The Heart

[Zzyzx]

.
The Heart is said by many individuals (and some religious literature) to be the seat of emotions / love / decisions. Is that true? I doubt it. Consider:

People with an artificial heart or those on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine. Do they lose emotion / love / decision making?

If a person has a heart transplant to they take on the emotions / loves / decision making of the donor?

If a person suffers massive brain damage but their heart is undamaged, do they retain emotions / love / decision making?

[Zzyzx]

.

The Heart is said by many individuals (and some religious literature) to be the seat of emotions / love / decisions. Is that true? I doubt it. Consider:

People with an artificial heart or those on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine. Do they lose emotion / love / decision making?

If a person has a heart transplant to they take on the emotions / loves / decision making of the donor?

If a person suffers massive brain damage but their heart is undamaged, do they retain emotions / love / decision making?

I am pretty certain most people use this kind of language metaphorically.

That may be true in modern times – at least in more advanced, educated, scientifically based societies most people are at least aware that the heart is a pump and is not the location of thoughts and emotions.

Can it be shown that Bible writers and their intended audience had sufficient knowledge of biology to make that distinction?

Can modern readers of the Bible be assumed to have a level of understanding characteristic of Bible writers and their intended audience of the era?

After all, if we press it even more literally it becomes even more ridiculous

If we press Bible stories literally they tend to become ridiculous.

the seat of emotions / love / decisions

As if emotions and love and decisions were three concrete entities all trying to literally sit on an organ!

Emotions, love and decisions are PRODUCTS of the human brain – not the heart.

Metaphor is not particular to religion. Everyone uses it.

Metaphor can be a useful literary device PROVIDED that the writer AND intended audience understand that a metaphor is being used in stead of literal truth.

[OnceConvinced]

Why is it that the metaphorical language of the Bible is such a stumbling block?

It is unlikely it was intended to be metaphorical. It's just that now that we know the heart is not where emotions, love and sinful thoughts come from that it's now seen as a metaphor.

The big problem is that the bible ALWAYS talks about emotions, love, sin etc as coming from the heart. It never once states that it comes from the brain. This is damning evidence that it wasn't just seen as a metaphor. It was seen as a literal truth.

Just show me one verse in the bible that suggests that emotions, sin or love comes from the brain. As far as I can see there is not one single instance. This is because they believed these things literally came from the heart and who can blame them? It really feels like they do!

[OnceConvinced]

Nobody imagines that the Bible authors were cardiologists or neuroscientists. They knew practically nothing about how the heart actually functioned and didn't understand how the brain works, either. ...

Exactly, so why should there be any "confusion" about the bible's use of the word "heart" Which is what the OP is implying? In view of what you have said, it seems reasonable to conclude that in 99% of the cases when the bible uses the word "heart" it is speaking metaphorically.

Can you show me in the bible where there is even one scripture that tells us that emotions, sin, love etc come from the brain? If you can't, then it seems logical to conclude that it was never intended as a metaphor and that it was in fact believed that the heart was where emotions and deep thought came from.

You are then supporting the point I've made, which is, there's not real confusion on the matter, the bible rarely refer to the literal organ so we can presume they were speaking metaphorically.

Does the bible even refer to the brain?

A teaching book does not use metaphors all the way through. To do so would mislead people. A teaching book, one that was trying to teach truth would not constantly use the same metaphor all the way through, without even giving one single literal explanation.

But perhaps someone will be able to prove me wrong about this? Even just one scripture that puts us straight? One where a metaphor is not used?

[OnceConvinced]

Metaphor is not particular to religion. Everyone uses it.

Metaphors generally evolve from some literal use of them. Unless you are talking about writers like Shakespeare who created metaphors and used them constantly, most can be tracked back to some literal use.

It is very likely that back in old times, people would have believed that emotions came from the heart and it really does feel like it does. Love for instance really does feel like it comes from the heart, so why would people not believe that's where it really did come from?

The bible writers generally did not use metaphors. They wrote very literally. To take a passage that is very literal and then take one word and say "Oh that's a metaphor" is probably not being honest. Just because we use them as metaphors now does not in any way shape or form, mean they were meant as metaphors 2000 years ago. I think that's just wishful thinking to say that "heart" is a metaphor. It is just used too often in the bible amongst passages that don't seem to be intending anything metaphorical.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Fascinating topic. I think, from what I've seen in modern times, there's a certain aspect of personality/memory within organs: many have often experienced nuances found from their organ donors they didn't have before the new organ. Having had 1½ organs removed myself, I went through a time where I felt a loss of my own. Reading up on it I found many have the same thing happen to them. So I suppose, if a feeling of loss for having an organ(s) removed, you could also have some sort of reverse if given an organ from another person. Rather there's a scientific reason, spiritual reason, supernatural reason or something different I'm not sure. But it is a fascinating thing to research.

[OnceConvinced]

I'm really hoping that a theist can point out even one scripture that says that emotions, deep thought, love, hate, desires to sin and anything like that comes from the brain.

If all it ever refers to is the heart, I don't see how we can claim it's a metaphor. There must surely be references to these things coming from the brain somewhere in scripture if it is indeed a metaphor?

[marco]

I'm really hoping that a theist can point out even one scripture that says that emotions, deep thought, love, hate, desires to sin and anything like that comes from the brain.

If all it ever refers to is the heart, I don't see how we can claim it's a metaphor. There must surely be references to these things coming from the brain somewhere in scripture if it is indeed a metaphor?

Until recent times, OnceConvinced, it was certainly universally believed that the heart did send out thoughts and feelings. When a doctor succeeded in experimenting with a living person's brain - one who could only utter one sound - he found that a part of the brain controlled speech. The heart was certainly not simply a metaphor, though it came to be used in that way by poets and others.

Aristotle thought the heart was the centre of thought; but Galen contradicted much of what Aristotle said. Nonetheless the heart continued till modern times to be regarded as responsible for emotions. The Bible supported this.

[bluethread]

The heart is no more than a blood pump, having only poetic claim to emotions.

Neither your assertion and the straw man you are arguing against are correct. The following is just one aspect of how focusing on one organ, or set of organs is rather simplistic. "The heart has its own pacemaker independent of the brain. As long as it has oxygen, it continues to beat. The heart could actually be removed from the body, placed in saline solution, given oxygen, and still continue to beat. This is why although the brain is dead, the heart continues to beat." http://surgery.med.miami.edu/laora/comm ... rain-death

Other sources note that the heart is not just a perpetual motion machine. The heart interacts with the brain, which itself is not a singular organ, to effect, not only our existence, but our perception of it.

[marco]

The heart is no more than a blood pump, having only poetic claim to emotions.

Neither your assertion and the straw man you are arguing against are correct.


Other sources note that the heart is not just a perpetual motion machine. The heart interacts with the brain, which itself is not a singular organ, to effect, not only our existence, but our perception of it.[/quote]


No idea what straw man you're talking about. As a pump of course the heart can beat; it does not have emotion in it. It was once believed that it did.

There is nothing contentious in saying this.

[Genevieve]

I'm really hoping that a theist can point out even one scripture that says that emotions, deep thought, love, hate, desires to sin and anything like that comes from the brain.

If all it ever refers to is the heart, I don't see how we can claim it's a metaphor. There must surely be references to these things coming from the brain somewhere in scripture if it is indeed a metaphor?

According to the Bible Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength. No, it doesn't say brain. But I think it does indicate that people then would have understood that there were different ways to love God and they did not all originate from the "heart." Love could originate from the mind/thoughts.