The argument I’m giving here against the maudlin platitude is that the sentiment is in gross conflict with the scientific view of nature. Science objectifies, and love is a human quality or at most one that applies to higher organisms. The platitude anthropomorphizes nature and its potential source by over-extending that parochial quality to the cosmic context.

So, then it’s an appeal to the best explanation. Is it more likely (a) that Western theists overextend in that way so that the platitude is in fact so much mawkish vanity, or (b) that as inhuman as nature is, according to science, nature was nevertheless produced by something that’s identical to love?

No, I don’t sort through all possible theological rationalizations of the platitude. I leave it to the reader to decide, and I point out how ironic it is that by talking about the need to set aside childish things, the New Testament gives its readers the resource to dismiss childish theological anthropomorphisms.

Again, you don’t know what “polemic” means. You think polemic is just fiery rhetoric. No, it’s a controversial argument, so it’s not necessarily pejorative.

Why do you think God is love?