All Scientists Need is Love

All Scientists Need is Love September 24, 2010

Despite his professed atheism, Sam Harris might be surprised to learn that a theist agrees with many aspects of his proposal for a science of morality, has been thinking about the issue for longer, and perhaps only wishes to extend/deflect it in scope. Thomas Jay Oord, professor at Northwest Nazarene University, is known for his work on love research and its intersection with a relational form of theism. He now refers to the “love, science, and theology symbiosis” to indicate that both disciplines can be brought to bear on a full understanding of love. Thus, he rejects, along with Harris, the assumed absolute split between facts and value that prevails in much of popular culture.

As a reminder, a common assumption is that science deals with facts and morality with values and feelings. However, the perspective a scientist takes to data impacts her interpretation of that data. Interpretation is how facts become known as relevant facts. In other words, value already colors science so studying value need not mean a new kind of science. However, while Harris would agree with this statement to subject religious moral codes to scientific criticism, Oord notes that the converse is also true. Genuine altruism, sacrificial love, cannot be rejected as impossible outright. It is an empirical matter whether cases of it can be found. If so, they may require God as their explanation.

“Wait,” you may be thinking, “Harris is currently arguing for a science of morality while Oord is talking about love. Those are not the same.” Well, not exactly.

Defining Love, Thomas Jay Oord, 978-1-58743-257-6Oord rejects the narrow association of love with romantic feelings for another, a move which again brings him close to Harris’ concerns. Oord ends up sharing with Harris a focus on well-being.  Oord defines love as follows: “To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being” (Defining Love, 15). A loving action is influenced by previous actions of others, oneself, and God, with the action performed in hope of future flourishing. This definition has three parts which Oord clarifies as follows.

1. Intentionally: An act is not loving if greater good is accidentally achieved. This aspect of Oord’s definition pushes against Harris’ consequentialist focus. At the very least it problematizes his exclusive focus on ends without mention of motivation. A moral person would presumably want to see well-being achieved after calculating how to bring it about, otherwise nothing would get done. Conversely, John Dewey made it clear that intention without reflection on effects of that intention is irresponsible. If one is motivated to value a certain end-state, it is one’s responsibility to perform a valuation in which the necessary steps, possible problems, and likely consequences of achieving that goal are understood. Otherwise, haphazardly trying to bring about good, though the intention, might result in disastrous consequences. Valuing a result and intentionally going about taking the right steps to achieve it go together. This is perhaps the other extreme for Harris. Forcing people against their will to bring about the scientifically calculated best result might turn a science of morality into an immoral activity. You might have thought of the Nazi regime as you read that last sentence.

2. Sympathetic Response: Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead often spoke of prehensions. Feeling feels feeling, or reaction is always to an object which is itself reactive. The notion of objects has to do with social relations and reacting to them as objects. This “feeling with” is usually called empathy in scientific studies. Oord means sympathy to indicate being internally influenced by another so one’s experience is due in part to that other. For example, past conditions deflect my identity to be what it is at the moment while that identity will then influence other creatures just as the past influenced me. Compared to intentionality, this is usually the automatic internal reaction involved in love. We must deal with such circumstances that influence us.

3. Well-being: If a focus on intentionality pushes against Harris, a focus on well-being is a bridge between their approaches. Intentionality and sympathetic response are the conditions for the possibility of love, not love itself. But we can determine what is required to call an intentional act love or not: well-being, or promoting the common good. Not all intentional acts are loving, only those which promote good in the world. Again, with Harris, Oord would say it is not a loving act to save a few at expense of many. However, Harris is more optimistic that we can gather data to determine the varied worth of individuals so one person who will, in turn, lead to the flourishing of hundreds should be saved over five people who will influence no others. Oord, by accepting Whitehead’s notion of prehensions, rejects this atomistic view of reality in favor of a relational view in which people always have value for others.

This approach focusing on overall well-being has most often been associated with utilitarian ethics, as evidenced by the crucial role that theory plays in the proposal being made by Harris. However, that association is not exactly correct in Oord’s view. “Strict utilitarianism is not possible for finite creatures. If the world is characterized by interrelatedness, precise calculation by localized individuals of the greatest good for the greatest number is inherently impossible. Despite the impossibility of precise calculations, however, we use measurements, both intuitive and scientific, to gauge the relative enhancement or undermining of overall well-being” (Defining Love, 61). Basically, Harris needs to temper his expectations while remaining confident that morality can become more scientific.

With this definition in place, Oord sees two dominant research questions for the “love, science, and theology symbiosis.” First, can humans act lovingly on their own, without any inspiration from a deity? Second, is every act of human love actually an act of God without any human contributions? If one answers yes to the first question, as Paul Zak did in the first week on this series, God seems to be on the sideline and superfluous for major moral questions. If one answers yes to the second question, all human good would not really be human good as its source would be wholly beyond humanity. As noted, Oord does not want to answer either question before looking at the data. So, as an empirical matter, what data does he find on well-being to help determine what actions promote and whose well-being should be considered in a given case?

Most sciences focus on what they call empathy and altruism in trying to understand what Oord is defining as love. In social-psychology altruism is usually defined so as to necessitate no benefit whatsoever comes to the actor, making altruism basically impossible. However, intention/motivation, a key component of Oord’s theological argument, is left out a priori for no apparent reason. This definition eliminates altruistic actions that might motivate similar actions in the future or bring self-satisfaction from a deep well done.

Charles Darwin located altruism within parent-child relationships. Giving sacrificially for the good of a child is an action that can then be extended to community life when faced with external obstacles such as other hostile communities. Faithful members ready to give aid will ensure their community survives over one without such cohesion. But this explanation still relates to individual survival. Individuals survive when their community flourishes. Even in the case of parents, Richard Dawkins has made it known that the genetic lineage survives in the sacrifices of parents for children. This has come to be known as “kin selection.” In either case, experience can teach that helping others reaps a gain. Such acts have come to be known as reciprocal altruism in scientific literature.

Cooperative acts proliferate when creatures discover giving benefits the giver. Take vampire bats, for example. Female vampire bats give blood meals to nest mates who would starve otherwise. This increases the probability of future interaction, the blood is necessary for survival so there can be such interaction, and the giver is more likely to receive in future interactions. Besides material gain, an often hidden aspect of reciprocity is reputational gain.

Actions are often influenced by the wishes of others or selfish desire. Darwin already knew in his time that working for the good of a group can be strengthened or deflected by public opinion. Members of a group would approve of actions that seemed to be for their overall good and chastise the opposite. Others are helped for the sake of reputational gain, which carries the assumption that benefits will be returned now or in the future.

So is anything missing in the way scientists are beginning to understand love/morality?

Oord adopts a critical realist stance to all this data. This position holds that it is impossible to know whether descriptive language ever corresponds perfectly with reality. Nonetheless, language is probably partially correct as far as its continued use is justified by its adequacy to new data and predictive power. The same is true theologically, Ooord says, with love.

Intentional acts for the benefit of others with no expectation of benefits in return remain unaccounted for currently. And since he defends genuine altruism as something currently unexplained in scientific theories, such unbounded love in need of explanation is a bridge to an affirmation of God’s real influence on the world. Once affirmed, as a critical realist, this surplus creaturely love will be at least something like divine love.

Unbounded love requires God’s activity. Only then can we account for limited and unlimited accounts of love. The fact that individuals and religious groups have often fought outsiders for the sake of self-preservation should not be neglected. It is only to be noted that the well-being of others has been promoted to individual or group detriment. Turning this into a negative statement for Harris, he has simply neglected to include among his data set for a science of morality the fact that individuals and groups have sometimes chosen to act in ways that show love to all others, and not only the statistically preferred group.

Oord’s theological hypothesis is that if God acts voluntarily in noninterventionist ways, then created entities are never prevented from being what they are. That God loves will always be the case. How God loves is case-dependent. He calls this “full-orbed” love, meaning God cannot force anyone to follow a certain course but instead offers different kinds of love as needed in different situations. In other words, God is relational and affected by the creatures relating to God. “Because God is present to all creatures and because God loves perfectly, all creatures are directly loved.” (Defining Love, 192). Presumably this thesis cuts both ways. Oord would need to accept the freedom to try and create a science of morality, even if that science builds in ways contrary to religion as Harris believes it will. It is at least an experiment in creaturely response to God’s loving offering that Oord seems committed to tolerate. But on the positive theological side, the same loving God is the being creatures respond when instantiating an overall increase in well-being for others. Creatures can choose ill over good while God’s love will never fail. Love is natural, requiring human choice, as well as needing divine persuasion without which altruistic love would be impossible. In terms of his definition of love, it is a matter of sympathetic response to God and a natural human choice to take or leave God’s loving gift. Thus, Oord believes he has given an answer to the either/or dilemma of whether morality is only natural or only supernatural.

It is interesting to note some commonalities that one may not expect between this theological proposal and Harris’ science of morality. The possible actions that God offers to the world arise from an understanding of past actions on the part of God and creatures in the world. Harris’ science is also situation-specific, based on considering past data that promoted well-being. In each theory, the best possibility differs in concrete situations people face. However, a stronger question for Oord arises due to Paul Zak’s work on oxcytocin.

Oord believes that our ability to love in any case requires God’s inspirational call to love, but Zak has shown that love can be natural without ruling out the God hypothesis. God is not unnecessary, but does not appear to be necessary, at least in some cases, either. Rather than responding to God, we sometimes respond to our neurochemistry. And, as has already been noted, Oord’s God is not one which interrupts natural causal relations involved in love. Take Oord’s definition of the classic Greek love philia.Philia is intentional sympathetic response to promote overall –well-being by cooperation with others.” (Defining Love, 50). Zak clearly explained how he has discovered the role of oxcytocin in such cooperative relations. The molecule increases from and in turn increases cooperative relations. Zak’s lab is still producing great research, so the story is not complete yet, and there currently remains room for Oord’s claim that genuine altruism is to be explained by God’s love. But a differentiation between God’s role in finite and infinite acts of love may be need in Oord’s proposal. Rather than explaining the former in terms of a creature’s imperfect response to God, it may be explained naturalistically. The latter, though, may still have great theological import as it enables the transcending of finite limitations through the love of others and enemies. To paraphrase Paul Tillich, God has to do with our ultimate, not finite, concerns. It has been said that we love because God first loved us. In dialogue between Oord’s process theology and the current science of morality, maybe this should now read we love infinitely (or unselfishly) because God first loved us infinitely.

In the end Harris gets at least part of what he wants as well. As noted at the end of last week’s post, rigid religious morality codes have no role in this conversation. Love between creatures and God is relational and dynamic based on circumstances for Oord. Religious understandings of love must remain open to critique for Harris. A theology in which creatures respond to loving offerings tailored to each situation would surely join a critique of rigid laws as well as its own situational affirmations, lest the theological answers lose touch.

One obvious question remains: is this proposal a two-way street? Oord has done his best to form his hypothesis based on current research on love/morality, but what could a scientific research project take away from his proposal other than knowledge of its limitations and humility toward theological claims in turn? Maybe that is enough.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

480 responses to “All Scientists Need is Love”

  1. Great blog! I really love how it’s easy on my eyes as well as the information are well written. I am wondering how I could be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your rss feed which ought to do the trick! Have a nice day!

  2. I’ve been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or blog posts on this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this website. for gauranted facebook fans buy contact us.

  3. Hi there, I found your site via Google while looking for a related topic, your site came up, it looks great. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

  4. It’s actually a cool and helpful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this useful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

  5. I just discovered using Joomla for dynamic website design but feel the limitation on use of templates is a major minus. I think it should be possible to use my own template in the design. Anyone help?.

  6. In the awesome pattern of things you receive an A just for effort. Exactly where you lost me was first on all the specifics. As people say, details make or break the argument.. And it could not be more accurate right here. Having said that, permit me inform you exactly what did do the job. Your writing is certainly incredibly engaging which is probably the reason why I am taking an effort in order to opine. I do not make it a regular habit of doing that. Next, whilst I can certainly notice the leaps in logic you come up with, I am not really confident of how you appear to unite the details which help to make your final result. For right now I shall yield to your issue however hope in the near future you actually link your dots much better.

  7. Wow, incredible blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is magnificent, as well as the content!# B3 @( P; C1 j% V. [2 S

  8. Hi very nice site!! Man.. Lovely.. Superb.. I am going to bookmark your site as well as take the feeds also¡¦I’m content to find a lot of beneficial details below within the publish, we want build a lot more techniques regarding this, thank you for revealing……

  9. We stumbled over here by a different website and thought I may as well check things out. I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to looking at your web page yet again.

  10. Hello, What i don’t realize is in reality how you’re no longer really a lot more neatly-preferred than you might be now. You are very intelligent. You realize thus significantly in relation to this matter, made me personally believe it from a lot of various angles. for details on boxing and fitness equipments contact us.

  11. Greatest fighter toasts ought to entertain and supply prize on your couples. Initially audio system next to obnoxious crowd would be wise to recognize 1 certain gold colored strategy as to public speaking, which is individual interests self. finest man jokes

  12. Hello, I’ve been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or blog posts on this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this website. Rimpro India is the provider of specialty chemicals, surfactant, oilfield chemicals and emulsifiers to various industries like cosmetics,

  13. Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It is a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, specifically inside the realm of games, but I’m not certain I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is critical to you. The iPod is a considerably much better choice in that case.

  14. Certainly I like your website, however you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to inform you. On the other hand I’ll definitely come again again!Cheers!

  15. You actually make it appear so easy with your presentation but I discover this matter to get seriously some thing that I feel I would never have an understanding of. It seems as well complicated and really broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I will attempt to get the hang of it!

  16. Excellent goods from you, man. I have keep in mind your stuff previous to and you’re just too fantastic. I really like what you have acquired right here, really like what you are saying and the way through which you assert it. You’re making it entertaining and you still take care of to stay it sensible. I can not wait to read much more from you. This is actually a great website.

  17. Thanks so much for providing individuals with such a spectacular opportunity to discover important secrets from this blog. It can be so great and also stuffed with amusement for me and my office mates to search your web site the equivalent of three times a week to find out the new tips you have got. And indeed, we’re actually fascinated with the amazing hints you serve. Selected 3 ideas in this post are honestly the best I have ever had.

  18. I partially agree! The great thing regarding plant sterols is definitely the idea that that they break down the essential level of HDL blood cholesterol from the intestinal system.

  19. I am glad that I have observed this blog. Ultimately anything not a crap, which we understand quite usually. The web site is lovingly maintained and up to date. So it really should be, thank you for this welcome transform.

  20. There are definitely a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a nice level to deliver up. I provide the ideas above as general inspiration however clearly there are questions just like the one you bring up the place an important factor will likely be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged around issues like that, however I’m sure that your job is clearly identified as a good game. Both girls and boys really feel the impression of just a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.

  21. Hello, Simply just desire to assert ones own write-up is as a revelation. This readability on your content is superb and additionally possible presume you can be a consultant for this area. for consumer complaint contact us.

  22. Howdy this is somewhat of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding knowledge so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  23. Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You obviously know what youre talking about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?

  24. Fantastic website you have here but I was curious if you knew of any message boards that cover the same topics talked about here? I’d really like to be a part of community where I can get advice from other knowledgeable individuals that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Cheers!

  25. Great blog! I really love how it’s easy on my eyes as well as the information are well written. I am wondering how I could be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your rss feed which ought to do the trick! Have a nice day!

  26. I and my pals have already been following the nice hints from your web site and then immediately developed a terrible feeling I never thanked the website owner for those tips. The people were as a consequence very interested to study all of them and have now seriously been taking pleasure in these things. Many thanks for really being simply helpful as well as for going for varieties of important resources millions of individuals are really eager to understand about. My personal honest regret for not expressing appreciation to you sooner.

  27. Wow, amazing blog format! How long have you ever been running a blog for? you make running a blog look easy. The overall glance of your web site is wonderful, as smartly the content material!

  28. I am usually to blogging and i actually respect your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your website and maintain checking for new information.

  29. Thanks 4 taking the time to talk about this, I consider strongly it and enjoy learning more on this issue. If possible, as you advance expertise, would you take care change your intercommunicate with fewer information? It is super useful 4 me.

  30. I think this is among the most important info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The website style is great, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

  31. I enjoy you because of all of your efforts on this site. Kim take interest in finding into investigations and it really is simple to see why. We know all concerning the dynamic mode you produce priceless concepts by indicates of the internet weblog and as nicely as recommend participation from some other people on this region then our own daughter is definitely becoming educated a lot of points. Take pleasure within the remaining portion with the year. You’re carrying out a splendid job.

  32. I have taken notice that in digital cameras, special receptors help to maintain focus automatically. The actual sensors associated with some camcorders change in in the area of contrast, while others work with a beam with infra-red (IR) light, especially in low light. Higher spec cameras often use a mix of both devices and will often have Face Priority AF where the photographic camera can ‘See’ the face while keeping your focus only on that. Thanks for sharing your notions on this weblog.

  33. I have taken notice that in video cameras, extraordinary detectors help to focus automatically. The particular sensors associated with some camcorders change in in the area of contrast, while others use a beam of infra-red (IR) light, specially in low light. Higher specs cameras sometimes use a mix of both models and likely have Face Priority AF where the digicam can ‘See’ a new face while keeping focused only on that. Thank you for sharing your notions on this web site.