I've heard complaints lately from a few religiously inclined individuals that I put too much faith in science. "After all, science can't even explain something like love."
I must admit, the scientific exploration of the experience of love is limited to the observable facts of biochemistry and neuro-biology which I find absolutely enthralling. These observables are a step on the road to "explaining" what I think is an emergent property, called emotions, which are based in basic physics and chemistry but are too complex to exist at any lower level. This leaves us with no satisfying explanation of an experience that most of us know when we feel it, but can't really explain. -Just try to tell your best friend what love is. You'll find that you have no idea what it is. You'll still have no idea what love is when you completely explain all of the biochemistry and physics underlying it. You may however, be able to understand why some people are plagued by emotional disorders and be able to help them, but the experience of love will still be no easier to explain than the taste of salt, which could be described at the chemical and neural level but the shared experience is still required to really be able to talk about it.
So, as a scientist I'm left no better off than a poet at providing a satisfying explanation of love. I might even prefer a poet's approach in the situations that count most. But science will be able to help in some situations in a way that I think is important. On the other hand, to tell me that love is a gift from God does no more for me (probably less for me) than to wonder how the experience of love has emerged and evolved. All that really matters is how we enjoy the firstname.lastname@example.org