Argument from love
Part of a series on the |
Philosophy of religion |
---|
Philosophy of religion article index |
The argument from love is an argument for the existence of God that suggests the depth, complexity, and universality of love point to a transcendent source or purpose.
Arguments from love to the existence of God
The theologian Michael Lloyd suggests that "In the end there are basically only two possible sets of views about the universe in which we live. It must, at heart, be either personal or impersonal... arbitrary and temporary[7] [or emerging] from relationship, creativity, delight, love".[8]
Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft summarises the argument as "Love is the greatest of miracles. How could an evolved ape create the noble idea of self-giving love? Human love is a result of our being made to resemble God, who himself is love. If we are made in the image of King Kong rather than in the image of King God, where do the saints come from?"[9] Philosopher Alvin Plantinga expressed the argument in similar terms.[10]
According to Graham Ward, postmodern theology portrays how religious questions are opened up (not closed down or annihilated) by postmodern thought. The postmodern God is emphatically the God of love, and the economy of love is kenotic.[11]
Variants
Comparative rationality of belief in God and Love
A variant on the argument is a defence of the rationality of theism by comparing faith in God with love, and to suggest that if it isn't irrational to love someone then it shouldn't be seen as irrational to believe in God.[12] The philosopher Roger Scruton suggests: "Rational argument can get us just so far...It can help us to understand the real difference between a faith that commands us to forgive our enemies, and one that commands us to slaughter them. But the leap of faith itself — this placing of your life at God's service — is a leap over reason's edge. This does not make it irrational, any more than falling in love is irrational."[13]
Suggested compelling nature of God's Love
Another variant of the argument is that the evidence for God's love is sufficiently compelling that people can reasonably believe in it, and hence a fortiori believe in God.[14] This approach is criticised by Richard Dawkins who suggests that it is an "Argument from emotional blackmail".[15]
Notes and references
- Tom WrightSimply Christian p 16
- ^ Tom Wright Simply Christian pp 25–33
- ^ Tom Wright Simply Christian p 33
- ^ Paul Tillich Love, Power and Justice Oxford University Press 1954 p4
- ^ Paul Tillich, Love, Power and Justice, Oxford University Press, 1954, p25
- ^ Paul Tillich, Love, Power and Justice, Oxford University Press, 1954, p19
- ^ Lloyd cites Quentin Smith
- ISBN 1-904074-76-6p 14
- ISBN 0-89870-488-X, p. 105.
- ISBN 0-521-85531-4.
- ^ The Modern Theologians 3rd ed p 335
- ^ This type of argument was made by Alvin Plantinga in God and Other Minds
- ^ Roger Scruton. Dawkins is wrong about God reproduced from The Spectator
- ^ See e.g. Michael Welker in The Work of Love p131 "in this love God's identity and power are made known" (italics in original). He cites e.g. John 17:26
- ^ The God Delusion p83