How often does the question of science 'proving' something come up in your discussions with other people? The misconception that science can prove something seems (in my opinion) to lead to a lot of close-minded scientists who are unwilling to consider alternative points of view, which is the first step to successful scientific inquiry.
top of page
Addressing my question, 'How can we know love without knowing hate?' there has been no rebuttle from those defenders of the faith who met my challenge. I'm disappoined with their silence when the outcome of this debate can influence the behaviour of generations to come. I understand their reluctance to engage, but surely that irrational proceedure of theirs can only leave frustration in its path?
I have supplied the answer, since none of my opponents could and yet still there is no acknowledgement. Why aren't they able to see, that their silence is an admittance of their default?
I do however thank them for an engaging debate, but there is the tinge of disappoinment at the lack of rational replies.
@windar12q I'm afraid I'm coming very late to this discussion, so I apologize if I rehash something that was already discussed earlier in this lengthy thread.
As I understand it, the current question is "How can we know love without knowing hate". I would appreciate some definitions of terms ("know", "love", "hate") so I know exactly what we're talking about. For "love" and "hate", are we talking emotions, the intellectual concepts, some type of Platonic form, or something akin to the "God is Love" statement made earlier? Similarly when we talk about "knowing", what is our epistemological framework? Is this a "knowing by experience" (also, what kind of experience?), a purely intellectual "knowing", a scientific "knowing" (i.e., pure materialistic/deterministic, biochemistry-based knowledge), a philosophical knowing (i.e., rational, but not necessarily scientifically provable (something akin to a statement like, "I feel pain at this moment"--certainly could be as true as anything, but not necessarily provable in a scientific sense)), or something else?
My personal view is that the love/hate dichotomy (or spectrum) is analogous to the light/dark or hot/cold spectrum in that they aren't opposite directions on an infinite continuum, but rather that one is ultimately the absence of the other. "Hate", "dark", and "cold", are useful words (they relate to real experiences), but I'm not sure their ontological foundation is completely solid. "Cold" is the absence of heat, and there's a limit to it, i.e., once you reach absolute zero (complete absence of heat), you can't get any colder. Similarly, when there are no photons around, that's as dark as it gets. Analogously, I think "hate" has a similar absolute limit: When there's no love at all, there's no more hate to be had.
To your specific question, I can know love without knowing hate in the same way I know the vacuum of space despite never living there (as short a life as that would be). Obviously, this is not a "knowing by direct experience", but more so a rational knowing (I know the physics of pressure) combined with extrapolation from direct experience. Perhaps a better analogy would be "knowing" the cold of absolute zero despite never being close to that cold. I've been very cold before (and very warm for that matter), and from that experience I could extrapolate to even further cold. But in an absolute sense, how have I been cold? Perhaps it's more accurate to say I was just "less warm". Direct experience with something is not necessarily a prerequisite to knowledge unless your definition of knowledge requires direct experience--hence my interest in defining some terms upfront. So, to say I know love and hate is really to say that I know greater and lesser degrees of love. Perhaps money is also a good analogy: I can say I know being poor and being rich, but I'm really describing the experience of having more or less money. Poor and rich are not necessarily describing opposites so much as they're words describing a relative position on a one-dimensional spectrum.
Honestly, though, I find this question much less interesting than a discussion on the underpinnings of morality itself. I think I saw you comment at one point on morals being strengthened in the absence of a god. Can you comment more on this? What's ontological foundation of morality? How do we discern what is "moral"? (We should also probably define what we mean by "moral" as well.) Have you read or do you have an opinion on Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"?
I'm really curious to know the origin of your obsession with hate. While Christians seek to share the love of God in Christ for the salvation of the world, you seem to only want to discuss the virtues of hate. I am genuinely confused by that.
Hello windar12q! I do not make up things when I want to believe something. Of course I want my God to be real, but I look for information to understand the evidence that He is. Your comments about the Bible not being reliable led me to look for more information about why we believe the Bible as Christians. I found a fascinating book called The Case For Jesus by Brant Pitare. Here are a few of the things I have learned so far (I have not finished the whole book yet):
1. Though scholars commonly say the Gospels were written anonymously, not a single anonymous manuscript has ever been found. All are credited to the same authors we know today. If the titles had been added later, we would have found the same Gospel attributed to multiple authors, which we do not.
2. Writings from some of the earliest church leaders, who knew disciples or disciples of disciples, unanimously agree that the Gospels are valid.
3. The Gospels are written in the style of a 100s A.D. biography (which is different than a modern biography in that it focuses on an individual's public life and not childhood, etc. Some scholars say the Gospels do not have enough biographical details to be reliable, but in their historical context their style is very typical of a factual work.).
I noticed from one of your other comments that you grew up with religion. Without a personal relationship with God all the church rituals are just "going through the motions." It's a very real danger, to worship while forgetting who your are actually worshiping. I've often caught myself distracted in church or wondering what some rituals are for. However, having a personal relationship with God, I get joy from worshiping and praying. God wants us to enjoy Him, and through this joy to have abundant life.
Hello, windar12q!
Imagine this scenario with me:
If I lived in a world with no sin or hate I would have to be able to feel something. If I had no feelings I would no longer be truly human, I would be a robot. Assuming I remain human in a world with no hate, I have to be able to feel love by itself. Because I would only know love I would only know how to do what is right. Knowing how to do wrong is not necessary to know how to do something kind.
However, if the world with no hate was all I had ever known, I would know love (in order to feel and be human) but I would not fully understand its power. I think this is where our difference of ideas lies. You believe it is impossible to know any love without hate, but I believe it is impossible to know the full power of love without hate.
If everything went right all the time in my life I would know in my head that God loved me, but I never would have had to lean on Him and discover how deep His love really is. When I feel like I'm not "good enough" to do what God wants me to do I remember His promise that He made me the way I am for a reason. I can be awkward in conversation so I worried that I wouldn't be good at sharing Jesus with people. I had to trust that my purpose would be revealed. Then I learned in a class several years ago how to write gospel tracts (notes about Jesus that you can leave places) and discovered that I was good at it. This led to a discovery that I can share Jesus through writing in all kinds of different ways, such as this website. This year I am applying to college (and the scholarships that go with it). I was looking through scholarships one day and I realized that if something asked for an essay, I thought of it in terms of how I could share my faith through it (I still haven't applied for very many yet, I should do that soon!).
The reason I shared all this is that it is an example of God showing His loving purpose. If it hadn't been hard for me to find a way to share Jesus, I would have known that sharing my faith was a wonderful thing, but I may have taken the gift for granted.
A side note about not being a robot: Look up Deuteronomy 30:15-20 (my pastor read this to us in church today and it made me think of our conversation). I don't know everything about God's reasons for still allowing hate to exist even though He wants good, but this passage would suggest it might have something to do with God wanting us to consciously choose Him, not follow Him around because we have no other option.
Praying for you
Hello windar12q! I would like to understand your beliefs about emotions more clearly. Can you tell me about specific studies or researchers that support the conclusion that love and hate cannot exist independently? You have often asserted that it is scientific fact so I would like to know what you base this belief on.
One more question: What information about the Bible would it take for you to consider the Bible a valid source? I and others have already presented studies on the consistency of the Bible over time, as well as logical reasons the Bible is likely to be accurate.
There are three religious opponents competing in this debate and two have declared that the emotion of hate is not needed and that the emotion of love can survive in isolation; the third has not contested this, so I have to assume it is collaborated. It is a known scientific fact that negative emotions and positive emotions complement each other - the one could not exist without the other, for example; how would we know love if we didn't know hate?
All types of matter in our universe, down to the smallest atom, animal, vegetable or mineral, liquid or solids and gas - all forms are governed by the laws of physics. It saddens me to see how their indoctrination has affected their judgement. To alter the laws of physics to fit their belief is a journey to nowhere; what they should be doing is the opposite - trying to fit their beliefs into the laws of physics.
If this turn around of what isn't into what is; is brought into the realm of common sense, then I see no point to this debate. I know their answer will be the supernatural does not obey the laws of physics, but the irony of this is they cannot demonstrate the supernatural - nobody can; so please don't bring this forward or you will dig a hole so deep you will just keep digging and that gets a bit tedious. (The Bible is proof of nothing, so please don't quote unless it obeys the laws of physics.)
This debate is lacking with its one sided accusations. On the right hand side we have facts and on the left hand side we have faith. Faith is not a reliable pathway to either the truth or knowledge. Fact is based on demonstrable consistencies and faith on none - demonstrable consistencies. The Bible is hearsay, unless you can provide substantiated proof to back it up. You can't debate properly if one side is just saying that a Book is all the evidence it will provide. This would mean that any book would serve the same purpose; it could be about fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, witches and the Moon being made of cheese. Like the Bible none of these would be demonstrable. Can you imagine taking any of this into a court of law? So who is the first Christian who will take up this challenge and rely on facts, leaving the Bible out of it? These facts have to be demonstrable.
Hello patricknj! As I read the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, some of it started to sound familiar. I went on biblegateway.com (which is a great resource to easily find scripture) and looked up a few of the key words in the UDHR. Here is what I found in just a few minutes:
Matching Article 1:
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. -Galatians 5:13
Matching Article 2:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. - Galatians 3:28-29
Matching Article 24:
9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. - Exodus 20:9-11
Matching Article 26 (especially as it relates to character):
6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. - Deuteronomy 6:6-7
I could match more, but often the Bible has even higher standards:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. - Matthew 5:43-48
The Bible sets extremely high moral standards, so high, in fact, that they are impossible for any human to fully live up to (that's why Jesus is so important). If we all lived like people are as valuable as the Bible says they are we would live in a perfect world.
Hello windar12q.
You have written about the non-religious organizations that do great work and some so-called Christian groups that are doing evil. I looked up information on accusations of witchcraft in Africa and found that it is disturbingly common and is often a way the "church" makes money. This brings me to an important point: what God says is not always what Christians do (including me), and non-Christians may do what God says without realizing it is God who wants them to do it.
This passage of God's Word directly contradicts what some churches in Africa are doing:
22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, - Exodus 22: 22-23
However, consider what God says about reaching out to help a neighbor, like the Red Cross does:
8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. 10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
My point is this: it is important to judge God's Word by what God's Word itself says, not by what people do. All people fall short of what God wants us to do.
What kind of designs in nature do you study?
Hello, windar12q. I obviously don't know everything God is thinking but your last post actually provided an idea. If God's goal is for humanity to know His love, then allowing Satan to introduce hate (and all the problems in the world that go with it) would not have been incompetence but genius. God's love stands out vividly against the evil I see and the troubles I have. It's something I've noticed about my faith: The hardest, most stressful times are when I lean on God the most. These are the times when I crave God's word so much that even if I'm not reading it, I want to hold it. This is exactly what God wants, for me to be close to Him. He has been so faithful to me. I can lean on Him because I know He will never leave me or think less of me when I have trouble.
We know His love would be incredible even with no hate to compare it to, but we would not be able to experience just how far God goes to reach you or I.
If there were no evil in the world Jesus would never have had to give himself up to die. We may have had knowledge that God loved us that much but we never would have seen it happen or tangibly understood what it means to be willing to die for someone (I saw from your other posts that you believe the idea that Jesus had to die is evidence that God is incompetent. Sometimes I think of it this way, and it helps. Our military fights and dies to protect us. Our country's soldiers die to protect our freedom while we are in this life, and Jesus died to free us from sin. I do celebrate Jesus during Veteran's Day).
God does not leave us alone when we face negative emotions. Jesus understands what it's like to feel sad, scared, lonely, or angry because He felt those things just like anyone else in His time on earth. He allows negative emotions to exist for His greater plan of having humans know His love, but He helps us when we face them (which is one way He shows His love).
Praying for you.