Star-signs!

[tlclark]

I didn't say it was divine. I said it was irrational.

True, but why is it irrational to feel love, and have feelings? Why is it so awful that these things could be part of a biological process? It doesn't make the feelings any less real or important, or undermine in them any way.

Well to slice this philosophical salami so thin we can see through it...

A better question is not is love "real" , but perhaps is it a genuine emotion or is it merely a manifestation of some chemical/biological process?

For example, would I throw myself in front of a truck to save my kids because I love them, or would I do it because they represent my genes best chance at survival and I instinctively protect my genetic investment in them? That instinctive urge to protect my genetic information is "love". Some argue that this instinct is so valuable, it even extends to others who do not possess my genes and represents a side, but irrelevant, benefit. In the way that the fruits of certain trees are tasty to humans. It matters not one fig (pun intended) if we like naturally occuring fruits. That's just an accidental benefit from the tree's perspective. All it cares about is procreating. If we help it, well good for it, but our tastes rarely matter. It's the same with love, we may like and protect people other than our own kin and genetic code, but that's just a happy accident.

In one case, love is an attribute of humans and the world, it is real, has dimension. In the other, feelings are just aesthetics and love is just a label on a process, a label without any inherent meaning other than survival.

Or to put it another way, "love" is a process no more moral than say digestion, necessary for the propigation of the species. But most of us don't get warm and fuzzy over digestion. Most do over love.

Now most atheists I know don't even believe this. While they may think love is biological in origin, they believe it to be in some way transcendant, but in my opinion that's certainly no sillier than believing in God.