Speaking for myself, I think the answer is “yes.” I don’t understand love, and particularly love for God, to be a property of the material world but one of many possible outcomes of sentience, particularly the human kind. Do higher-order, non-human animals have a consciousness of or concept of a God to love? Or do we interpret what we see in nature in terms of human experience. I think it’s the latter. However, this really is out of my area. I’m just giving opinion here.
Regarding Kierkegaard, so far in “The Lily in the Field and the Bird of the Air”, the deciding factor is actually speech. I don’t know if this is the end of the matter for him, but it’s what I’ve read so far:
“Seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness.”
But what does this mean, what am I to do, or what is the effort that can be said to seek, to aspire to God’s kingdom? Shall I see about getting a position commensurate with my talents and abilities in order to be effective in it? No, you shall first seek God’s kingdom. Shall I give all my possessions to the poor? No, you shall first seek God’s kingdom. Shall I then go out and proclaim this doctrine to the world? No, you shall first seek God’s kingdom. But then in a certain sense it is nothing I shall do? Yes, quite true, in a certain sense it is nothing. In the deepest sense you shall make yourself nothing, become nothing before God, learn to be silent. In this silence is the beginning, which is to seek first God’s kingdom.
Thus in a certain sense one devoutly comes backward to the beginning. The beginning is not that with which one begins but that to which one comes, and one comes to it backward. The beginning is this art of becoming silent, since to be silent as nature is silent is no art. In the deepest sense, to become silent in this way, silent before God, is the beginning of the fear of
God, because just as the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so silence is the beginning of the fear of God. And just as the fear of God is more than the beginning of wisdom, is wisdom, so silence is more than the beginning of the fear of God, is the fear of God. In this silence the many thoughts of wishes and desires God-fearingly fall silent; in this silence the verbosity of thanksgiving God-fearingly becomes silent.
The advantage of the human being over the animal is the ability to speak, but, in relation to God, wanting to speak can easily become the corruption of the human being, who is able to speak. God is in heaven and the human being is on earth and therefore they can hardly converse. God is infinite wisdom; what the human being knows is idle chatter; therefore they can hardly converse. God is love and the human being, as we say to a child, is a little ninny even in regard to his own welfare, and therefore they can hardly converse. Only in much fear and trembling is a human being able to speak with God, in much fear and trembling.
(The Essential Kierkegaard, pp. 333-334)
Slightly edited with added emphasis by me.
Here SK is stating that the “advantage” humans have is speech, and we use it to our detriment. If we are talking, we don’t hear God, can’t hear what he is saying, don’t gain wisdom and thus can’t seek his kingdom. But to stop talking is a learned “art” that nature has by nature. For the lily or the bird, silence is their only option, because they have no speech. Making noise, like chirping is not the same as speaking, so it is also silence. For humans to be silent before God is a learned art, but one that is necessary.
This section comes from an anthology, which is thorough but incomplete. I have the complete book as well and have only just begun to read it. In it SK will also attach suffering as a requirement for being in relation with and loving a majestic God. But I only have that from the introduction. His arguments are unique and complex, but it seems like he is trying to make sense of the reality of human experience within a space for Christian faith, something that is rarely attempted without a lot of handwaving and heavy discounting or reinterpretation of that experience.
I don’t know yet what I will think of his views, or how they will age with me, but I appreciate his desire to be real about things like suffering, anxiety and despair, and the entire range of human experience. Right now, I’m trying to get a handle on what he expresses (not easy) before I can even begin to evaluate those ideas.
Well, most of them. Some of them I already think are outstanding, particularly his points in F&T about faith being the highest achievement, and in standing in faith, having one’s life in it, rather than seeking to progress beyond it as if it were a childhood illness.
That’s a really good point.
Thinking about this part in relation to earlier discussions about Mac Donald’s views on universal salvation, this seems like the place where the rubber meets the road. The person who, after God’s sanctifying refinement, insists on running their own show will be given the opportunity to do just that. But it won’t be good. However again, this is just conjecture. I’ve not read the sermon that this quote comes from.