What Harlow Accidentally Proved
Science Discovered It. Scripture Declared It. Love Is Our First Need.
In the mid-twentieth century, psychologist Harry Harlow conducted a series of controversial experiments that became foundational to modern attachment theory. Infant rhesus monkeys were separated from their biological mothers and placed with two mechanical surrogates: one made of bare wire that provided food, and one covered in soft cloth that provided no nourishment at all. The results astonished the scientific community. Given the choice between food without comfort or comfort without food, the infants consistently clung to the soft surrogate. They sought warmth over nourishment, proximity over productivity, presence over provision. Even when frightened, they fled not to the source of food but to the source of comfort.
Decades later, modern reviews continue to affirm the same paradox: creatures are not sustained by food alone. They require what Harlow termed “contact comfort”—the felt experience of being safe, wanted, and held. When deprived of relational warmth, the monkeys exhibited symptoms that mirror human emotional suffering: withdrawal, anxiety, impaired exploration, and difficulty forming relationships.
At first glance, Harlow’s work appears purely psychological. But to the Christian, it illuminates something Scripture declared long before the birth of modern science: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). If God is not merely loving but Love itself, then the most fundamental human need cannot be food, water, or shelter. The most fundamental need must be the One whose nature is love—God Himself.
Why spirituality is the foundation of human flourishing
When Harry Harlow published his landmark research on maternal attachment in the late 1950s, his intention was not theological—but his findings opened a window into one of Scripture’s deepest truths: “God is love” (1 John 4:8).
In Harlow’s experiments, infant rhesus monkeys were separated from their biological mothers and placed with two surrogate figures: a cold wire frame that provided milk, and a soft cloth surrogate that offered no food at all. Consistently, the infants clung to the cloth mother, preferring comfort over nourishment. Even when frightened, they ran to the soft surrogate, not the one that fed them. Modern reviews continue to affirm that Harlow’s studies revealed something fundamental about creation: beings are wired to seek relationship—warmth, presence, and emotional safety—before and above material provision (Review in Affectional Responses in the Infant Monkey summary and modern analyses; and Gluck’s ethical review of Harlow’s legacy).
Later scholars have highlighted that Harlow’s work was not simply about mother-infant attachment but about the deeper reality of contact comfort—the assurance that one is held, wanted, and safe. Gluck’s review (1997) notes that Harlow inadvertently demonstrated the emotional richness of primates, revealing that deprivation of relational warmth causes not just distress but long-term impairment in social, emotional, and exploratory functioning. Put simply, without love, creation cannot thrive.
This resonates profoundly with 1 John 4:8: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” If love is not merely an emotion but God’s very nature, then Harlow’s data become an empirical echo of a theological reality. Created in the image of a relational God, creatures hunger for more than food—they hunger for connection. This need is not learned; it is built into our design.
Thus, although Harlow never mentioned God, his findings display a world that behaves exactly as Christian theology predicts: love—not nourishment, productivity, or even physical safety—is the primary organizing force of healthy development. If God is love, then longing for love is ultimately a longing for God’s presence.
Why Harlow’s Findings Support a Spiritual Foundation Model
Harlow believed he was studying attachment, not spirituality. Yet his discoveries unintentionally exposed something deeper—creatures are wired for love before they are wired for survival.
This matches both Christian anthropology and the lived experience of millions:
- A newborn infant can receive food but still fail to thrive without touch.
- Elderly individuals deteriorate rapidly when socially isolated, despite having shelter and nourishment.
- People who lose a sense of purpose often experience physical and emotional decline even when their material needs are met.
- Trauma survivors frequently describe spiritual disconnection—not physical deprivation—as the greatest wound.
If love is not simply a psychological preference but a spiritual necessity, then the foundation of human health cannot be physical needs alone. The foundation must be spiritual—because humans are created in the image of a relational God whose nature is love.