No Sacred Cows

by David G. McAfee

  The bottom line is that supernatural beliefs lack hard evidence, and without peer-reviewed data, duplicability, and/or other solid proofs, many skeptics—including myself—simply can’t and won’t take that leap of faith to accept them as true. For us, strong feelings, anecdotal accounts, third-person testimonies, emotional reactions, poorly edited websites and “documentaries,” and scripture do not qualify as compelling evidence for the supernatural. We need more than that.

  WHAT IS LOVE?

  In the process of defending beliefs that—like the idea of the supernatural in general—lack sufficient support, some believers go as far as to insist that the notion of love itself isn’t backed by empirical evidence and therefore shouldn’t be “believed” by me or any other scientific skeptic. This is a common argument against an evidence-based worldview, but it relies on the premise that love is some mystical force that you just have to believe in. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The emotion we call love is just a feeling—one of deep affection—and it is well studied and completely supported by scientific research.

  We are learning more about love and other emotions, including how and why they are formed, all the time. Donatella Marazziti, professor of psychiatry and director of the laboratory of psychopharmacology at the University of Pisa, showed in 1999 that early stages of romance are linked with reduced levels of the serotonin (5-HT) transporter. Marazziti and her team noted that people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) exhibit a similar chemical imbalance.5 British neurobiologist Semir Zeki of University College London and his colleagues further outlined chemical differences in those experiencing romantic love,67 and a 2012 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine pinpointed the origins of love and desire in the brain.8 Those researchers discovered that two specific brain structures, the insula and the striatum (a part of the basal ganglia in the limbic system), are responsible for the progression from sexual desire to deeper love. The authors of the study further concluded that love “builds upon a neural circuit for emotions and pleasure, adding regions associated with reward expectancy, habit formation, and feature detection.”

  In particular, the shared activation within the insula, with a posterior-to-anterior pattern, from desire to love, suggests that love grows out of and is a more abstract representation of the pleasant sensorimotor experiences that characterize desire. From these results, one may consider desire and love on a spectrum that evolves from integrative representations of affective visceral sensations to an ultimate representation of feelings incorporating mechanisms of reward expectancy and habit learning.

  We don’t know everything about love, but it’s a relatively popular field of study, so we do know a lot. We do know emotions, including love, are the result of brain chemistry, for instance. And we know breakthroughs in the study of feelings aren’t uncommon. In 2013, Karim Kassam of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh used brain scans to photograph emotions for the first time,9 and, a year later, a Cornell University study further showed how our brains process feelings in general.10 Scientists have also measured differences in brain activity when in love, not in love, and heartbroken. In one such study, researchers found that romantic love-related brain functional topological changes included increased regional homogeneity (ReHo) of the left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and increased functional connectivity (FC) “within the reward, motivation, and emotion regulation network, as well as the social cognition network.”11 They also discovered decreased ReHo of the bilateral caudate nucleus related to the ending of a romantic relationship.

  “This study provides the first empirical evidence of love-related alterations in the underlying functional architecture of the brain. Findings are in agreement with results from task-dependent fMRI studies, and complement well the functional findings of task-dependent fMRI studies,” the authors of the paper wrote. “These results shed light on the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms of romantic love by investigating intrinsic brain activity, and demonstrate the possibility of applying a resting state approach for investigating romantic love.”

  Psychologist Abigail Marsh of Georgetown University says love feels good because of “feel-good hormones” such as dopamine and oxytocin that are involved.

  “The hormone that is most specific to feeling in love, that is most specific to the social response, is oxytocin and a closely related neuropeptide called vasopressin,” Marsh said in a video produced by the American Chemical Society. “Nature really wants love to feel good. Nature’s imperative is that we reproduce and love is one of the mechanisms nature has put in place to make sure we do that.”

  So, contrary to popular belief, love does not come from the heart—a muscle responsible for pumping blood throughout the body. Like all emotions, thoughts, and desires, love comes from the brain. And, using medical scans, we can actually measure which parts of the brain react when we experience the chemical connection we know as love. It is for that reason that I sometimes say, “I love you from the bottom of my striatum,” if I want to be scientifically accurate.

  Larry J. Young, who conducts research on the neurobiological basis of complex social behavior with the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University, wrote in 2009 that reducing love to its “component parts” isn’t poetic or romantic. It may, however, help us understand love better and lead to the development of new medications.

  The view of love as an emergent property of a cocktail of ancient neuropeptides and neurotransmitters raises important issues for society. For one thing, drugs that manipulate brain systems at whim to enhance or diminish our love for another may not be far away. Experiments have shown that a nasal squirt of oxytocin enhances trust and tunes people into others’ emotions. Internet entrepreneurs are already marketing products such as Enhanced Liquid Trust, a cologne-like mixture of oxytocin and pheromones “designed to boost the dating and relationship area of your life.” Although such products are unlikely to do anything other than boost users’ confidence, studies are under way in Australia to determine whether an oxytocin spray might aid traditional marital therapy.12

  Because love is a feeling like any other, created by chemicals mixing in the brain, it can be measured as such, but that doesn’t mean I ask for brain scans when someone says they love me. That wouldn’t be practical or necessary because, in the case of love—a chemical reaction for which we have gained reverence—it can also be observed through the actions of certain individuals. For example, the evidence is overwhelming for the fact that I love my wife. I do everything I can for her, I love and respect her, and I talk to her about everything. This is all evidence that I feel the emotion called “love” toward her. I show this through actions in my daily life and on a long-term basis. I’ve had discussions with her telling her how much I care for her, and how my life hasn’t been the same since meeting her. You can easily look at everything from the letters that I’ve written my wife throughout our time together to our daily conversations to conclude that there is shared love there, so a brain scan isn’t usually necessary.

  To those who insist I can’t experience love because, “God is love,”13 I partially agree. I do think gods are a lot like love.

  LOVE IS A FEELING, AND GODS ARE, TOO. BELIEF IN GOD(S) IS OFTEN LINKED TO EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES OR ARGUMENTS.

  LOVE IS A CHEMICAL REACTION IN THE BRAIN AND GODS LIKEWISE RESIDE IN THE MIND. THEY ORIGINATED IN THE THOUGHTS OF OUR STORYTELLING ANCESTORS AND LIVE ON THROUGH THE FAITH OF BELIEVERS.

  LOVE IS OFTEN USED AS A SYMBOL OF GOODNESS AND PURITY, AS ARE MANY GODS. THEY AREN’T LITERAL ENTITIES, BUT THEY ARE USED TO REPRESENT GOODNESS, JUSTICE, AND HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.

  When people say “God is love,” it reminds me of the nature of deities as symbolic beings in the minds of people. You may feel the presence of your god, but, just like when you think you feel love for someone, it’s important to remember you could be mistaken. In any case, you don’t have to “believe in” love because there is no doubt that it is real—it’s just the
name we’ve given to a positive feeling. Happiness, fear, love, etc. exist as emotions and, if a believer’s argument is that their particular deity or supernatural force is merely a feeling one has, and not something that literally exists in the world, I would have to agree.

  MEASURING PAIN AND SPOUSAL LOYALTY

  This love objection, if you want to call it that, is expressed in other ways, too. In attempts to condemn scientific skepticism, some believers might say, “You don’t need evidence other than feelings to know you’re in pain!” or even, “You wouldn’t demand evidence from your spouse that he or she is faithful!”

  When I perceive pain, I look for its source because pain is often used by the body to draw attention to something that’s wrong. If my doctor(s) and I can’t locate the underlying cause of the pain, then I have to consider the possibility that it is psychological. It’s also possible, however, that the pain is being caused by an unknown or undiagnosed disorder. It’s important to note that neither of these possibilities would make the pain any less real, as the pain is real if it is being felt by the patient. It’s true that pain is often thought to be subjective because we rely on tolerance and past experiences to decide how to react to the pain, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t physical pain markers that are the same across the board. In fact, although self-reporting is the most common way we gauge pain, it isn’t the only method. In 2011, researchers found that functional MRI (fMRI) scans on the brains of patients experiencing moderate pain helped them develop an algorithm that predicted pain levels 81 percent of the time.14 That research was furthered in 2013 when neuroscientists from the University of Colorado Boulder, New York University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Michigan used fMRI to measure and predict pain intensity with over 95 percent accuracy. Their results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.15

  As far as faithfulness between loved ones is concerned, yes, I would need evidence (if we had an exclusive relationship) that my life partner would remain faithful to me. And I think most couples who agree to such an arrangement would look for evidence as well. The data, in this case, often comes in the form of consistent loyalty over time, and it is both measurable and reliable. Once that pattern is broken, however, and the evidence shows one partner is no longer honoring the agreement, those involved may choose to revisit the terms.

  “In youth we feel richer for every new illusion; in maturer years, for every one we lose.”

  —Anne Sophie Swetchine

  NOTES

  1. Carroll E. Izard, “Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues,” Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009): 1.

  2. James Cargile, “On the Burden of Proof,” Philosophy 72, no. 279 (January 1997): 59–83.

  3. For me, this realistic mindset was present fairly early on. Even when I was a very young child, I remember being scared most not of monsters hiding under my bed or in my closet, but of potential real-world intruders.

  4. “The only ‘ist’ I am is a scientist. I don’t associate with movements.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson

  5. Donatella Marazziti et al. “Alteration of the Platelet Serotonin Transporter in Romantic Love,” Psychological Medicine 29, no. 3 (1999): 741–745.

  6. Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki, “The Neural Basis of Romantic Love,” Neuroreport 11, no. 17 (2000): 3829–3834.

  7. Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki, “The Neural Correlates of Maternal and Romantic Love,” Neuroimage 21, no. 3 (2004): 1155–1166.

  8. S. Cacioppo et al. “The Common Neural Bases Between Sexual Desire and Love: A Multilevel Kernel Density fMRI Analysis,” Journal of Sexual Medicine 9 (2012): 1048–1054.

  9. K. S. Kassam, “Identifying Emotions on the Basis of Neural Activation,” PLoS ONE 8, no. 6 (2013): e66032.

  10. Junichi Chikazoe et al. “Population Coding of Affect Across Stimuli, Modalities and Individuals,” Nature Neuroscience 17 (2014): 1114–1122.

  11. Hongwen Song et al. “Love-Related Changes in the Brain: A Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9 (2015).

  12. Larry J. Young, “Love: Neuroscience Reveals All,” Nature 457, no. 7226. (January 7, 2009): 148–148.

  13. Whenever I hear that God “loves” me, I think about the fact that love is a word we created to describe a chemical reaction in the brain. Do theists think God has a brain?

  14. Justin E. Brown et al. “Towards a Physiology-Based Measure of Pain: Patterns of Human Brain Activity Distinguish Painful from Non-Painful Thermal Stimulation,” PLoS One 6, no. 9 (2011): e24124.

  15. Tor D. Wager et al., “An fMRI-based Neurologic Signature of Physical Pain,” New England Journal of Medicine 368, no. 15 (2013): 1388–1397.

  7

  YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A SCIENTIST TO THINK LIKE ONE

  “Science is the best idea humans have ever had. The more people who embrace that idea, the better.”

  —Bill Nye the Science Guy

  A lot of people say my worldview overly relies on the scientific method and that, as someone without any formal scientific degrees or training, I should focus elsewhere. But I do have a few qualifications that enable me to use science: curiosity, a knowledge of the scientific method, and a passion for the truth. What more does one need? What many people don’t realize is that science is a process for everyone—including and especially nonscientists. As Carl Sagan said, “Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.”

  Scientific thinking is incredibly important, and the best part is you don’t have to be a scientist to acknowledge that fact or to help others see it. Science is not some holy book that can only be interpreted by the Elder Scientists. It is not some club that denies entry to outsiders. It is a system of discovery that we’ve all been practicing informally since we were children. It started the first time we noticed something unusual, asked a question about it, and then put it to test.

  WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “THINK LIKE A SCIENTIST”?

  When I say we can, and should, think like scientists, what am I really suggesting? Should you request scientific proof from everyone for everything, or employ rigorous tests to assess the validity of each and every statement you hear? Of course not. In order to think like a scientist, all you have to do is employ the scientific method where appropriate to separate fact from fiction.

  When searching for an answer from a scientific point of view, you have to write off things that don’t impact the natural world (and therefore cannot affect your experiments). You should be able to cast aside traditions that, while incredibly powerful and capable of shaping much of what we know about human cultures and society at large, are irrelevant in science. You need to be able to look at information from the most objective view possible, without being influenced by your preconceived notions. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, explains why dropping all our biases is so important.

  “We may think we are acting as scientists when analyzing data and models, but very often we are acting more as lawyers, using our reasoning to a predetermined end, one that was emotionally biased by our ideological positions and cultural views,” Haidt said.

  Becoming more objective in your thinking is important, but it isn’t always enough. Often just the act of reading news articles, even from a scientific perspective, can still lead you down the road toward false beliefs. To correct for this, you should teach yourself to rely less on second-hand information and hearsay, and more on direct sources and scientific journals. If you don’t know how to read scientific articles, teach yourself how so that you can’t be easily swayed by biased or incorrect media reports and false news. Dr. Mary Purugganan and Dr. Jan Hewitt, both instructors at Rice University, teach a class on the subject in which they say reading a scientific article like you read a textbook is the “worst way to approach this task.”

  “Rather,
you should begin by skimming the article to identify its structure and features. As you read, look for the author’s main points,” Purugganan and Hewitt wrote in a handout.1 “Generate questions before, during, and after reading. Draw inferences based on your own experiences and knowledge. And to really improve understanding and recall, take notes as you read.”

  “SCIENTISM” VS. SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICISM

  Some believers suggest my evidence-based worldview amounts to nothing more than scientism, which is defined as a philosophical position that “embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological.”2 I wholeheartedly disagree with this characterization of my method because I only use science to address falsifiable questions, those to which scientific inquiry might provide a helpful answer. Science isn’t an all-purpose tool that can be applied to any mystery—it is a specialty device used to uncover more of the observable world. Philosopher Karl Popper, known for his work promoting empirical falsification, explained, “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

  Science is about disproving testable claims and learning more about how the world really works. Scientism, on the other hand, is the application of the scientific method to everything. It is, as University of Miami philosophy professor Susan Haack says in her Six Signs of Scientism,3 an “inappropriately deferential attitude to science” that makes people look to the sciences for answers “beyond their scope.” It is the false assumption that science alone is capable of discovering facts about the world, that it’s the only way to access any form of truth, and that metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims should be dismissed entirely.4 In this strong sense, scientism has aptly been described as “the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.” It then follows, of course, that “scientism is either false or meaningless.”5