Where does the ability to love come from?
Perhaps a silly and too basic a question, but I wonder if you have sat and thought about the question: "Where does the ability to love come from?"
There is a new film out about Charles Darwin's life and of course his theory of evolution. The theory (and that is all it is!) describes a dog eat dog existence - where only the fittest survive. In all this the theory fails to address the existence of love. I'm thinking about the type of sacrifical love that we see clearly in the life of Jesus Christ. The type of love that on a good day we might manage to emulate.
The Bible of course is absolutely clear about the source of love.
Dear friends (says John) let us love one another, for love comes from God. And more clearly goes on to say: God is love!
In the New Testament there are 3 words for love:
Philia (family loyalty)
Eros: (physical intimate love)
And Agape: (sacrificial, life transforming, Christ like love)
All these are gift from God but it is the third Agape - the love that bucks the trend of a dog eat dog existence that can not be adequately be explained by those who put their faith in the theory of evolution. For this type of love there is but one explantion: that it comes from a creator God who created man in his own image.
Dear friends let us love oneanother, for love comes from God (1John 4: 7)
Comments
While I'm not a neuroscience expert, I am a fan of it, so that sounds like a right-enough answer to me.
If anyone has a clear definition, much less objective evidence, of a "soul", I'm all ears.
You ask for a definition of the soul: The soul is the combination of our mind our will and our emotions.
You ask for empirical evidence - but you would not treat a mathematical knowledge in this way. For this we rely on the evidence of reason based on mathematical principles, none of which are empirical. You are right to assume that there is no physical evidence for the soul, that is because the soul is not physical.
I take it that you would not deny that free will exists - but you can not prove it with physical evidence. If our minds are simply physical states then we are not free - all our decisions are determined.
To say that free will does not exist, that the choices that we make are random, would make the penal system unjust. Why should one be sent to prison for murdering (even a child) if all we are is a combination of physical matter? It would also rob us of any sense of conscience any purpose or meaning of life.
Evidence for the soul can be based on experience of ourselves - the fact that we are conscious of our being who we are. Evidence of the soul is our ability to rationalise and take responsibility for the decisions that we make.
Evidence for our soul is the God given ability to LOVE.
I said:
If anyone has a clear definition, much less objective evidence, of a "soul", I'm all ears.
I didn't ask for empirical evidence (although that would be nice), I asked for objective evidence. Also, when you say, "The soul is the combination of our mind our will and our emotions", I have no idea what you mean by "mind" or "will" in that context. Emotions are the result of neurons firing in the brain.
The world appears to me to be deterministic (with a small amount of possible "randomness", within a deterministic set, due to quantum fluctuations), so yes, I generally don't believe in "free will". Having said that, I find that the illusion works well enough for me.
We send people to prison for the ideas of correction or to keep them away from the rest of us that don't commit crimes.
You say that the soul is not physical... ok, then what is it exactly? If you plan to use the word "spiritual" (not saying you will, but just in case), then please explain exactly, in detail, what you mean when you use the word "spiritual".
How is love evidence of a soul?
How is the ability to rationalize evidence of a soul?
How is our "experience of ourselves" (and I don't know what you mean by that) evidence of a soul?
Please define, in the greatest detail you can, exactly what the word "soul" means. Because what you wrote above appears to be word salad to me, but maybe that's because I'm dumb.
Regardless, you're STILL using the word "theory" incorrectly, even after I brought that issue up before. PLEASE learn what that word means.
Lastly, you wrote: "For this we rely on the evidence of reason based on mathematical principles, none of which are empirical." What is your math background? I want to know if I should get into this issue with you or not.
Neil thanks for your post claryfying this further. Thanks to God too for allowing me the amazing capacity to love.
"I generally don't believe in "free will"."
"We send people to prison for the ideas of correction or to keep them away from the rest of us that don't commit crimes."
The two statements are surely contradictory: If the person who goes to prison is not able to exercise his free will to choose whether to do the crime or not - then how can he be corrected?
If you argue (and I'm not saying you will) that the ideas of correction are mistaken ideas (because we don't have free will) then you should surely always feel dispassionate about the injustice that takes place when a crime is happening regardless of the severity of that crime because after all that person is unable to make a free will decision. Even if that crime is against yourself.
Nohm you are very good at asking questions - will you answer this question: Where does passionate anger come from when we see injustice? It is from me the same source of love. Where does love come from?
Please view this information for a longer explanation.
But let's say we don't know that. Therefore, my answer could be, "I don't know where love or anger come from." I see your answer of "it comes from the soul" to not really answer the question, as it simply just leads to a new question of, "well, what is a soul?" Which is what I asked earlier.
As for what you see as contradictory statements by me, I'll have to go into at a later time. I just ask that you research "determinism" first, so you have some foundation if we start to discuss that issue.
In short, no, I don't see them as contradictory at all, which is why I made a point of saying, "I find that the illusion works well enough for me".
The concept of determinism, and it's affect on the concept of "free will", is a pretty complex issue if you haven't studied the basics yet.
Let me know if you want to do some research on that, and then get into a discussion about it.
One last question, though (and, to be clear, I have no problems answering questions... I don't run from them): Do you understand now how you're using the word "theory" incorrectly?
Thank you for your response.
That would assume two things:
1. That most other people, and certainly the people putting crimminals behind bars, are determinists. My bet is that they aren't, since the vast majority of people are not determinists.
2. That you misunderstand determinism. Simply because someone does not have free will in their choices does not mean that those choices will not be "corrected" to choices that are better for humanity.
Therefore, no, those two statements are not contradictory.
"[Y]ou should surely always feel dispassionate about the injustice that takes place when a crime is happening regardless of the severity of that crime because after all that person is unable to make a free will decision. Even if that crime is against yourself."
Here's the thing. I'm a determinist, but I think that the illusion of free will works so well that I simply accept it. Therefore, I don't feel dispassionate about injustice.
It could also be argued that the deterministic nature of my particular life has resulted in me feeling passionate about injustice, which I think is far more likely.
"Nohm you are very good at asking questions" <-- I'm curious... is this a backhanded compliment?
Regardless, I hope my other post answered my opinion as to where passionate anger and love come from.
While you're checking out what determinism is, please also research the word "emergence", as that plays a large part in my "worldview" also.
Explanation of Determinism
Explanation of Emergence
Love itself can be seen as an evolutionary response to the need to create social and familial cohesion. Individuals benefit from some form of social bond; love – the release of dopamine type chemicals in the brain, is a good way of ensuring a family or clan group stays together. It works on the reward principal; the individual receives a chemical reward for behaviour that helps the group to function and survive, this survival also increases the chances of that individual or a close relative of that individual (hence shared genes) passing on their genes.
It sometimes appears to me that Christians believe they have some fundamental ownership of ‘love’ and are the only ones to understand love and its means and uses. Just because love can be seen as merely a chemical activity of the brain does not diminish its importance or power in human life and relationships. Compassion and love are human attributes (though are found in other animals) just as physical or mental ability are human attributes. We don’t poo-poo an Olympic athlete’s victory by saying that it is just the use of muscle and sinew, we attach to that victory a sense of achievement and respect. Similarly the ability to love can have the same respect without the need to believe it is rooted in some God given ‘essence’ unique to humanity – and especially the property of Christians. The trouble with Christian love is that Christians then think they have a monopoly on how love should be expressed or celebrated.
I found your own views on love on Time 2 Change Churches blog recently, a comment on some sanctimonious post by the blog’s author. You write:
“Again we see work of Satan the Father of lies - who makes out that 'love' is about two men or two women or a man and women out of marriage having sex.”
Yes, well the underbelly of many a church contains some of the more outwardly ‘righteous’ still engaging in some pretty shameful behaviour when they think no one is looking – and of course by shameful I mean the hypocrisy and deceit, rather than the act itself.
No I don’t think Christians have a monopoly on love and its uses and purposes. Indeed it could be argued that if they did exhibit a little more love over the years the churches might be a little fuller than they are today.
As for the ‘soul’, although in English translations of the Bible the word does appear in the Old Testament the idea of ‘soul’ as something immortal and separate to corporal existence is borrowed from Greek, particularly Platonic thinking. In Christian thought the idea of the soul has had several (forgive me) incarnations and much of our present thought – evident in your post – is Cartesian; whereas the ‘soul’ of the New Testament is essentially Greek.
I have been with many people when they have died and it is comforting to think something leaves the body at the point of death. But empirical evidence suggests that the organism, not unlike a slowing clock, is just coming to the end of its working life. My hope is that such is the case and there is little evidence (unless you believe the fairy stories of the New Testament) that there is anything else after death.
Londonlad: I would argue three things here:
(1) That it is too simplistic to say that our emotions are generated in the brain. They are certainly processed by the brain which is different.
(2) That even if we took a simplistic view of what 'generates' feelings of love, if God designed the brain then He is still the source of love!
(3) More importantly: You seem to have missed the point about love (I'm talking here about agape). Agape is more about action than it is about feelings. It involves for example choosing to forgive someone whether you feel like forgiving them or not. It involves taking a servant attitude to those who sometimes humanly speaking you would rather not serve. As I write this I get the strong feeling in my spirit I have touched a raw nerve here. I wonder if there is someone in your life that (for your own sake) you need to forgive?
I am not so sure that Jesus necessarily FELT like going through the suffering of the cross for me, but he chose to do so that I may have a full and everlasting relationship with God. The following for me sums up something about agape:
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain concete, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not at your own interests, but also to the interest of others.
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of the slave,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself,
and became obedient to death,
even death on a cross." (Philippians 2: 3-8)
Hey I'm not claiming that I have perfected this - far from it - but when I do get it right I know that it can only be from God!
No feelings in that passaage - just sacrificial love in action - the type of action that is not allowed for in a dog eat dog world as described by evolutionists.
Incidently this is a letter written by Paul to friends in Phillipi, Paul who knew the other apostles, who were first hand eye witnesses to the resurrection. There is not a serious historian in the world who denies the existance of Jesus - as man who was renowned for his performing healing miracles and who died on the cross. The apostles too wrote letters to friends about Jesus' life and resurrection.
There isn't a serious historian who denies that people like Peter who followed this man died for his faith. There is excellent evidence that Polycarp a disciple of John who wrote the gospel had the opportunity to live if he refuted his faith or die in a fire - he chose the latter. Soon after the death and resurection of Jesus there is massive evidence that from nothing, a great army of CHristians were prepared to loose their lives for what they knew to be the truth. Londonlad WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED PARTICULARLY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS?
WIth love
Neil
Nohm
"Emotions are the result of neurons firing in the brain."
The concept of causation is not a particularly complex issue; however what can be said to 'cause' an emotional sensation within a person? The stimulus that provoked the neurons or the neurons themselves? Finally, is the idea of some manner of interaction with some metaphysical 'I' (ie a soul) logically contradicted by this?
""If the person who goes to prison is not able to exercise his free will to choose whether to do the crime or not - then how can he be corrected?"
That would assume two things:..."
From what you subsequently said it is clear that you misunderstand the nature of the OPs opinions of penal reform. The Christian faith doesnt believe in free will for the sake of it, rather it forms a central motif of the religion. Man was given the ability to choose his way in life, be he pious or wicked and is held accountable by the lord. In terms of penal reform, the OP believes that the individual ought to be held account and made to see the error of his ways and hopefully change them. You on the other hand view penal reform as a more utilitarian apparatus whos aim is rather to protect the collective from the individual's deeds and as such free will is a non sequitur. Neither are all that novel positions to take; neither have been without their philosophical support. However merely asserting the two respective positions without looking at their premises is not going to be a fruitful exercise.
"You say that the soul is not physical... ok, then what is it exactly? If you plan to use the word "spiritual" (not saying you will, but just in case), then please explain exactly, in detail, what you mean when you use the word "spiritual"."
The soul is not physical (and has not been postulated as such by philosphers for centuries) in the sense that you are never going to pierce someones body and rupture their soul. Such would be a manifest absurdity and you dont find many folks believing it nowadays.
The idea of the soul is generally supposed to be a spiritual/metaphysical entity (as the Wikipedia source says). As such any attempt to verify/falsify the existence of the soul empirically is doomed to failure; the realm of science after all doesnt deal with metaphysics . For that you need to study the philosophical literature on the subject (the actual stuff; not an online encyclopedia that can be edited by almost anyone). Given that Christianity has been the dominant force in Western philosophy for eons (either as a reaction for it or against) there are several definitions of the soul, its nature and other pressing questions raised in everyday life that gives the intellect much to knaw upon. As someone who likes to ask questions myself, I find much more pleasure in this than, say, baiting someone whose faith is VERY unlikely to be shaken by fuzzy-round-the-edges allusions to philosophical ideas and complaining that they dont know enough about a given topic.
Take care
Neil
You misunderstood nearly everything I wrote. The only thing I complained about was Neil's use of the word "theory". For the rest, I was just asking what his knowledge was on those subjects so that I would know how deep or shallow I should go into them.
Also, you misunderstand my references to wikipedia. I wasn't using them as a way of saying, "wikipedia says this, therefore it's true." I was using them as a way of saying, "wikipedia has an article on this subject which would do a better job of describing my point of view in this matter than I could in a comment on a blog post."
Lastly, again I see people saying "soul is not physical." Ok. So that's what it's NOT. I'm asking what it IS.
Look, when I'm convinced that Neil understands determinism and emergence, and/or that he has a desire to discuss these issues, then we'll go forward. It's not something that I see as mandatory.
I don't mind your interjection, Anonymous; I just mind that you spun my posts in a pretty negative way and made a lot of (incorrect) assumptions on my motives.
Two things:
1. This is a logical fallacy known as "Poisoning the well".
2. Do you seriously believe that there are no serious historians that doubt the existence of the biblical Jesus? How much research have you done into this, or did you just take Lee Strobel or CS Lewis' word for it?
Regardless, as I've said before, I have no problem believing that a street preacher named "Jesus" existed. What I have a problem believing is that the biblical, superpowers and all, Jesus existed.
I am afraid we have to agree to disagree, really. Dying for one’s faith proves very little. Suicide bombers die for their faith, Buddhist monks die for their faith, The Heaven’s Gate UFO cult died for their faith...
Perhaps dying for one’s faith is just a human trait, perhaps when our own self-esteem is poor and we believe our lives will have some meaning by dying.
It all used to make perfect sense to me at one time. I am so pleased that it doesn’t anymore. The more I think about Christianity the more illogical it seems. Oh well each to his own – but I’m afraid your reply has done little to change my mind – if anything you have only confirmed me in my deepening agnosticism...
Yes I agree it is probable a character called Joshua Bar Yusef did live around two thousand years ago (I wasn’t aware I had said he didn’t) and challenged both the religious and political status quo (there were a lot who did at the time – some of them had little cults grow up around them) – many historians would probably agree with that, though there is little evidence, save the Gospels (as you no doubt know written some forty or so years – if not more! - after the events the portray (can you remember a conversation you had last week word for word? Then if the Gospels were written by men are they able to say what Jesus ACTUALLY said, forty years on and tell events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED without the odd bits of poetical license?)). The epistles – Thessalonians being the earliest, was written approximately twenty or so years after the life of Joshua Bar Yusef – ‘Jesus’ in Greek (the Greeks have no ‘sh’ diphthong) – the others much later. No one is saying Jesus didn’t exist. Yet the N.T. itself is not a reliable source of historical fact. e.g. there is no evidence of a census taking place in Augustine’s reign and even if there was one why would a Roman Census for tax purposes be interested in whether or not Joseph claimed he was descended from King David (who lived a 1,000 years before – even today few of us can trace our ancestry further back that a few hundred years and that’s with written records) and demand of Joseph that he register in David’s Town – why would the Roman authorities give a monkey’s? Historians – even contemporary Roman ones – make no mention of a slaughter of male children up until the age of two years in Judea (this is an area about the size of the Wales – it would have been talked about!!) at the time of Jesus’ birth – and if it did happen, why was John the Baptist still alive when Jesus began his ministry? He was six months older than Jesus and should have been killed by Herod’s men! Or why is it in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus calls Peter etc. AFTER John the Baptist is put in prison and yet in John’s Gospel they are called when John is still dunking people in the river? No, calling on historical evidence is no good. You are a Christian, you only have faith. If you want proof then you are in the wrong religion. I do find it rather comical anyway that you need to scrabble around for ‘evidence’ (often pretty dodgy evidence) when it suits and then spend ages refuting any empirically tested evidence with all ‘sound and fury’ when it doesn’t suit. It is all very odd to me... Anyone would think YOU were getting doubts...
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. Heb 11:1
Happy Blogging...
The difference is that some of those who died for t'their faith' died knowing the truth. I have no doubt that Polycarp trusted his friend John when he told him that Jesus had resurrected from the dead. More so Peter and John who know the truth were willing to die for that truth.
I am sorry that you have not picked up on my points about agape and about forgiveness.
Take care
Neil
Thanks for your comments...
Let’s start with those who died ‘knowing the truth’; Muslim Warriors believed they were fighting for the truth. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs can all rake out a ‘Holy Book’, flick through its dusty pages and come to a verse that backs up the fact what they are doing is because of the ‘The Truth’
Ti estin alētheia;
I think your problem with this goes back to you blog profile: ‘My pet dislikes are the post modern attitude of 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me'. I wouldn’t really say someone having a different opinion than you is ‘postmodern’; it is just an inconvenience – and one it would seem that bothers you – I wonder why? ‘Postmodern’ must be one of the most misunderstood words in vogue at present. In many ways it could be argued that resurgence of religion in Western societies is a symptom of postmodernism... But let’s pass that one by, I haven’t the time nor the space to enter in epistemological philosophy (and it’s not one of my fortes).
I presume by ‘Truth’ you mean the ‘Truth of the Gospel’; alas this is a case of ‘what is true for you isn’t necessarily true for me...’ Off the top of my head I was able to demonstrate that your appeal to history for the validity of the Christian Gospel is rather blown out of the water by the inconsistencies and ‘made-up’ bits within the texts. To borrow from the N.T. – ‘he who can be trusted in small things can be trusted in bigger things...’ If the Gospel authors can’t agree on something so simple as where the first disciples were called, then it is useless to appeal to history; you have to accept that even if there is a truth within the Bible; there is also a good deal of myth and poetic license.
Agape, aphesis, Polycarp... the appeal to these concepts/person sort of fulfils my point really. Why are they Greek? Jesus spoke Aramaic and possibly a smattering of Koine Greek. His teaching certainly wouldn’t have been given in Greek, it doubtful his apostles, with the exception of Paul, knew written Greek (although the Greek of the N.T. is pretty ‘shabby’ Greek). However we see presented chunks of Plato-esque philosophical language and concepts that you grasp with open arms. And you appeal to this as some ‘proof’ of the validity of Christianity. If anything, this reliance on Greek philosophical terms should tell just how much Christianity is an amalgam of different religious concepts, traditions and ideas. It is probably that those other religious and political rebels who lived at the same time as Jesus and came to the same sticky end just never had their exploits recorded in Koine Greek and therefore they were no of interest to the wider world, nor could their exploits be hybridised with Greek ideas (the Gospels were written 40 years later, plenty of time for historical facts and myth to intermingle – look at the theories around JFK’s, Marilyn Monroe’s and Diana’s deaths).
I am well versed in Patristic theology, Neil, I used to be able to read the Greek Fathers in their original language (I can’t now, with any fluency – if you don’t use it, you lose it!). I have several of Polycarps letters, I fully understand such Greek terms such as agape, aphesis, metanoia etc.
When you and others quote a verse of Scripture and then expect your audience to be taken aback by the logic and revelation of it, remember it only means something to you. I respect your views Neil, but don’t patronise people, thinking by appealing to something ‘bigger’ and older than you, you are right. If you appeal to Scripture you have to accept that others don’t believe in the Bible in the literal way that you do and that as historical evidence the Bible, esp. the N.T. is a poor witness.
Enough, I have other things to be getting on with. Have a look at my last blog entry by the way, you might find it interesting...
Have a good weekend.
"That it is too simplistic to say that our emotions are generated in the brain."
Why is that too simplistic? What does the simplicity of an answer have to do with the accuracy of the answer?
"As I write this I get the strong feeling in my spirit I have touched a raw nerve here. I wonder if there is someone in your life that (for your own sake) you need to forgive?"
When you wrote this, were you talking to londonlad, or myself? For the record, I don't feel that you've touched a raw nerve in me, and I can't really thnk of someone in my life that I need to forgive (that I haven't already forgiven).
"No feelings in that passaage - just sacrificial love in action - the type of action that is not allowed for in a dog eat dog world as described by evolutionists."
What is a "dog eat dog world", and how is sacrificial love in action a type of action that is "not allowed"? How would it be prevented?
Is it possible that you don't understand what "evolutionists" describe? Do you agree that there are many "evolutionists" who also call themselves Christian, and believe in God? Is it possible that you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis?
"There is not a serious historian in the world who denies the existance of Jesus - as man who was renowned for his performing healing miracles and who died on the cross."
Are you saying here that it is your belief that no "serious" historian questions the existence of "healing miracles"?
Lastly, regarding people dying for their beliefs, do you agree that there are people who have died or sacrificed themselves for false beliefs?
Thank you.
No where does he provide a substantial response to the porblem that results from putting people in jail who do not have free will.
He knew the truth about Jesus' death and resurrection. Either he died for something he knew was true or he died for something he knew not be true. I do not know anyone who would die for an untruth. Therefore the evidence suggests that he died because he knew the death and resurrection of Jesus to be true!
He knew the truth about Jesus' death and resurrection. Either he died for something he knew was true or he died for something he knew not be true. I do not know anyone who would die for an untruth. Therefore the evidence suggests that he died because he knew the death and resurrection of Jesus to be true!
He knew the truth about Jesus' death and resurrection. Either he died for something he knew was true or he died for something he knew not be true. I do not know anyone who would die for an untruth. Therefore the evidence suggests that he died because he knew the death and resurrection of Jesus to be true!