Love

What can be possibly learn from a scientific view of Love?   Love is all warm and fuzzy, while science is all cold and antiseptic, what could one say about the other?  A lot really.  So let’s put love under the microscope and see what we find.

Definitions

We have to start with some dictionary definitions, even though they are quite limited.

• strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties

• attraction based on sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers

• an assurance of affection

• unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: such as the fatherly concern of God for humankind and brotherly concern for others

• to hold dear

• to like or desire actively: take pleasure in

The strongest example of love is a mother’s love for her child.  Fathers also love their families, as do family members for each other.  Two people getting married is a commitment to love each other.  People also show love to organizations, such as their clan, their church, their school, their country, and other groups they participate in.  Love is a word used as an amplification of liking something, but love is so much more than liking.  Love implies a dedication, a devotion, a commitment.

Distinguish the act of love from the feeling of love.  A mother may feel great pleasure upon seeing her child, but the pleasure is not the love.  The mother’s love is the care she takes for the child, never asking anything in return.  The mother is also showing love when she punishes a child in the hope of training them not to do the wrong thing.  A friend shows love for another friend by doing something for them without requiring anything in return.  Even a fan shows love for their favorite football team by dressing up or otherwise going out of their way to show support for the team.  Not all acts of love involve euphoric feelings.  Not all euphoric feelings are associated with acts of love.

Common across all acts of love, is a willingness to do more than what is strictly necessary, more than you expect in return.  At the deli you give some money to the attendant and receive a sandwich in return;  this is not love but merely a transaction.  Giving that sandwich to a homeless person who you probably will never see again is an act of love.  A mother cares for the child without needing the child to reciprocate.  Yes, the mother has a strong feeling for the child, but that feeling is not the love; the act of caring is the love.  Two lovers have strong feelings for each other, but love is the devotion to each other, the doing of things for each other, not the feeling.

Let me define love thus:

Love is the willingness to do something from someone or something without expecting an equal act in return.   Love is demonstrated by going beyond what is necessary.

Love is a verb. There is a feeling that goes along with it, that possibly motivates people to commit loving acts, but that feeling is not love, the act is love.

This definition is perfectly accessible to theists and atheists alike. Clearly the greater disparity between the act and the reward, the greater the love. A mother toils for 18 years caring for a child, never really needing any promise of getting anything back. A community group builds a monument for fallen soldiers, never expecting to be paid back for their work in this. A rich man like Carnegie builds libraries across America because of his love of the country and the people, not expecting to get paid back. And, not the least, leaders get together to make a church to help others in their community learn what they believe to be the truth, and to help them live good lives — this too is love. Even the story of Jesus giving a life for the benefit of others is a loving act as well by this definition.

That Lovin’ Feeling?

The human ability to love, the ability to go beyond what is strictly necessary, is a powerful and wonderful thing.   Love is the motivation for all unselfish acts of kindness such as: compassion, caring, thoughtfulness, service, and other humanitarian and noble actions.

We often think of love as a feeling, like that cosy feeling of wanting to be  together with someone else.   In German: gemütlichkeit.  Oxytosin is a hormone that brings about euphoric feelings and has been called the “love hormone.”  Oxytosin is release during certain actions, such as orgasm and breast feeding, and seems to play a role in bonding.  By bonding, we mean the selection of those people you are subsequently more likely to demonstrate love towards.  The presence of this feeling does not change the nature of love, which is the actual doing of something beyond what is necessary.  There are chemical means to get the same feelings, but those feelings are not love.   Love is a verb.

While there is certainly a feeling associated with love, love has to be a conscious decision.  For example, if you accidentally did something for someone, it would not be love.  Say you send a meal back to the kitchen at a restaurant and that ends up feeding a homeless person, your act is not the loving one because you didn’t intend it.  The feelings might persuade you to act in a loving way, but the feelings never force you to act in a loving way.   Love remains an intentional act.

Expressions Of Love

Love is the secret to social behavior of all kinds.  Living together with someone is not a 50/50 trade off.  A successful relationship always feels to each participant that they are contributing 70%.  Love allows this to work.  Living together is nothing compared to raising a few children who are initially completely helpless.  Love allows that to work.   Even in the community, you have neighbors who seem to want to listen the wrong kinds of music or do the wrong activities at the wrong time.  It is love of the community that allows one to be tolerant of other behaviors, knowing of course that those others need to be tolerant of your own, unfamiliar behaviors.  Certainly, the soldier going off to war is showing great love for the country, and all the people in it, to take such a risk for the benefit of others.

Art is quite often an expression of love.  Sure, some art is a transaction to be paid to making something look nice, like the stock photo framed prints you can buy at the discount store.  Most great art, and probably most lesser art as well,  was performed by artists who had no hope of real compensation for the work.  They do it for love.

Love is Magnificent

Love truly is the most amazing thing about humans.  It is the human tendency toward love that makes it worth spending time together. Even though I can show that many higher mammals exhibit loving behavior, it is really the combination of loving and advanced strategic thinking that allows humans to do truly magnificent things.  It makes like worth living.   It gives us hope for a better tomorrow.

Many humans institutions have been for no better reason than love.  What is the Red Cross, or Doctors without Borders, or UNICEF, if not organizations simply about caring for others, even others that you do not know.  That ability to care about someone you do not know is pure love in the sense that you never expect to get anything back.

There are many things one might say about religions and the motivation behind them, but there is no question that the common man or woman shows up at the community church out of love for their neighbors.  There is a desire to band together and to help each other do good.  Jesus spoke volumes about love, and one might say that was the key point in his message.

Many artists have struggled for their art and the chance to have a lasting effect on others.  There is no question that many of the greatest works of art were clearly great works of love as well.

Many scientists have also struggled.  Galileo loved the world so much that he was willing to risk being thrown in prison just so that he could tell the world about the discoveries of Kepler.  Doctors in the dark ages risked prison to study basic human anatomy.  The urge to advanced knowledge is rarely a self-interested act.  I have written how science allows humans to experience the transcendent.  Most scientists are working on topics that will never benefit them directly in their lifetime — they do it purely for the benefit of people they do not know.   Of course, scientists are driven by intellectual challenge — solving the puzzle — and some of them would like to be famous for discovering something big, still most scientists work much harder and much longer than required by the paycheck.  Most of them really are hoping to find a clue that will help everybody’s lives.   We eradicate disease for the benefit of future generations.  We discover how drugs and nutrition works on the body so that future generations can eat healthier.  We find new techniques to treat illnesses.  These are all acts of love.

We prevent pollution so that future generations can enjoy a world that includes much of the better parts of our world today.  If you love the outdoors in the wilderness, then surely you act to preserve it for future generations.  The radical extreme, the tree-huggers, can be seen as willing to risk their lives because of love for future generations.

Can Materialists Love?

This question came from a minister friend of mine.  It reflects are very different understanding of what love is.  To some, love is a magical effect exuded by the creator and we receive some partial fraction from that.  Many Christians believe you can only love if you believe in Jesus.  I would ask you, dear reader, what is different about their definition of love, and the one I give above?   I clearly give a definition, and support it with evidence, that does not depend on a magical person in the sky.  Here is a discussion on the topic:

B: Because we think love is worthwhile, we think love is a very high virtue. The greater the act of love, usually the more meaningful the act. But thinking about love this way pushes against a purely materialist universe.

A: Why would you think that the virtue of love is lost on the materialist? The definition I supplied above meshes nicely with a materialist view.  In fact, I would say that materialist loves at least as much as the Christian.

B: we might one day be able to describe the neural pathways of love, where they begin and end. We can reduce love to minuscule biological transactions.

A: Sure, we will find structures in the brain that cause people to commit loving acts, but that does not actually matter.  We have evidence of love without needing to look deeply into the brain.  Furthermore, it is a fallacy to think that love somehow “exists” at the minuscule scale. Love is an emergent phenomenon that exists only at the scale of meaningful human actions. There is no “reduced love” as you put it.

B: If there is an ideal of love, a highest standard, maximal loveliness, then this points us to a loving, personal god.

A: I don’t see any logical sense in this. It starts with a conditional: “if there is an ideal of love” — obviously we can take a simple act of love, consider the essence of what makes it loving, and that call that an ideal. We can then extrapolate to the largest act of love we can imagine. But this in no way suggests that there is a loving God that embodies these acts. We might imagine the “maximal love” that could exist, this does in any way show that a “maximal lover” actually exists.

To put it another way, let’s talk about fast cars. We can look at a couple fast cars: Ferrari, Bugatti, and say there is an ideal of fast cars, and then we can imagine the very fastest, maximally speedy car that goes 99% the speed of light. But this in no way suggests there actually exists a “God of fast cars” that is capable of beating all other cars in a race. This would be a complete non-sequitur.

Just because some people will do incredibly loving acts for other people, does not in any way imply anything for or against a heavenly creator.

B: As far as we can tell, love is not impersonal, in that it only seems to originate within persons.

A: Sure, I agree, this fits the above definition as well: it is not love unless you decide to do it knowing that you will not get an equivalent return. Does not a bird who builds a nest, lays eggs, demonstrate love to its future offspring? Is not a wolf who drags food home to feed the pups demonstrating love for them? Isn’t the bird who attracts the attention of a predator away from the nest at great personal risk, showing love for the unhatched chicks? Or the emperor penguin who stands holding an egg above the freezing ice for 3 months an act of love? Or the dog that pulls the toddler away from the road? If you look at the tree of life, you see that the ability to perform acts of love are spread liberally at all levels.

B: But to put it very simply, if Love exists (capital L, not lower case, reductive l), then a God of Love exists.

A: And by the same logic, so exists a God of Fast Cars.

B: Christians claim that their God is Love

A: Good enough. Love is magnificent, and so I can see how an ancient people might pick up on this and desire that their God have all that quality. What you also must remember is that people at that time had very little clue about how the world worked. Heredity was a thing of magic. Potions were made and administered on the theory that the magic power emanated from the invisible spirit world. They believed that sickness was caused by evil spirits invading the body, and the the cholera was caused by bad smells.  Love, however magnificent, can be seen as playing an essential role in the survival of more complex social animals.  Love comes naturally into play when animals get sophisticated enough to works cooperatively for survival.

Love is simply the essential ingredient to make social behavior successful.  Given enough time, love will evolve into existence.

Is the Christian God really Loving?

T:  Love is seen as being consistent, dependable and understandable. How could my son be expected to love his father (God) if apparently for no reason he can comprehend, when he is not aware of doing anything wrong, he is struck with terrible pain and suffering? My son, or I as a seeker of greater Truth and Purpose, can not just accept the explanation that you give which is, “My son, I know it doesn’t seem just or reasonable that a good person such as yourself who lives a wisely and honorably and yet suffers such excruciating pain but know that after you die all things will be made clear.”

T: The usual understanding of love is that it must be demonstrated not just promised. Parable: The young farm boy, not yet a Christian but still searching, is told that the Christian God, being omnipotent and omniscient, knows and controls all things (except one’s free will) and that this is a loving God who cares for him deeply and knows what’s best. With this soothing and comforting thought in mind, the boy gets up early to go milk the cows knowing that hard work, discipline and obedience are what his earthly and heavenly fathers expect of him if he is to grow up to be a mature man. On the way to the barn the boy is struck by a bolt of lightening that leaves him paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of his life. The boy’s father tries to console his suffering son by telling him that God allowed this to happen because he has bigger plans for him, and at some time the boy will understand. The boy, being of normal intelligence replies, “But Dad, I can learn lessons in becoming a man without being struck by lightening? Earthly father, if you were to paralyze me to teach me a lesson, I would call that unjustified child abuse and certainly wouldn’t see that as a sign of your love, why would I think that this is a sign of God’s love?”

T: The Christian concept of a loving God does not meet the standard and reasonable definition of love that is reasonably based on human experience that love must not just be promised but that love must be consistently, fairly and predictably demonstrated in real life?  The belief in the Christian concept of love requires faith in religious doctrine because it is not clearly based on empirical evidence or experience that is demonstrated consistently.

Love Conquers All

We all will die some day and the sum of our actions considered.  There are things we do to meet our needs will will be considered spent: you were hungry and you ate, and that action can do no further good.  There are some acts that we do for love that will live or after us.  Maybe you built a statue commemorating a person and an act of valor: that will live on after us.   Maybe you start a foundation to benefit orphans now and in the future.  Maybe you simply built a house to shelter your your kids: that too may live on after us.  Maybe you struggle to find a cure for cancer, or mental disease — what possible act could be considered more loving than this?  Or maybe you just help build a new recreation room for the nearby church or school, it all counts as something that will love on after us.

The most loving thing we can do for future generations is to discover whatever we can about how the world works, so that all people can use that knowledge to avoid harm.

The only way to live beyond your years, is to commit acts of love while you are alive.  Start with where you are right now, and whatever is around you.  Whether for those around you, or for all of humanity, monumental acts of love are what distinguishes humans from every other species on the planet.

How did Love Evolve?

Mammals often live in groups that cooperate on some level. Horses and cows live in herds, deer, and antelope the same. Lions and wolves hunt in groups to do things that would be impossible for them to accomplish on their own. Prairie dogs live in villages where they work too stand lookout to guard each other for danger. The point is that the social behaviors evolved because animals with those behaviors competed and were more successful than animals that didn’t have those behaviors. It’s simply natural selection.

Humans have a particularly strong need to live and work together. It’s almost impossible for a human to live on its own in the wilderness. The only reason humans survive is because we work well as groups. For that to work, social behaviors had to evolve within humans. Those humans, that could cooperate better would survive better quite simply.

As anybody who has ever cooperated with somebody else will know, it’s hard to evaluate how much work you have to do, versus how much work the other has to do. You’re more aware of your own work so so always seems like you’re doing more love is that willingness to go beyond What is equitable and what is transaction. Love is the propensity to do more for that person than you can ever expect in return. By loving the other, you do more than half, assuring success. Love is the glue that holds human tribes together.

Love is also the emotion that inspires us towards something greater than ourselves. Generous with our own efforts when we can to help others when they need help we aspire be part of the greater unit: the family or the community. Love then really is the superpower that humans, possess in order to get along better, to cooperate better, and to outcompete the other tribes or communities.

Simply put, those tribes made out of people who could love each other, are more successful. Those successful people are our ancestors.