Underseer
Contributor
The topic frequently comes up during apologetics discussions. It usually takes the following form:
Of course this is just the same argument from ignorance fallacy we see over and over and over again from Christian and Muslim apologists. It's the same argument the ancient Greeks used to claim that lightning "proves" the existence of Zeus, or that the Vikings used to insist that thunder "proves" Thor. Of course the argument fails at step one. If you don't know where something came from, then the only thing you can prove is that you don't know where something came from. The only honest answer is then "I don't know," but because it is human to fear admitting that, most people use "I don't know" as an excuse to make up any old answer they feel like, and this is hardly unique to Christians and Muslims.
What gets me about this argument is that it is so easy to think up alternative explanations for the existence of love.
What is love? Well, if you're talking about romantic love, then love is just a series of instincts that survived in the gene pool because it encourages us to take better care of your children. Many parents will tell you that it is a very short step from loving your spouse to loving the children you produce with your spouse. Such instincts would have a pretty dramatic impact on human survivability. Most mammal offspring have a childhood that lasts maybe a year. In a few extreme cases, a couple of years. By contrast, human children take nearly two decades to reach maturity, which means caring for them must require an awful lot of time and effort. Any instinct that makes parents more inclined to do so is going to have a large impact on a human's chances of passing on his or her genes to the next generation.
If you're talking about love in the more general sense, then this is even easier to understand. In that case, love is a series of instincts that make us more inclined to look after the survival and well being of other humans, especially other humans in our own social group. Humans are social mammals, and like most social mammals, our primary survival strategy is each other. In this case, love has a very obvious impact on our chances of surviving and passing on our genes, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if I found out that this particular feeling of love is very common among social mammals.
The obvious objection theists would make is that we are somehow diminishing love and making it less special by hypothesizing where love comes from. If that is the case, aren't they similarly cheapening love by coming up with their own hypothesis about where love comes from? Besides, as Richard Feynman pointed out, is the rose any less beautiful just because you know it's made of cells? If anything, knowing that a rose is made of cells gives us a whole extra level of beauty to marvel at, so it enhances our perception of its beauty rather than detracting from it. The person who does not know what cells are has less beauty to admire, not more. If I am correct about the origin of love, then knowing that doesn't make the feeling of love any less intense nor any less profound; it just gives us more to contemplate when we think about love.
- I do not understand where love comes from
- Therefore, I know where love comes from
- A magic man made it with magic
Of course this is just the same argument from ignorance fallacy we see over and over and over again from Christian and Muslim apologists. It's the same argument the ancient Greeks used to claim that lightning "proves" the existence of Zeus, or that the Vikings used to insist that thunder "proves" Thor. Of course the argument fails at step one. If you don't know where something came from, then the only thing you can prove is that you don't know where something came from. The only honest answer is then "I don't know," but because it is human to fear admitting that, most people use "I don't know" as an excuse to make up any old answer they feel like, and this is hardly unique to Christians and Muslims.
What gets me about this argument is that it is so easy to think up alternative explanations for the existence of love.
What is love? Well, if you're talking about romantic love, then love is just a series of instincts that survived in the gene pool because it encourages us to take better care of your children. Many parents will tell you that it is a very short step from loving your spouse to loving the children you produce with your spouse. Such instincts would have a pretty dramatic impact on human survivability. Most mammal offspring have a childhood that lasts maybe a year. In a few extreme cases, a couple of years. By contrast, human children take nearly two decades to reach maturity, which means caring for them must require an awful lot of time and effort. Any instinct that makes parents more inclined to do so is going to have a large impact on a human's chances of passing on his or her genes to the next generation.
If you're talking about love in the more general sense, then this is even easier to understand. In that case, love is a series of instincts that make us more inclined to look after the survival and well being of other humans, especially other humans in our own social group. Humans are social mammals, and like most social mammals, our primary survival strategy is each other. In this case, love has a very obvious impact on our chances of surviving and passing on our genes, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if I found out that this particular feeling of love is very common among social mammals.
The obvious objection theists would make is that we are somehow diminishing love and making it less special by hypothesizing where love comes from. If that is the case, aren't they similarly cheapening love by coming up with their own hypothesis about where love comes from? Besides, as Richard Feynman pointed out, is the rose any less beautiful just because you know it's made of cells? If anything, knowing that a rose is made of cells gives us a whole extra level of beauty to marvel at, so it enhances our perception of its beauty rather than detracting from it. The person who does not know what cells are has less beauty to admire, not more. If I am correct about the origin of love, then knowing that doesn't make the feeling of love any less intense nor any less profound; it just gives us more to contemplate when we think about love.