Introduction to the Argument from Love

Posted by on

When defending the existence of God, apologists are fond of using arguments such as the Kalam cosmological argument or the fine-tuning argument.  And this is understandable when one considers that these arguments are generally easy to comprehend and enjoy scientific evidence to support their major premises.  One argument that is often overlooked is the Argument from Love.  In his excellent book A Good and True Story, philosopher Paul M. Gould presents it in the following form:

1. The existence of love is not surprising given theism.

2. The existence of love is very surprising given naturalism.

3. Therefore, by the likelihood principle, the existence of love strongly supports theism over naturalism.1

The astute reader will recognize that this argument includes mention of "the likelihood principle."  Before considering how Gould supports the premises of his argument, let us be clear on how arguments with this principle work.  Gould writes:

"The likelihood principle, a standard principle of inductive reasoning, states that for two competing hypotheses, a set of observations strongly supports one hypothesis over the other 'precisely when the first hypothesis confers on the observations a higher probability then the second one does.'"2

Having laid the groundwork for this Argument from Love, considers Gould's defense:

"Love, understood as the desire for the well-being of and union with the beloved, strongly supports theism over naturalism...[t]he argument begins with the claim that the existence of love is not surprising given theism.  First, according to theism, God is perfectly loving.  God is defined as a personal being worthy of worship.  Arguably, being essentially loving is entailed by being worthy of worship.  If God were not in fact loving, or were loving but not essentially loving, then God would be morally and/or metaphysically deficient and not worthy of our worship.  The Christian Scriptures, of course, affirm God's essential loving nature.  We read, for example, that 'God is love' (1 John 4:8).  On theism, love is at the heart of reality; it's eternal and thus prior to nature.  Second, according to theism, God created the universe out of love.  We might ask why God created the universe.  God didn't need anything.  So why create?  To spread his joy, delight, and love.  Love is by nature diffusive; it wants to be shared, spread, enjoyed, gifted.  So God creates a 'riotous diversity' of creatures.  God creates a universe full of persons capable of entering into loving relationships with others.  Love is why we exist.  In sum, according to theism, love is prior to nature; it is at the heart of reality; and it is the reason we exist.  On theism, love is not surprising.3

What about naturalism? Is the existence of love "surprising on naturalism?"  Gould explains:

"On naturalism, the existence of love is late and (as far as we know) local.  Moreover, love is an emergent property of the universe.  It is not fundamental.  Love is not at the heart of reality.  Naturalism tells us that love is in large part erotic and irrational, if Freud is correct, and for survival and reproduction, if Darwin is correct.  The desires of love are for sexual union and the being of others, but - at least initially, and never fundamentally - not for the well-being of others.  As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse describes, most of the natural world has little use for long-term love - with the exception of humans (and perhaps birds).  On evolutionary accounts of love, we never crave the beloved for their own sake; love is always, in the end, for the propagation of the species.  The fact that we do find deep and enduring love...is very surprising on naturalism."4

So, what do you think of the argument?  

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Note to Readers:

For those interested in learning more about this argument, I highly recommend Chapter 9 of Dr. Gould's helpful book mentioned above.  You can get your copy here.  

Comments

Post a Comment