I'm all for science and understanding how the world works, but I can't come up with any USE for this particular information that doesn't feel cold, horrible and soulless.

I agree it will take a long time, but eventually it will happen. I'm sure there will be reasons for this type of study, perhaps looking at people who are 'unable' to love, or as part of a study into criminality. I don't expect this type of work to happen within my lifetime, but if things continue along the present path it will happen. Like the human genome program really.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I agree it will take a long time, but eventually it will happen. I'm sure there will be reasons for this type of study, perhaps looking at people who are 'unable' to love, or as part of a study into criminality. I don't expect this type of work to happen within my lifetime, but if things continue along the present path it will happen. Like the human genome program really.

Okay, curing sociopaths might just be the first decent use of this knowledge.

Originally posted by orfeo
Okay, curing sociopaths might just be the first decent use of this knowledge.

Well, not just that.

The US military has long wanted a 'brave pill' to alleviate war time terror in soldiers.

What about screening people to identify individuals liable to commit murder or rape?

Maybe in the future, the police won't need water cannons and riot shields - maybe just some "placid gas" or similar?

The uses for this type of information would be multitudinous, and potentially very dangerous.

Originally posted by Starrman
There's plenty of evidence love exists. The exact definiatory nature of love is what is less obvious. You can't compare that to god's lack of existence. However, if it was agreed that god did exist, but we didn't know exactly what he was or how he worked, then you could say the situation is like the one we have concerning love.

So, if I understand you, you're saying that we know exactly what love is or how it works and we accept its existance because of that?

DF

Originally posted by scottishinnz
we can measure concentrations of seritonin in the brain. How much more measured would you like???

Seriously though, the brain, and therefore the concept of love, is horrendously complex to measure. It is possible to do CT scans of peoples brains while they are undergoing different emotions, such as being shown a picture of a lover, and 'see' the love, so to speak.

Give it time, eventually we'll even learn to measure love.

So we can measure chemical changes in the brain. Have any studies been done on a person in prayer? Are the measurements consistent with the measurement taken when a person is talking with someone they love? And if so, would you accept this as evidence of God? If not, why not?

DF

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You share a close genetic bond with a sibling. Loving them is just loving yourself (in a gene centred view).

Close friends are less of a paradigm than you seem to think. Remember, ANYTHING that increases reproductive fitness will be selected for. Living in societies has been selected for on that basis because of the decreased risk of predation and ...[text shortened]... ctions of the way language evolved) is the social cement that allows us to live in societies.

But wouldn't a friend be competition? If he helps you kill the animal he should get 1/2 of the meat. That means less for you. Sounds like a bad thing to me.

DF

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You say the only opinion that matters is that of god. Now whilst in the extreme long view, if you're right, that may be correct, but in the shorter term (i.e. when you are still alive) your sense of self worth comes from your own evalution of how you think you should be viewed by god. This seems self-contradictary to what you just said.

Seem ...[text shortened]... ehaving in a manner that agrees with the code of conduct we were conditioned with as children.

It's all about motivation. Do I do things because I say they are right or because someone else says they are. If I base life on my definition of right, it may change over time.
Let's say I'm all for loving my neighbor. Even though he's a sex offender, he deserves a fresh start. Then my neighbor rapes my wife. Now I'm all for castrating my neighbor, and it could seem to be a reasonable response to what he did. My definition of right just changed. When I use a definition that comes from an entity that never changes, the definition won't change and I can be sure of right and wrong.
Imaging your sailing. You use a compass to find your way because the north pole's location doesn't change. But if the compass registers the bow of the ship as north no matter which direction you're actually traveling, what good is it?
A defintion from a reliable source outside yourself is always better than one you make up as you go, IMO.

DF

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm afraid it's all too common in theists to be dismissive of science.

And vice versa, I'm afraid. The two sides seem to be a war when there's really no reason to be.

Why should scientists care if I delude myself into thinking there's a god. What skin is it off their noses? And yet I've been attacked many times for nothing more than my personal beliefs.

Why should a thiest care if a scientist refused to believe in God. We're commanded to spread the Word, but we can't force people to accept it. We may know they are going to hell, but it's no skin off our noses. As long as we do our part, we're done.

The two side should be able to peacefully discuss anything. But people like to be right (myself included, I'm ashamed to say) and so tempers flair and war ensues.

What was Lex Luther's quote, "People are no damn good!"

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
So we can measure chemical changes in the brain. Have any studies been done on a person in prayer? Are the measurements consistent with the measurement taken when a person is talking with someone they love?

IMHO Love is not chemical reactions in the brain. Love is an emotion. Its mechanism is chemical reactions but it is not the reactions themselves any more than a sqare is straight lines or a great work of art is paint brush strokes. Display the art on your computer monitor and the physical substance changes to pixels on the screan but the artwork remains. In theory an advanced computer could experience and exhibit love with electrical rather than chemical reactions as the means.
Does love exist? Yes. Can this be shown scientifically? Yes. The only requirement is that you define the various forms of love and thier expected effects and you can show that a person loves at least to the satisfaction of the requirements of a scientific theory. I dislike the word proven because it is not really a scientific but rather a logical concept. No one has proven relativity but rather shown that it is a highly accurate model of how the world works and that its predictions are reliable.

And if so, would you accept this as evidence of God? If not, why not?

Proof that you love someone or something does not in any way proove the existance of the person or thing that you love. People can fall in love with a things that dont exist. It is my belief that when we do fall in love with the opposite sex what we fall in love with is our image of that person and not the person themselves. This actually creates problems later on as we start to get to know the real person and it does not match the object or our affections.
If you believe in God you can love him. If you believe in the Flying Speghetti Monster you can love him. If you can show that only praying Christians experience love and praying Muslims or Hindus dont then you might be onto something!