The Argument from Love

For most people, it is a given that love is not only real, but essential to human experience and existence. While Maslow delineated love as a crucial need in his hierarchy, others would venture to say that love is all you need – as immortalized by the Beatles. Given that love is inescapable and “it seems, we are obsessed with love,”[1] it makes sense to consider what love has to say about the most consequential of questions: Does God exist?

            While there are several love-based theistic arguments, these pages will discuss a variant championed by Paul M. Gould:[2]

1) The existence of love is not surprising, given Christian theism.

2) The existence of love is very surprising, given naturalism[3].

3) Therefore, the existence of love strongly supports Christian theism over naturalism.

Simply put, love makes more sense in a world with the Triune God in the picture than in a world without God in the picture, ultimately pointing to Christianity as the more coherent worldview and thus the more likely correct interpretation of reality. This essay will examine both premises and then, consider alternative naturalistic explanations of altruistic love as possible objections, before evaluating this theistic argument as such and then concluding.

 

Premise 1

            Because Christian teaching strongly supports the claim that love is Christianity’s core and is essential to God’s nature, it can be argued that love’s existence, essence, and centrality is warranted and expected.

No other sacred scripture states as clearly as the Bible that “God is love,” (1 John 4:7). God’s character explains the nature of love at its best: self-giving, self-sacrificial and serving as evidenced by the Incarnation (Philippians 2:6-11) and the Cross (John 3:16 and Rom 5:7-8). Love is not simply a divine attribute; it is essential to God’s nature. As Emil Brunner illustrates, just as radium’s essence cannot be understood without radioactivity, God’s essence cannot be imagined without his outward-radiating love, which is not only God’s nature but his inner being’s outward expression.[4] Thus, unsurprisingly, love also distinctively characterizes how humans relate to the Divine and to others: Christians “see” God and experience his love when they “love one another” (1 John 4:12-16).

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity strengthens the Christian claim to love in relation to both time and quality. According to Richard Swinburne, love must be both mutual and unselfish in order to be considered perfect love and thus necessarily constitutes a union of three.[5] While mutual sharing requires a twosome, such love is inward and thus limited,[6] unless there is mutual cooperation or sharing with a third.[7] Moreover, within the Trinity, love exists eternally, which means it is “prior to nature,”[8] but it is also the reason for our existence. Love, by nature, wants to be shared and to be spread. “Thus,” as Gould puts it, “God creates a universe of persons capable of entering into loving relationships with others. Love is why we exist.”[9]

According to Christian eschatology, love is also eternal in the sense that it never ends. Jerry L. Walls reasons: “For Christian theism, love is stronger than death, so…we are not ‘abandoned’ at the point of death while the objective world rolls heedlessly on. To the contrary, our subjective life will not only continue, but ultimately bring us satisfaction and joy far beyond anything we experienced in this life.”[10] Thus, love not only lasts, but increases in quality beyond the imaginable when Heaven is united with Earth in God’s eternal Kingdom. On the view that objective reality is grounded in the God who is love, our subjective experiences with love are not abruptly terminated by death but rather validated, elevating the value and meaning we perceive in love to otherwise impossible levels.[11]

Moreover, the Christian story in particular uniquely explains love both at its best and worst. Fallenness and sin, as biblical concepts, reveal that while love points to God at its best, at its worst love also reveals the true state the world and our hearts are in. Love is what N.T. Wright calls a “broken signpost”[12] –both a pointer to truth and susceptible to corruption and misunderstanding.

In summary, while philosophers such as Richard Swinburne claim that love’s very essence necessitates the Triune God –at the very least it can be argued that love points to God and makes the most sense within Christianity. Both our highest aspirations and everyday disappointments with love mesh well with the Christian story.

Premise 2

This leads us to the argument’s second premise that love is surprising on naturalism, meaning that love’s existence, essence, and eminence are not what we would generally expect on this worldview and that naturalism struggles to adequately explicate love. While love is essential to the Christian worldview, love is a phenomenon among many on naturalism.

From a naturalistic perspective, love might be explained as reproductive biology, human emotion, chemical reaction, social behavior, or cultural phenomenon. These approaches might or might not be enough to answer the questions as to why love is considered so pre-eminent, but, as Walls observes, eros and altruism, in particular, pose a challenge to naturalistic evolution regarding questions about love’s essence and quality. In other words, naturalism struggles to explain romantic love and unsparing devotion to the well-being of others.

Even Darwin acknowledged that altruism “could potentially wreck his theory,”[13] as Walls comments, and Edward O. Wilson raises the question: “how can altruism, which by definition reduces personal fitness, possibly evolve by natural selection?”[14] Likewise, Richard Dawkins admits that while romantic love may have initially evolutionary advantages, the radically “monogamous devotion to which we are susceptible” is less rational than “polyamory.”[15] Naturalist philosophers as well as evolutionary biologists express surprise at long-term love within the natural world, citing humans (and perhaps birds) as the anomaly.[16] As Gould sums up, on naturalistic evolution “we never crave the beloved for their own sake, love is always, in the end, for the propagation of the species.”[17]

Love, on naturalism, has its uses, but does not endow individual subjective experiences with love with objective meaning and purpose as does the Christian worldview. Without intentionality, naturalistic evolution lacks a teleological dimension, so love cannot be why we exist. Instead, what we experience as love is a byproduct of unguided processes. It is almost impossible to imagine love providing any meaning in a world that has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,”[18] as Dawkins observes is what we should expect in a godless universe.

Furthermore, whereas love is eternal according to Christianity, naturalism seems to be limited in both love’s quality and temporal scope. As Gould puts it, “on naturalism, the existence of love is late.”[19] As an “emergent property of the universe” it cannot be “fundamental.”[20] Contrariwise, love predates the universe on Christian theism, since it originates in the Creator God. Likewise, naturalistic accounts cannot sustain love’s survival beyond physical death. According to Bertrand Russell, man’s “loves,” which are produced by “accidental collocations of atoms,” are “destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system.”[21] Essentially, death ends all love. First, love dies with the lovers and, second, all memory and consequence of love will be “buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.”[22] Thus, on naturalism, nature predates love and also terminates it, disallowing transcendence.

Answering Objections: Naturalistic Altruism

Having established these two premises, it is worth considering valid counterarguments prior to moving to the conclusion dictated by logic. While objections[23] to this theistic argument are characteristically raised by skeptics at every possible juncture, naturalists pursue two notable paths to tackle the apologetic challenge posed by altruism in particular.

Some would deny that such a thing as altruism, or perhaps even love in general, exist. Famously, Friedrich Nietzsche distrusted altruistic notions and interpreted them as evidencing decadence.[24] More optimistic solutions suggested by naturalists are theories related to kin selection and reciprocity.

First, the kin selection theory proposes that since “the key to evolutionary success is passing on your genes at a higher rate than other competing organisms,” it is only sensible that we invest maximally into those who “share genetic material with us,” such as relatives, and particularly, our children.[25] Thus, the archetypical example for altruistic love –the mother selflessly sacrificing for her children, expecting nothing in return–can be explained in terms of enhancing “reproductive interests,” given that our children are “better situated than anyone else to pass on our genes.”[26] This naturalistic account, however, struggles to explicate love towards non-relatives, altruism towards complete strangers or even “interspecies altruism,”[27] meaning “prosocial behaviors”[28] towards animals.

Second, while evolutionary scientists still puzzle over how to explain cooperation in humans, reciprocal altruism theories appear to spearhead the response.[29] The key principle of reciprocity is: “You scratch my back now and I’ll scratch yours later…In the case of reciprocal altruism, aid is given to another in the hope that it will be returned.”[30] In other words, this naturalistic approach to altruism allows for mutual advantages to be gained though placing another’s needs (temporarily) over one’s own.

Additionally, as an individual’s generous and compassionate behavior is noted by those around him, this results in a positive reputation, which in turn increases the individual’s chances of being treated kindly when need should arise. From an evolutionary standpoint, such indirect reciprocity in altruistic behavior increases mutual survival and reproduction, which is ultimately selected by nature as advantageous. Thus, Daniel C. Dennett proposes altruism to be based on what he terms a “beneselfish” trait, the idea that by helping others we help ourselves.[31]

However, Nathan Dougherty observes that “these theories all suggest that an ultimate selfish benefit surpasses any altruistic behaviors.”[32] Indeed, it seems hardly appropriate to describe such altruistic behavior as disinterested, other-centered love, when it can be re-explained as delayed cooperation or otherwise result in a net advantage, whether on the individual or group level. Additionally, C.S. Lewis argues that the God-given love he terms Charity “empowers us to love in ways that go far beyond our natural impulses”[33] in that it “enables…to love what is not naturally lovable.”[34] According to Lewis, this “Divine Gift-love,” which is “wholly disinterested” and only “desires what is simply best for the beloved” embraces even “lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior, and the sneering.”[35] Neither kin selection nor reciprocity readily explain this sort of love, yet it is “entirely in keeping with what we might expect if it is a reflection of a God who gave up his son to die a humiliating death at the hand of the very people for whom he died in order to save them.”[36]

As Walls observes, though “naturalistic evolutionary theory has worked hard to accommodate altruism” there are examples pertaining to love that are still hard to explain, and as previously noted, some naturalist thinkers reject the notion completely.[37] Whether or not reciprocity appropriately answers the challenge posed by altruism, it is interesting to note that, on Christian theism, reciprocity points to larger realities. All the world’s Mother Teresas as well as love’s unsung heroes ultimately have their loving actions reciprocated by God. This “economy of love” thus mirrors the eternally reciprocal nature of the Trinity.[38] On Christianity, love not only originates in God’s reciprocally loving essence, but it is also our answer to God (1 John 4:19) which is demonstrated by loving one another (John 13:34-35) – reciprocity works on multiple levels to multiply love. When humans reciprocate God’s love, the imago dei doctrine describes this as Creation mirroring the Creator’s character and nature.[39] Perhaps even “reciprocity observed by naturalistic evolution to explain altruism is a reflection of the same truth”[40] that other-centered giving love is the best way to live.

In summary, it might be argued that naturalistic explanations for altruism are not unreservedly convincing and moreover so as the reciprocity principle could be said to support the Christian economy of love. Whereas love is rather surprising on a naturalistic worldview struggles to explain our experiences, love is exactly what we would expect on Christian theism. From these two premises we can conclude that love meshes better with Christianity than with naturalism. By the likelihood principle, “a standard principle of inductive reasoning [which] states that for two competing hypotheses, a set of observations strongly supports one hypothesis over the other”[41] love’s existence, essence, and eminence supports theism over naturalism.

Evaluation and Conclusion: Does Love Really Work as an Apologetic Argument?

 For those unconvinced that the Christian worldview aptly explains love, the argument presented here might work, at the very least, as an argument against naturalism. Assuming naturalism, love must be explained as a chemical process and evolutionary advantageous behavior. If, however, love cannot be reduced to natural processes and natural selection, this provides strong evidence suggesting that naturalism is not true.

Admittedly, the Argument from Love depends on how much weight anyone places on love in the first place:

For those who believe that love is one of those things that is most real, and one of those things that lie at the very heart of the meaning of life, these arguments may carry considerable weight…The argument for God’s love that can be proposed is in terms of a satisfactory explanation of something profoundly important to human life and existence.[42]

 

As N.T. Wright puts it, while the Gospel truly answers our deepest questions (and they are true answers) they might not be the answers people want to hear.[43] For this reason, it is crucial that as the Christian engages the skeptic with theistic arguments based on love, this very love would also be the guiding principle in all interaction. Indeed, love is “the source and the shape of all Christian mission,”[44] Wright proclaims elsewhere. The skeptic who remains unmoved by the Argument from Love, might yet be won over by the demonstration of love witnessed in the exchange with the Christian theist.[45] As Gregory Koukl argues, the apologist requires not only “knowledge” and “tactical skill,” but he must also “embody the virtues of the kingdom he serves” – love being the highest virtue.[46] According to Francis Schaeffer, love is “the final apologetic” which means “true…Christian love” is something that “cannot fail to arrest…attention.”[47] Love, it turns out, might very well be all that is truly needed.

            In conclusion, while love is rather surprising on naturalism, it makes profound sense on Christianity. The Argument from Love lovingly argued and, especially, wholeheartedly lived out, strongly supports God’s existence – the God of love, who for the love of God, beckons the beloved to enter into lasting loving relationship with him.

[1] Paul M. Gould, A Good and True Story: Eleven Clues to Understanding Our Universe and Your Place in It (Ada, MI, Brazos Press, 2022), 150.

[2] Ibid., 159.

[3] Atheism and naturalism are not exactly synonymous. For the purposes of this essay, however, I will use these terms interchangeably, when discussing a worldview without God in the picture, since it can be argued that naturalism as a metaphysical position entails atheism. While there are proclaimed non-atheistic naturalists, such positions are highly contested and largely irrelevant to our topic, and thus negligeable.

[4] Emil Brunner, Die Christliche Lehre von Gott (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1972), 195.

[5] Richard Swinburne, Was Jesus God? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 28-34.

[6] This is convincingly demonstrated by romantic couples who are so caught up in their passion that they become oblivious to the world around them, at times ignoring everyone and everything else.

[7] Swinburne, 31.

[8] Gould, 160.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Jerry L. Walls, “(T) The Argument from Love and (Y) The Argument from the Meaning of Life,” in Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project, (eds. Jerry L. Walls and Trent Dougherty; New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 314.

[11] Ibid., 314.

[12] N.T. Wright, Broken Signposts: How Christianity Makes Sense of the World (New York: HarperOne, 2020), 189.

[13] Walls, 310.

[14] Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press, 2000), 3.

[15] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 184.

[16] Gould, 160.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.

[19] Gould, 160.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 107.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Among the objections that atheists typically raise are: Love does not exist; love need not be explained; Christianity cannot explain love since its God is not loving but a moral monster; naturalism’s challenges to explain something do not imply Christian theism is more likely to be right, etc. While answering these objections surpasses the scope of this paper, such engagement would certainly be a worthwhile apologetic endeavor.

[24] Walls, 311.

[25] Walls, 310.

[26] Walls, 310.

[27] Nathan Dougherty, “The Altruistic Self,” Dialogue & Nexus, Fall 2016-Spring 2017, 2.

[28] Ibid.

[29] John Cartwright, Evolution and Human Behavior: Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 205-228.

[30] Ibid., 86.

[31] Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking Penguin Press, 2003), 193-194.

[32] Dougherty, 2-3.

[33] Walls, 316.

[34] C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2017), 164.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Walls, 316.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Nico Vorster, Created in the Image of God: Understanding God’s Relationship with Humanity (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011) 6-8.

[40] Walls, 317.

[41] Gould, 161.

[42] Walls, 317.

[43] Wright, Broken Signposts, 56.

[44] N.T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2016), 366.  

[45] I would like to thank my conversation partners in the Atheist Discussion group, who helped me understand this point and gave me a chance to practice loving at a high personal cost and without any reciprocity.

[46] Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 24-25.

[47] Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 1970), 15-16.