Defining Love

Jay Oord Thomas

Description

Some scientific studies suggest that human beings are innately selfish and that Christian virtues like self-sacrifice are a delusion. In this intriguing volume, esteemed theologian Thomas Jay Oord interprets the scientific research and responds from a theological and philosophical standpoint, providing a state-of-the-art overview of love and altruism studies. He offers a definition of love that is scientifically, theologically, and philosophically adequate. As Oord helps readers arrive at a clearer understanding of the definition, recipients, and forms of love, he mounts a case for Christian agape and ultimately for a loving God.

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie
• Christian theology
• Philosophy of religion

Informations

• Publié par: Baker Publishing Group
• Date de parution: 01 juin 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781441212344
• Langue: English

Extrait

Defining LOVE
A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement
THOMAS JAY OORD
2010 by Thomas Jay Oord
Published by Brazos Press a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.brazospress.com
E-book edition created 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-for example, electronic, photocopy, recording-without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.
ISBN ***_*_*****_***_*
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
In Memory of My Father Eugene H. Oord
Contents
Acknowledgments
Preface
1. Love and the Science-and-Theology Symbiosis
2. Love s Diverse Forms and Multiple Recipients
3. Love and the Social Sciences
4. Love and the Biological Sciences
5. Love and Cosmology
6. A Theology of Love Informed by the Sciences
Acknowledgments
Many people encouraged and invested in this project. Here are some who deserve special words of appreciation and acknowledgment.
I thank Stephen Post and the Institute for Research on Unlimited Love for helping with many aspects of this book. Post not only offered encouragement throughout the process but also kindly provided funding for some parts of the writing and research. Stephen and I codirected an Altruism Course Competition, and that experience solidified in me the need for this book. The Flame of Love project that Stephen codirected with Margaret Poloma also deserves my thanks for its inspiration. Stephen has been a supportive friend in many ways, and I extend my deepest appreciation to him.
I thank the John Templeton Foundation for its financial and ideological encouragement. The foundation generously provided funding for research during my sabbatical period. I especially thank Paul Wason and Drew Rick-Miller. I am grateful to the late Sir John Templeton for his belief that studying love from a variety of perspectives is among the most important endeavors of humanity.
My home institution, Northwest Nazarene University, supported me throughout the writing of this book, including providing sabbatical support for some of the research. I thank my friends, colleagues, and assistants at NNU for their support, including Jay Akkerman, David Alexander, Donna Allen, Joe Bankard, Ben Boeckel, Wendell Bowes, Sharon Bull, Randy Bynum, Rhonda Carrim, Randy Craker, Ed Crawford, Samuel Dunn, Shemia Fagan, Fred Fullerton, Mark Gismondi, Darrin Grinder, Richard Hagood, Dana Hicks, Jeremy Hugus, Jill Jones, Mike Kipp, Diane Leclerc, George Lyons, Brian Mackey, Mark Maddix, April McNeice, Steve Mountjoy, Ralph Neil, Malloree Norris, Brent Peterson, Ron Ponsford, Mark Pitts, Jim Rotz, Astin Salisbury, Gene Schandorff, Andrew Schwartz, LeAnn Stensgaard, Julie and Michael Straight, Libby Tedder, Dick Thompson, Kevin Timpe, Tiffany Triplett, Katie Voelker, Gary Waller, and Seth Waltemyer. I thank the undergraduate students in my classes on theology and love, as well as the graduate students who read parts of the manuscript and made suggestions. I also express my appreciation to the Wesley Center for Applied Theology at NNU.
In addition to the people and institutions noted above, many others have helped through face-to-face discussion, by email exchanges, over the phone, and at conferences. Although, unfortunately, I am likely to forget someone who should be mentioned, here are those from whose contributions I have benefited: Wolfgang Achtner, Amy Ai, Paul Allen, Kathy Armistead, Karen Baker-Fletcher, Ian Barbour, Dave Basinger, Dean Blevins, Craig Boyd, Greg Boyd, John Brasch, Dennis Bratcher, John Brooke, Donna Bowman, Warren Brown, Don Browning, Patricia Bruininks, Barry Callen, John Caputo, Anna Case-Winters, Philip Clayton, John Cobb, Rick Colling, Francis Collins, Robin Collins, C. S. Cowles, Tim Crutcher, John Culp, Scott Daniels, Paul Davies, Hans Deventer, Mark Dibben, Celia Deane Drummond, Ray Dunning, Denis Edwards, George Ellis, Stephen C. Evans, Julie Exline, Roland Faber, Darrel Falk, Andy Flescher, Rebecca Flietstra, Steve Franklin, Todd Frye, Tripp Fuller, Karl Giberson, Bill Greathouse, Yudit Greenberg, Niels Gregersen, David Griffin, Christy Gunter-Leppert, Doug Hardy, Bill Hasker, Jack Haught, Andrea Hollingsworth, Curtis Holtzen, Nancy Howell, Tyron Inbody, Tim Jackson, Max Johnson, Kurian Kachappilly, Catherine Keller, Thomas Kelley, Shelley Dean Kilpatrick, Jeff Koperski, David Larson, Matthew Lee, Michael Lodahl, Randy Maddox, Mark Mann, Robert Mann, Bradford McCall, Steve McCormick, Mike McCullough, Jay McDaniel, Dan Messier, Jim Miller, Ken Miller, J rgen Moltmann, Brint Montgomery, Simon Conway Morris, Craig Morton, Nancey Murphy, Sam Oliner, Alan Padgett, Tom Phillips, Margaret Poloma, Clark Pinnock, John Polkinghorne, Stephen Pope, Stephen Post, Sam Powell, John Quiring, Kevin Reimer, Alan Rhoda, Rick Rice, Holmes Rolston, John Sanders, Jeff Schloss, Bill Shea, LeRon Shults, Jamie Smith, Chris Southgate, Atle Sovik, Rob Staples, Ross Stein, Paul Steinhardt, Robert Sternberg, Bryan Stone, Brad Strawn, Brent Strawn, Marjorie Suchocki, Rob Thompson, Don Thorsen, Alan Tjeltveit, Lynn Underwood, Ed Vacek, Wentzel Van Huysteen, James Van Slyke, Howard Van Till, Don Viney, Zhihe Wang, Keith Ward, Wes Wildman, David Wilkinson, John Wilson, Karen Winslow, David Woodruff, Dan Worthen, Ev Worthington, Ron Wright, Don Yerxa, Amos Yong, and Dean Zimmerman.
I thank Brazos Press and its staff for their help, especially Rodney Clapp, Jeremy Wells, Rachel Klompmaker, and Jeffery Wittung. Jeff was involved in a car accident just after completing significant editorial work on this book. His death is tragic. I mourn his loss and pray for his family as they struggle with his absence.
Finally, it would be a major oversight were I to omit thanking family members who profoundly shape my views of love. I thank my siblings, John and Carol; my parents-in-law, Ruth and John; my mother, Louise; my children, Andee, Lexi, and Sydnee; and my wife, Cheryl. This book is dedicated to my father, Gene, who passed on to glory during the writing process. I strive to love with the motivational simplicity exhibited by my father. He was a good man.
Preface
Portions of this book, in different form, have appeared previously in a number of venues. The author is grateful for permission to adapt material for parts of this book from the following:
Chapter 1: The Love Racket: Defining Love and Agape for the Love-and-Science Research Program, Zygon 40, no. 4 (2005): 919-38; reproduced in The Altruism Reader: Selections from Writings on Love, Religion, and Science , ed. Thomas Jay Oord (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008), 10-30.
Chapter 3: Social Science Contributions to the Love-and-Science Symbiosis, in Applied Process Thought I: Initial Explorations in Theory and Research , ed. Mark Dibben and Thomas Kelly (Frankfurt: Ontos-Verlag, 2008), 315-28.
Chapter 5: An Open Doctrine of Creation Ex Amore, in Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Eugene, OR: Pickstock Press, 2009), 28-52.
Chapter 6: A Relational God and Unlimited Love, in Visions of Agap : Problems and Possibilities in Human and Divine Love , ed. Craig Boyd (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 135-48.
1 Love and the Science-and- Theology Symbiosis
The Love Racket
In 1974, the National Science Foundation awarded Ellen Berscheid and a colleague eighty-four thousand dollars to better answer the question What is love? Berscheid convinced the foundation to award the grant by arguing, We already understand the mating habits of the stickleback fish. It is time to turn to a new species. The species she had in mind was human.
Berscheid s research might have gone unnoticed if not for the response of Wisconsin senator William Proxmire. I m strongly against this, exclaimed Proxmire, not only because no one-not even the National Science Foundation-can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I am sure that even if they spend eighty-four million or eighty-four billion they wouldn t get an answer that anyone would believe. I m also against it because I don t want to know the answer! Apparently, ignorance really is bliss.
Proxmire presented Berscheid the first of his Golden Fleece awards. He considered the study of love a supreme example of wasteful government spending. Better to spend money on national defense or other such big-ticket matters. Proxmire s advice to those who funded the grant was simple: National Science Foundation, get out of the love racket!
A few came to Berscheid s defense. New York Times writer James Reston replied that funding grants to study love would be the best investment of federal money since Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. 1 Apparently, Reston s retort fell on deaf ears. Financial resources for the studies of love like the one Berscheid envisioned remained meager. Few scholars would assume the label love researcher after the incident.
The idea that scientists ought to study love-not so much love in its romantic sense, but love in its deepest, ultimate sense- found a strong twentieth-century voice in Pitirim A. Sorokin. In addition to his contributions to love research, Sorokin is considered by many the father of modern sociology. He initially came to his convictions about the importance of studying love when jailed as a Russian political prisoner early in the century. After escaping prison, Sorokin immigrated to the United States and eventually accepted a professorship at Harvard University. In 1949, Sorokin founded the Harvard Research Cente