My argument here is based on the philosophical upshot of science, not on nothing.

You seem to be advocating a kind of Manicheanism or Zoroastrianism: there’s a good god and an evil god duking it out, which accounts for the complexity or mixed moral qualities of nature.

But even if we accept that religious dualism, it’s consistent with my argument since God wouldn’t simply be love. That would be only half the theological story.

If you want to say, instead, that these deities aren’t equal, so that the benevolent god is sovereign and the evil deity is only a pretender, like Satan or the demiurge, this kind of theology will run up against science since science shows us the universe’s essential amorality. Moral qualities aren’t mixed in nature, after all; instead, they’re confined to our minds on this planet. The outer wilderness is amoral, so love (or hatred) has nothing to do with nature at large.

Identifying God, the source of nature, with love is sheer vain personification, which is antithetical to scientific objectification. That’s the essence of my argument.

Does nature give us the freedom to choose between a positive life and anti-life? Nature is what it is, and we can be relatively objective in understanding the facts, or we can make up stories as distractions. Yes, we have limited freedom to decide how to respond to the existential facts, but that choice isn’t given out of cosmic love. That begs the question. There’s no love in the scientific explanation of how solar systems form or how life evolved. You can add a theological overlay, and that narrative will either be consistent with the scientific perspective, or it will clash with the science.

Has everyone evolved beyond dealing with biblical literalism? Tell that to the Evangelicals wreaking havoc in American politics.

You can advocate monism if you like. I prefer to explore a dualistic kind of pantheism to support secular humanism.