Mailbag: God is Love
Subject: God
God is defined as Love. Therefore, when you say God does not exist, you are treading on the same grounds as one who would say love does not exist.
First, it is important to clear up the common misunderstanding that an "atheist" is someone who says "God does not exist" - atheism is much broader than that. Atheists lack belief in the existence of any gods, not just the "God" of classical/philosophical theism and not just in the sense of asserting that such a god does not exist.
Second, it's worth noting that this very common move of defining God as "love" is problematic for theists. After all, love is an emotion experienced subjectively in a person's brain. If that's what someone thinks of as their god, well I won't argue. I can accept the existence of a "god" that is an emotional reaction experienced subjectively in someone's brain. So will other atheists. What we disbelieve in is not emotions or beliefs, but rather the claim that there exists some external entity that is the object of those beliefs. In other words, we disbelieve in the existence of gods external to the human mind. Gods that only exist subjectively within the human mind simply aren't an issue.
"Oh! But love exists", you may think. Ok, fine. PROVE it to me. Who do you love? Your father? Your mother? Your girlfriend? Your pet? Just who do you love? Thought of someone? Ok, now prove it to me. The point is, you can't prove love exists. You can't even prove your own personal love exists to anyone but yourself. So if God is Love, and God does not exist, you might as well deny love. But you can't, can you? Because you KNOW its there. Even though you cant prove it.
Perhaps if we adopt a very strict and narrow definition of "proof," then we wouldn't be able to prove the existence of "love" - but I'm not so sure about that. If love is a certain type of biochemical reaction experienced in certain contexts, then it does not seem impossible that proof of such a reaction would be impossible.
But let's leave that aside for a moment and consider just why a strict and narrow definition of "proof" is being used at all. It seems as though the reason lies with the assumption that that is what atheists demand from theists with regards to their gods - and while that may be the case some times and in some circumstances, it certainly isn't always the case. I personally avoid asking for "proof" at all, whether defined narrowly or broadly, unless a theist actually indicates that they have proof in the first place.
Instead, I ask for "support." I think that rational beliefs about empirical issues are those which can be supported by evidence and/or logic. If the existence of a god is an empirical issue, then for that belief to be as rational as belief in the existence of Paris or bacteria then there should be some sort of evidence and/or logical reasoning which supports that belief.
What about love? Well, the same holds true - and there we can provide support for the claim that one person loves another. This support may not qualify as absolute and irrefutable proof, but it is a type of support - sufficient support to accept the claim unless and until superior counter-evidence is provided. I'm afraid that I cannot say the same for any of the alleged gods that people propose.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
That was so stupid, I think it reduced my IQ.
Seriously, what is it with the way some of these people ask for proof? They repeatedly say “prove it” then declare “you can’t prove it.”
Well then why bother asking? I’m not impresesd by empty rhetorical flourishes from someone who thinks “god is love.”
Nice. The Bible also says:
“And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” Isaiah 34:7
I wonder if “Little Angel” believes (or can decipher) that one too.
~Kim
Religious or not, we’re all affected.
http://www.religiarchy.com
God exists, really?
– God is love. Go ahead and prove love doesn’t exist.
That’s got to be one of the most amusing moves in apologetics. Equivocation & shifting the burden of proof, and shifting the burden of argument. Now that God is love, you the atheist, must prove the existence of “God”.
I’ve had this apologetic tossed at me before. My reply was that love is a self-defined mental state where people each have their own idea of “what love is.” One person thinks love is being willing to die for another. One person thinks love is killing their spouse because they love them so much they can’t bear to see them with another man/woman. Some believe that love is simply caring about other people. Some think love is strongly connected to lust. Some think love is being willing to kill someone to protect those you love. And on and on. There are likely no two people who would agree 100 percent on what constitutes “love”–as it’s, again, a personally defined mental model accompanied by chemicals that make us “feel” a certain way that we each define, independently and separately, as love. And what produces those chemicals is not the completely the same from one person to another.
If someone wants to argue that god is a personally defined mental model that may be accompanied by brain chemical surges, I’m actually OK with that–since that’s what I also believe god is.
I’m reminded of a VERY old DuPont (?1950s?) commercial.
I think it went something like…
“Better life (love…lust?) through Chemistry!”
I stopped reading when I noticed the “prove that love exists!” paragraph. Yes, you can prove the existence of love (not scientifically, of course, for love is immaterial).
Since the phrase “God is love” is taken from the Bible, I’m assuming that you’re trying to debunk the Christian world view. Now, Christianity (and many other world views) believe in the existence of an objective moral law, one given by God (or a higher mind…whatever you would like to call it). In the Bible, this morality is summed up by the golden rule “do as you would be done by”. And since God is love, love is also summed up by this golden rule. So, basically, if an objective moral law is proven to exist, then what Christians call love also exists. And for that, I’d recommend you to read “Abolition of Man” and “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis.
“God is love”, really? Wrong. God is the word.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” John 1:1
Christians should better know their own scriptures.
“In the Bible, this morality is summed up by the golden rule “do as you would be done by”
Despite of presence of variations of this rule long before christianity was born in pagan’s philosophers proceedings, do you really think that this “golden rule” could not be possibly deriven by human being and only supernatural being could made this job for us?
fMRI imaging can show love.
The bigger the words, the greater is the baloney.
…I’d recommend you to read “Abolition of Man” and “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. — Comment by anoymous — January 9, 2008
I have read C.S. Lewis, and I’m always surprised that anyone who has read him finds him persuasive. Maybe you can give me some examples of what you found compelling.
athiest: The Word was WITH God.
Isn’t oxytocin love?
Look it up.
@George
God is oxytocin!
Oops. The smaller the words - the greater is the baloney.
What a pile of drivel. C.S. Lewis’ work on his religion is the wimpiest, most unconvincing nonsense ever written. The loves in my life have nothing to do with any non-existent gods; from my observation of human history and current events, it’s far more truthful to say that god is hate, fear, or pain.