Deism and Love

I know that many theists believe that God is the source of all love and that through love humans can know God.

However most deists tend to believe in either an impersonal or transpersonal god. As deists, what do you think is the source, meaning, and importance of love?

In my view, G*D is the source of everything, including Love and Hate. Our job is to discriminate and choose between them. I don't think we can truly love a non-dual, non-physical abstraction, except in the sense of loving what's good, and loving G*D's creatures. As to whether G*D loves us, again a non-physical deity couldn't very well experience the emotion we call Love, except in the sense that a transpersonal deity presumably could indwell each person and vicariously experience what that individual feels.

Regarding the meaning and importance of Love, it's just another aspect of Good and Positive. The most basic task of a freewill agent is to eschew Evil, and seek Good. No rational person could argue that hate is preferable to love, but emotionally unbalanced people choose hate as a short-term solution to what they mistakenly perceive as a long-term good. Nothing new here; all religions and philosophies preach the same easy black & white, good & evil, love & hate dichotomy. The problem we wrestle with with in this dualistic world is that Good & Evil are often intermingled into shades of gray. I suppose that's just intended to add a degree of difficulty to the game of Life.

Love is an illusion, a phantom caused by hormones, and chemical interaction.

What's more, Love is not the antithesis of Hate - Indifference is.

Uriah wrote:

Love is an illusion, a phantom caused by hormones, and chemical interaction.

I disagree. Hormones and chemical interactions are just the physical correlates to the subjective experience that we call love. Just because something can be reduced to physical phenomena doesn't make it an illusion IMO.

Hmm, I wast just typing up a rebuttal to you when I realized that I think you're right.

It's the mind body problem in another guise.

If we accept the existence of consciousness as something more than the sum of its physical parts, than we must also accept that all emotions have a more-than-physical (dare I say it, metaphysical) correlate, perhaps origin.

That's given me much to think about - thanks Aaron!

Uriah wrote:

If we accept the existence of consciousness as something more than the sum of its physical parts, than we must also accept that all emotions have a more-than-physical (dare I say it, metaphysical) correlate...

Yes I would call it a phenomenological correlate.

Uriah wrote:

That's given me much to think about - thanks Aaron!

No problem! Every once in a while I get lucky.

Hi folks, I am new. I have had exposure to Kabbalisitic teachings. One thought from that is that all is of God, but that that which we call God sought to encourage the growth of co-partners in the universes. To do that, the Divine had to constrict aspects of the Divine to allow the growth of the "other", but that Other never fully leaves the divine. The result is duality. Love/hate are moderated by the Kabbalistic ideas of the Pillar of Mercy and the Pillar of Severity. The subsequest Middle pillar is one of compassion. This is similar to the Buddhist idea of the middle path. Just another thought.

It also sounds very Taoist.

Welcome to the forum Greg.

Welcome.

Re: However most deists tend to believe in either an impersonal or transpersonal god.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that Thomas Paine and other "Classical" Deist believe in a "personal" God.

As for me, the jury is still out. Can any of us say with certainty what God truly is?

DRichards wrote:

Re: However most deists tend to believe in either an impersonal or transpersonal god.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that Thomas Paine and other "Classical" Deist believe in a "personal" God.

As for me, the jury is still out. Can any of us say with certainty what God truly is?

Nope, I don't think so.