Had to pass this one on, couldn't resist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Just goes to show how religions seem largely seem to meet emotional or instinctual impulses. I could never figure out why unconditional love is something worth having - if the love isn’t discerning it seems not worth very much and would make me feel pretty worthless to be the object of another’s unconditional love. But then again the concept of love is hard to define - it means different things to different people.

I am not sure I can experience a supernatural - any subjective experience seems to exhibit natural outputs. I can conceptualise a supernatural.

[floo]

Just goes to show how religions seem largely seem to meet emotional or instinctual impulses. I could never figure out why unconditional love is something worth having - if the love isn’t discerning it seems not worth very much and would make me feel pretty worthless to be the object of another’s unconditional love. But then again the concept of love is hard to define - it means different things to different people.

I am not sure I can experience a supernatural - any subjective experience seems to exhibit natural outputs. I can conceptualise a supernatural.

To me love is liking someone a lot, I could never love anyone unconditionally.

[Rhiannon]

To me love is liking someone a lot, I could never love anyone unconditionally.

Not even your kids and grandkids?

[Aruntraveller]

To me love is liking someone a lot,

I like my work colleague a lot - in fact several of them. I am not in love with them. As a description of love that sounds terribly mundane.

I think this is more like it!

This time we go sublime
 Lovers entwine-divine divine
 Love is danger, love is pleasure
 Love is pure-the only treasure

 I'm so in love with you
 Purge the soul
 Make love your goal

 The power of love
 A force from above
 Cleaning my soul
 The power of love
 A force from above
 A sky-scraping dove

 Flame on burn desire
 Love with tongues of fire
 Purge the soul
 Make love your goal

Maybe it's just me??

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not even your kids and grandkids?

I openly acknowledge an instinct to sacrifice my life for my kids without hesitation and to kill someone who would hurt them  - it’s not reasoned. But I hope if my kids or grandkids were real toe rags - if they had really hurt or killed an innocent person or were planning to and I had no way of stopping them except for them to be killed, I’d just walk away and leave them to their fate - i’m Guessing that doesn’t fall within the definition of unconditional love?

ETA- the question is would I kill my children or grandchildren myself if I had to in order to protect innocent people from harm.

Is there a concept of a higher duty orcresponsibility to something other than those whom you love?

[floo]

Not even your kids and grandkids?

No.

[Rhiannon]

I openly acknowledge an instinct to sacrifice my life for my kids without hesitation and to kill someone who would hurt them  - it’s not reasoned. But I hope if my kids or grandkids were real toe rags - if they had really hurt or killed an innocent person or were planning to and I had no way of stopping them except for them to be killed, I’d just walk away and leave them to their fate - i’m Guessing that doesn’t fall within the definition of unconditional love?

ETA- the question is would I kill my children or grandchildren myself if I had to in order to protect innocent people from harm.

Is there a concept of a higher duty orcresponsibility to something other than those whom you love?

If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though.

I don't know if there is a 'higher duty' - can't see myself killing anyone except in the moment to end an immediate threat. I think I would do all that I could to prevent them from causing harm, including alerting the authorities who may then shoot to kill. I'm not someone who finds the concept of killing easy though.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

No.

If that is the case, then please do not try to lecture the rest of us anymore about how to bring up our families.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though.

I don't know if there is a 'higher duty' - can't see myself killing anyone except in the moment to end an immediate threat. I think I would do all that I could to prevent them from causing harm, including alerting the authorities who may then shoot to kill. I'm not someone who finds the concept of killing easy though.

Yes it would have to be an immediate threat and no other option in any scenario to kill.

But I was part of the British Army while at university and while we had to be prepared to die and kill, not sure the situations we might have faced once fully trained would be as innocents caught up in a situation where we faced an immediate threat. So clearly we were people who weren’t totally averse to killing or dying though we assumed we’d just get a military qualification that looked good on our CVs and would get paid for training and go on our merry way.

ETA: I am not sure what my emotions would be if my kids did something really despicable or how I would identify a feeling of love out of the many emotions - I would feel grief and sadness that the person I thought I knew was a figment of my imagination- it would be like a death. I don’t know if that feeling could be labelled “love”.

[Rhiannon]

Yes it would have to be an immediate threat and no other option in any scenario to kill.

But I was part of the British Army while at university and while we had to be prepared to die and kill, not sure the situations we might have faced once fully trained would be as innocents caught up in a situation where we faced an immediate threat. So clearly we were people who weren’t totally averse to killing or dying though we assumed we’d just get a military qualification that looked good on our CVs and would get paid for training and go on our merry way.

ETA: I am not sure what my emotions would be if my kids did something really despicable or how I would identify a feeling of love out of the many emotions - I would feel grief and sadness that the person I thought I knew was a figment of my imagination- it would be like a death. I don’t know if that feeling could be labelled “love”.

I get what you are saying - I think the sense of loss would be that the person I knew had effectively died - and of course all the loss for things that can never be in the future. IME it is possible for someone to change out of all recognition. Maybe what I would hang onto in the case of children/grandchildren would be the love that I had for them before the change, but maybe I would always see the boy/girl that they were and love them accordingly. Who knows?

[Robbie]

To me love is liking someone a lot, I could never love anyone unconditionally.

Our babies are loved unconditionally, though, surely, babies really need that; we love our children unconditionally when they're older too (even if there are times when they aren't especially likeable ). 

I see that Rhiannon and Gabriella have said many sensible things about parental love.

[Rhiannon]

I've always thought that babies are love sponges.

[Rhiannon]

Just goes to show how religions seem largely seem to meet emotional or instinctual impulses. I could never figure out why unconditional love is something worth having - if the love isn’t discerning it seems not worth very much and would make me feel pretty worthless to be the object of another’s unconditional love. But then again the concept of love is hard to define - it means different things to different people.

I think that with parental love the 'unconditional' part means loving a child simply for existing - a baby doesn't have a defined personality that is loveable but they need to be loved and accepted in order to form secure attachments. That's possibly the difference between parental love and other kinds and why unconditional parental love is so important - that love (or absence of it) in the earliest days sets up patterns of behaviour and self worth for life.

[Robbie]

I've always thought that babies are love sponges.

That is a lovely, totally appropriate description (made me come over all 'mumsy').

My parents always loved me and sis unconditionally, it was something we instinctively knew we could depend on; we weren't bad kids at all but there were times we were stroppy. We're the same with our children.

[Harrowby Hall]

Surely, loving a baby or a child unconditionally is the most effective way that that baby/child can survive and reach responsible adulthood. It is something that we are programmed to do - it is in the best interests of the species.

[Rhiannon]

Surely, loving a baby or a child unconditionally is the most effective way that that baby/child can survive and reach responsible adulthood. It is something that we are programmed to do - it is in the best interests of the species.

And I wonder if this is where the idea that the Christian God loves unconditionally comes from. I don’t think the unconditional love of god gets mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but liking God to a parent is - famously, Jesus uses the term ‘Abba’ - an affectionate term like ‘dad’. As we tend to make God in our image, so Christians who run with the idea of a loving God (rather than a jealous one) make God the Father’s love unconditional, as any parent’s isvudealky.

[floo]

If that is the case, then please do not try to lecture the rest of us anymore about how to bring up our families.

When have I lectured anyone? I state my point of view as does everyone else on this forum, like yourself!

[ekim]

And I wonder if this is where the idea that the Christian God loves unconditionally comes from. I don’t think the unconditional love of god gets mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but liking God to a parent is - famously, Jesus uses the term ‘Abba’ - an affectionate term like ‘dad’. As we tend to make God in our image, so Christians who run with the idea of a loving God (rather than a jealous one) make God the Father’s love unconditional, as any parent’s isvudealky.

It might come from Matt 5, part of which could be paraphrased like this: "Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine.   Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you."  I suspect that it means that 'love' in this case is a state of being which radiates indiscriminately but the self centred mind will tend to put limitations upon it e.g. family, friends, nation etc. which can result in discrimination and even hatred.

[ippy]

If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though.

I don't know if there is a 'higher duty' - can't see myself killing anyone except in the moment to end an immediate threat. I think I would do all that I could to prevent them from causing harm, including alerting the authorities who may then shoot to kill. I'm not someone who finds the concept of killing easy though.

We my wife and I have have two sons, not our own natural children and all of your posts on this thread coincide to the letter to how we feel about our two boys, it does make me wonder sometimes, why is it our feelings don't exactly conform to the selfish gene formula?

Regards ippy 

[ippy]

Ippy is not known for his ability to participate in philosophical discussions. He usually ducks out of drubbings by pleading the "semantics are a waste of his time" excuse.  He's not exactly a persuasive advert for the "intelligent atheism" spin.

The article in the OP seems to be stating that the theists tested seem to be more influenced by their instinct rather than conscious reasoning. That's not exactly surprising - a faith position about the supernatural is likely to be based on instinct, given there is no method to test for the supernatural to produce a demonstrable reasoned conclusion.

This idea by the way was explored in “The Faith Instinct” a book about the evolution of religious behaviour by Nicholas Wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faith_Instinct

I haven't read it but the idea sounds interesting - I too think religion serves some purpose, but can of course have a negative influence.

Gabriella, I suppose you could see it as a bit limiting if you were to have to address posters with as straight as is possible use of English in response to whomever you chose to address on this forum. (Now there's another few words for you to sort out or rearrange).

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

Surely, loving a baby or a child unconditionally is the most effective way that that baby/child can survive and reach responsible adulthood. It is something that we are programmed to do - it is in the best interests of the species.

A little off topic perhaps...but what do you mean by 'programmed'? It is just a convenient word. Programmed by who, why, how?  How can a tiny DNA strand contain such sophisticated and elaborate 'programs'?

What happens if children are not loved and the entire species dies out?  So many species have died out. Why should we survive?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella, I suppose you could see it as a bit limiting if you were to have to address posters with as straight as is possible use of English in response to whomever you chose to address on this forum. (Now there's another few words for you to sort out or rearrange).

Regards ippy

Sure. In other words your massive ego likes to make pronouncements rather than engage in discussion or you're too thick to engage in discussion. Is that sufficiently rearranged for you?

Kindest of regards
Gabriella

[Stranger]

A little off topic perhaps...but what do you mean by 'programmed'? It is just a convenient word. Programmed by who, why, how?  How can a tiny DNA strand contain such sophisticated and elaborate 'programs'?

The instinct to care for young is hardly unique to humans. Your two questions are answered by a very well established scientific theory but sadly one that you've never been able to understand: evolution by natural selection.

What happens if children are not loved and the entire species dies out?  So many species have died out. Why should we survive?

There is no particular reason why we should not die out - it's not like we've been around a long time (in evolutionary terms) but suddenly losing the instinct to care for our young doesn't seem like a very likely scenario, for rather obvious (to those of us who do understand evolution) reasons.

[ippy]

Sure. In other words your massive ego likes to make pronouncements rather than engage in discussion or you're too thick to engage in discussion. Is that sufficiently rearranged for you?

Kindest of regards
Gabriella

That was a straight enough response to my post Gabriellea, why not stick to the same way of responding all of the time?

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that with parental love the 'unconditional' part means loving a child simply for existing - a baby doesn't have a defined personality that is loveable but they need to be loved and accepted in order to form secure attachments. That's possibly the difference between parental love and other kinds and why unconditional parental love is so important - that love (or absence of it) in the earliest days sets up patterns of behaviour and self worth for life.

I think I understand and agree with your definition of the concept in relation to a baby. How are you defining love in relation to an older child who is an adult or at least at an age of criminal responsibility - in relation to your statement  "If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though."?

What are the feelings you feel about them in that situation that you would label as love? Are you saying that you would feel an intense attachment to them that you could not display because you disliked them and never spoke to them again?