Why do we suffer? Why do we love?

[warpspeedpetey]

assume first that there is no G-d, then why do we suffer? in a deterministic universe it would seem that we suffer due solely to chance, a man in equal measure may stumble upon pleasure or pain. he may win the lottery, or develop cancer. all seemingly random.

but then under the assumption that there is no G-d. why do we love? one can suffer from random causes, but to love, there must be a reason.

of course there is the darwinian view that love is an evolutionary advantage, yet animals reproduce and raise their young quite well without it, driven by biochemistry. yet we can also love things that provide us no evolutionary advantage, man can love rainy days, a certain stretch on the river, a particular object, or the local football team, all of which we love because of qualities we see in those places, things or events.

there is no need for love, or even an advantage to it in many cases. yet no one is so poor as a man who has none.

so why would love exist?

 

[DavidHume]

there is no need for love, or even an advantage to it in many cases

There is no need or advantage to a peacock’s tail, either. Evolutionary selection is not some sort of Mr. Spock-style automaton relentlessly optimizing things to the bare essentials.

Read any of Stephen Jay Gould’s works for more detail.

 

[liquidpele]

assume first that there is no G-d, then why do we suffer? in a deterministic universe it would seem that we suffer due solely to chance, a man in equal measure may stumble upon pleasure or pain. he may win the lottery, or develop cancer. all seemingly random.

but then under the assumption that there is no G-d. why do we love? one can suffer from random causes, but to love, there must be a reason.

of course there is the darwinian view that love is an evolutionary advantage, yet animals reproduce and raise their young quite well without it, driven by biochemistry. yet we can also love things that provide us no evolutionary advantage, man can love rainy days, a certain stretch on the river, a particular object, or the local football team, all of which we love because of qualities we see in those places, things or events.

there is no need for love, or even an advantage to it in many cases. yet no one is so poor as a man who has none.

so why would love exist?

** for very abstract, broadly defined, and differing definitions of love

 

[tonyrey]

There is no need for love, or even an advantage to it in many cases. Yet no one is so poor as a man who has none. So why would love exist?

It is generally agreed that a normal person who loves no one and is loved by no one cannot be truly fulfilled and content. To attempt to explain this as the result of being social beings is a desperate manoeuvre by physicalists. It is like attributing our quest for truth, justice, beauty and perfection to evolutionary advantages even though they often prejudice our chances of survival. The fact is that we are not simply advanced mammals but persons created for these purposes…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no need or advantage to a peacock’s tail, either. Evolutionary selection is not some sort of Mr. Spock-style automaton relentlessly optimizing things to the bare essentials.

Read any of Stephen Jay Gould’s works for more detail.

then why does it exist?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

** for very abstract, broadly defined, and differing definitions of love

then why do any of them exist?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Her Majesty the Queen of England once said in a speech, “Grief is the price we pay for love.”

Very profound.

 

[liquidpele]

then why do any of them exist?

Lets just skip a few steps and ask why we exist at all, shall we?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is generally agreed that a normal person who loves no one and is loved by no one cannot be truly fulfilled and content. To attempt to explain this as the result of being social beings is a desperate manoeuvre by physicalists. It is like attributing our quest for truth, justice, beauty and perfection to evolutionary advantages even though they often prejudice our chances of survival. The fact is that we are not simply advanced mammals but persons created for these purposes…

its obviously not evolutionary or animals would need it, there are other social animals like prairie dogs, and they dont need it. we wouldnt love places things, event either as thats not any evolutionary advantage in general, though there has been some ideas in the area, i think its a non-starter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Lets just skip a few steps and ask why we exist at all, shall we?

dont deflect, answer the question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Her Majesty the Queen of England once said in a speech, “Grief is the price we pay for love.”

Very profound.

yeah, the mystical connection between suffering and love is quite interesting, but the non-theists on the board arent going to care, first you must believe.

 

[liquidpele]

dont deflect, answer the question.

I wasn’t deflecting, I was pointing out the eventual destination this subject must go in. They exist because we exist to have those traits and feelings. They are a part of us, whether there is a God or not. Thus, if you believe in God you can attribute them to Him. If you don’t, you will search out other reasons for those traits. In the end, the “why do we have them” depends on your answer to “why do we exist” because your answer to the latter will influence how you perceive the former.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I wasn’t deflecting, I was pointing out the eventual destination this subject must go in. They exist because we exist to have those traits and feelings. They are a part of us, whether there is a God or not. Thus, if you believe in God you can attribute them to Him. If you don’t, you will search out other reasons for those traits. In the end, the “why do we have them” depends on your answer to “why do we exist” because your answer to the latter will influence how you perceive the former.

working under the assumption of no G-d, as in the OP, i still need a reason for love to exist. it cant be explained by evolution, we didnt make it up, its unnecessary. yet here it is. that doesnt jibe with a deterministic universe. as i believe the universe is deterministic, its something of a mystery.

 

[Oreoracle]

A better question, perhaps, would be “Why does God exist?” The Christian, of course, will deny that he needs a reason to do so. Why can I not do the same to similar questions, I wonder? “Because God is necessary!” he’ll persist. But then, why can’t I say that the universe could be the necessary entity? Problem solved, and we already know the universe exists, unlike the superfluous entity “God.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A better question, perhaps, would be “Why does God exist?” The Christian, of course, will deny that he needs a reason to do so. Why can I not do the same to similar questions, I wonder? “Because God is necessary!” he’ll persist. But then, why can’t I say that the universe could be the necessary entity? Problem solved, and we already know the universe exists, unlike the superfluous entity “God.”

Why does God exist is a valid question, but “why does love exist?” is also a valid question. Of course, the preliminary question is: does love exist? If we take the existence of love as a given, then we can have this conversation. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that an atheist give some ideas of how love would have ultimate validity apart from God. (Or need it have ultimate validity?)

As for: why does God exist? This question is, for the theist, identical to the secular question: why is there something rather than nothing? This deeper question is a problem to both theists and atheists, and I think that all we can do is throw up our hands and admit that we have no clue.

 

[DavidHume]

Of course, the preliminary question is: does love exist? If we take the existence of love as a given, then we can have this conversation. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that an atheist give some ideas of how love would have ultimate validity apart from God. (Or need it have ultimate validity?)

What do you mean by “ultimate validity?” Do you mean telos? If you do, then of course metaphysical naturalists would consider this a question that should be un-asked.

(Love has no cosmic telos, but this is unremarkable because nothing does.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What do you mean by “ultimate validity?” Do you mean telos? If you do, then of course metaphysical naturalists would consider this a question that should be un-asked.

(Love has no cosmic telos, but this is unremarkable because nothing does.)

Of course, I would assume that metaphysical naturalists would say that love is just a feeling with an evolutionary role. In this worldview, love has no more significance than buttered popcorn.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A better question, perhaps, would be “Why does God exist?” The Christian, of course, will deny that he needs a reason to do so.

actually we will tell you that G-d is the maximal state of being, informally G-d is existence.

Why can I not do the same to similar questions, I wonder? “Because God is necessary!” he’ll persist.

or we would tell you that contingent beings might not have been and therefore need a cause.

But then, why can’t I say that the universe could be the necessary entity?

because the universe might not have been and therefore is contingent requiring a cause.

Problem solved, and we already know the universe exists, unlike the superfluous entity “God.”

as you can see it wasnt as simple as you have been led to believe.

but i did notice that you didnt answer the OP, why does love exist?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you mean by “ultimate validity?” Do you mean telos? If you do, then of course metaphysical naturalists would consider this a question that should be un-asked.

(Love has no cosmic telos, but this is unremarkable because nothing does.)

love seems to be the end in itself. assuming there is no G-d then it doesnt fit into the determinst universe, i believe the universe is deterministic, and i think then that the existence of love doesnt fit that model. there seems to be a disconnect that suffering doesnt have.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course, I would assume that metaphysical naturalists would say that love is just a feeling with an evolutionary role. In this worldview, love has no more significance than buttered popcorn.

yup, and suffering even less as it can be explained as simple random determinism, the fact that love cannot be then, makes the question “why is there love?” so much more intriguing than that pile of opinions called the problem of evil. but as many dodges as im seeing here, i might not explain the POE to the next person who asks, i may just demand an answer to why is there love?

if we take the view that there is no G-d, then suffering, love, buttered popcorn and rocks all have the same signifigance, none. which would be fine, except there are too many things that dont jibe with a solely deterministic universe, love, hate, free will, change. it simply leaves too many questions unanswered. its like a scientist accepting contradictory information in a theory and just throwing up his hands saying thats good enough!