Talk:Argument from love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep, nomination withdrawn.

Contents

[edit] This is NPOV as point 3 is not "relatively un-controversial"

How can point 3 be stated as uncontroversial? i.e. "According to Classical Theism in general, and Christianity in particular[1], love is a quality of God and therefore exists in a way which transcends its material manifestations." and then use that claim with the claim that love exists to then propose that God exists. This is NPOV nonsense. Ttiotsw 08:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw. The claim is not that Classical Theism is uncontroversial but that it is uncontroversial that Classical Theism asserts ... I've changed to make this clearer NBeale 12:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I guess its OK - Obviously predicated on what compelling reasons there are to consider love to exist in a way which transcends its material manifestations. This obviously is at odds with point 2 ! Is this a class of teleological argument as well then as with Argument from beauty ?. We also await your reply on the "tough" love that god offers to the Hittite peoples in Deuteronomy:20:17 (read with verse 16 and 18). Ttiotsw 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This page also reeks of WP:OR throughout. I see no evidence of anything called the "Argument from love" which merits an encyclopaedia entry. All I see is one person indulging in some philosophical musing and trying to justify a particular stance on the (super)natural world. I will nominate for deletion as original research unless some evidence can be produced that the "Argument from love" is a concept that has occurred in the literature, or is a phrase widely used as a justification for belief in a god. If the article started with (e.g.) "the Argument from love is a concept that has been widely used in discussions on XXX by several philosophers, including YYY and ZZZ...", I could be convinced. But it jumps straight into a heap of original analysis, then mentions a couple of people who may or may not (no evidence is produced) have used the phrase. It is not sufficient to show that others have used something which equates (in your estimation) to an argument from love; you must show that the phrase itself ("argument from love") has some currency, if it is to merit an article of its own. Compare the discussion on Argument from beauty. This is blog-material, not wikipedia material. Snalwibma 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this in the v busy run-up to and sequel from Christmas. I think in fact we need to show that the argument has been used in notable published sources. The whole of Ch 3 of Tom Wright's book cited is about this but there is lots of other material. Will get back but may take a week just off to the US on Monday. Sorry NBeale 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False dichotomy

I think this article is well written, and since I am myself a materialist, I would simply argue that love does not transcend its material causes in the lines of the neurological basis of emotions rather than evolutionary arguments, but that is not my concern. This argument is indeed valid as establishing "theism over materialism", but as an argument for the existence of God, it can be criticized as being a false dilemma: atheism and idealism are not contradictory, and neither is theism and materialism:

I don't know where to put this criticism right now, so dumping it on the talk page seemed to make sense :) --Merzul 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merzul. I agree that it is not an argument for theism vs idealism (hence the lead-in) and I was thinking of making this clearer. Of course all arguments for A are (implictly or explicitly) for A vs some finite set of alternatives. On a related point I've adjusted your science objection to: "scientific theories of love might explain the neurological basis of deep emotions in such a way as to make their reduction to materialism more plausible" 'cos (a) at present the theories are a long way from providing an explanation and (b) illuminating the material mechanisms involved in the emotion of love does not necessarily have anything to do with whether or not love exists in a way that transcends its material manifestations. NBeale 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
PS Although I havent read the book you mention from looking at it on Amazon it's pretty clear that these authors are not materialists but "nonreductive physicalists" which is something very different, pretty much the same as "dual-aspect monism" (though I'm sure you characterised it in good faith, they might look very similar to a materialist, but to a theist they are completely different). To say "X transcends it material manifestations" does not commit you to dualism. NBeale 06:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The section you wrote looks good. --Merzul 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a violation of NPOV. This is not a medium for Nbeale to express his own views, which is exactly what that edit does. Your claims A and B are not only disputed, but are just your personal views. Right now this and the beauty article are slanted in favor of the arguments, and are severely lacking in criticism, instead they have these watered down versions. Also, what's with putting John P. everywhere? You may love him, but he's not exactly noteworthy enough to be inserted willy nilly into so many articles, especially when they're missing basic arguments posed from both sides form much more well known philosophers. Nathan J. Yoder 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still a POV blog

I nominated this for deletion two months ago, on the grounds that it is original research, more like a blog item than an encyclopaedia entry, and written in order to persuade (POV-pushing), rather than to explain and describe. Seems to me that my arguments still hold true. I'm growing softer in my old age, so I'm not (yet) going to submit another AfD, but the article really does need working on. I want to know - who came up with this nonsense way of arguing for the existence of a god, when, where, how? Which other writers have used the argument? How has it been received? Some of this is there (sort of), hidden somewhere in the fotnotes - but it really needs a careful exposition. Please enlighten me! Snalwibma 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be original research in its current state. I googled the argument from love and haven't come across a single form that matches this one. Plus, it has an obvious POV slant, which includes only citing "pro-" sources.

The form I've seen on the internet is basically predicated on the controversial premise that God is love and that love exists, therefore God exists. I can't find one that mentions materialism. Furthermore, this form and the "suggestions" supporting it seem to all be original research created by Nbeale and given his edits on other articles, I don't trust his interpretation of sources, even ones which are explicitly arguing the "pro-" stance.

3 is definitely controversial, considering theists don't necessarily consider love to transcend physical reality, nor do they necessarily consider God to literally be love. I don't see a need for mentioning Christianity in there either. Many religions consider their God to be a manifestation of love.

Plus, #3, even if it were part of the proper form of the argument, would just be question begging. Obviously, if you assume that theism is true, then, by definition, God exists. It negates the need for the rest of the argument (1,2 & 4).

-Njyoder 72.75.49.245 09:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Noncompliant tag

As mentioned above (under "original research", December 2006, and "still a POV blog", February 2007), and as supported by others, I believe that this article falls seriously short of the required standards in terms of WP:OR, WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. It is presented as original analysis, with a few "sources" mentioned in footnotes, the function of which seems to be to lend support to the author's personal views. If there really is something called the "argument from love", then the existence of that subject out there in the big wide world (as opposed to in what looks like the blogosphere of the article's principal author) needs to be clearly established. The article really needs to start with a reference to where and by whom the argument as presented has been used. I cannot find any such thing "out there", and I strongly suspect that what is presented is in fact original research by the author of this article. I am not qualified to do the work on it - but I would be very interested to see the article developed properly. If its current state is as good as it gets, then I'm afraid it becomes a candidate for deletion. Can anyone either (a) confirm me in my suspicions that there is in fact (in the terms of WP as a tertiary source) no such thing as the "argument from love", in which case we move to deletion, or (b) find and describe the sources for the argument as presented, and present the "argument from love" as WP should? Thanks! Snalwibma 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

At the very least, I think this should be merged into argument from consciousness, which is currently a stub. There is no way these articles will be sufficiently expanded on their own. (If they do, we can move them back). Love is just one aspect of human consciousness, the and the general idea is the same. Since we can do subsection redirects I don't see why this can't be treated as a part of consciousness. --Merzul 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what really bothers me about this article? The fact that it is not trying to be an encyclopedia article explaining the argument and actually discussing the sources. This article only tries to say "I'm a notable argument, look how many sources are devoted to me, please don't let those evil atheist delete me!" And this is precisely why evil atheists like myself want to delete it ;) --Merzul 21:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed... My attitude is nothing to do with my status or otherwise as an Evil A****** - in fact I came here wanting to learn something - but I didn't, and I have been saying ever since then that the article fails to do anything other than assert "here's an argument which I think is pretty impressive ... oh, and by the way, here are a few people who, in my opinion, have used something like it in their writings." Nothing but musings from the author's blogosphere. Argument from beauty, from the same source, is much better - this one has just languished, unloved. I suspect that's because the "argument from love" is in fact a non-existent entity. AfD, I reckon. Snalwibma 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it time for an AfD?

Glad to see some work being done on this page, at last, NBeale. Do you now plan to make it more encyclopedic? Or will it continue as it is, only larger? I am struggling to see what the paragraph about Scruton adds - "A variant on the argument is to compare faith in God with loving someone and to suggest that if it is reasonable to love someone then it is reasonable to believe in God." Beg your pardon? What does that mean? How does it show anything, or add anything useful to the article? I suspect, you see, that the real reason you have added Scruton is because it presents you with another opportunity to stuff more anti-Dawkins references into Wikipedia! Can you show me how this addition helps the article along, and helps me to understand the concept of the "argument from love"? When I read this article, all I see is a series of non-sequiturs and self-referential arguments. I feel completely at sea, because I can make no sense of it at all, and I cannot find anything "out there" which connects in any way with it, and which I could turn to myself in an attempt to improve the article. Not being an expert on the subject (I am a biologist, not a philosopher), I am simply stuck. Please can you (or someone - but not me, I simply cannot) try and write an encyclopedia article which explains the concepts? Otherwise, it's for the chop. Snalwibma 08:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma - I've been really busy IRL and a bit busy on WP as well! There are essentially three types of argument for the existence of God:
  1. Given these premises, the existence of God logically follows. Of course, as with any argument, one can always dispute the premises.
  2. It is is agreed that fact X about the world is either Certainly True or very probably True, then, since it is more likely under worldview A than worldview B, it tends to confirm A as against B.
  3. Given that almost everything that people reasonably believe does not have Conclusive Scientific Proof, and given that it is reasonable for people to believe A, it is reasonable for people to believe in God because the strength of arguments for A are comparable to those for belief in God.

This third type was key to re-igniting the philosophical debate about the existence of God in western academia by Alvin Plantinga in God and other minds and it is the third type of argument that Scruton makes. NBeale 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you appreciate that I really am trying to help. I am genuinely lost, however. I think if you can write an article that makes sense to me, then you will have succeeded! Funnily enough, it is just at the very end of your comment there - in those last few lines, "This third type was key to re-igniting the philosophical debate ..." - that I begin to get a glimpse of something that makes sense. I think this is the sort of thing that an encyclopedia article should contain. Idea X is important because it was proposed by philosopher Y and greatly influenced Z. The academic debate and its reignition needs a place alongside (perhaps even ahead of) the detailed analysis of the argument itself. Without this context, without explaining where it came from, who used it, etc, it looks (as I have been saying all along) like no more than your own personal musings. I remain stumped by my almost total inability to find anything actually called the "argument from love" out there in the real world. I therefore remain suspicious that the whole structure exists only inside your own head (WP:OR, or what?). Please persuade me otherwise, within the article. Snalwibma 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is it even valid?

NBeale, you really need to follow the formal presentation of one of the proponents of the argument. You are formulating an abductive argument in a logical form claiming that it is formally valid, but I think your formulation has some problems. To simplify, consider the following argument:

  1. Materialism does not predict transcendental love.
  2. Theism does predict transcendental love.
  3. Transcendental love seems to exist.
  4. Theism is more plausible, in this regard, than materialism.

But I could of course overload this argument with my theory of love-unicorns:

  1. Materialism does not predict transcendental love.
  2. The theory of love-unicorns predicts transcendental love.
  3. Transcendental love does seem to exist.
  4. The theory of love-unicorns is more plausible, in this regard, than materialism.

The key point is the phrase "in this regard". What does it mean to have probability with respect to a certain phenomena? My interpretation was that it is some form of conditional probability, but then the argument is not valid. While my theory of love-unicorns does gain some confirmation by this excellent argument, I would still say materialism is more plausible than these love-creatures, and adding in this regard doesn't help them to be more real! The intended meaning of "in this regard" is probably something like "everything else being equal", but that's a very serious assumption. For the argument to be valid, you would have to add

Assume materialism and theism are otherwise equally probable.

Then your argument is at least valid, but this is a controversial premise of course. --Merzul 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture...

I thought the pop culture section was not being serious. I have now searched in Swinburne's writings for any form of argument from love and have not been able to find any. (I have the 1991 edition of the book sited.) Now, google book search came up with something of really high quality:

The argument from Love. Love is the greatest of miracles. How could an evolved ape create the noble idea of self-giving love? Human love is the result of our being made to resemble God (Gen 1:26-27; James 3:9), who himself is love (1 Jn 4:8). If we are made in the image of King Kong rather than in the image of King God, where do the saints come from?

Peter Kreeft. Your Questions, God's Answers, p. 105. ISBN 089870488X.  Could we include this? It is too brilliant to merely lie on a talk page. It's much more convincing than NBeale's formalisations, I mean, where do the saints come from? Does he need to say more? Absolutely brilliant. --Merzul 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/g/Talk%7EArgument_from_love_87ec.html"