Argument from Desire

[JDaniel]

I’ve been discussing the argument from desire with a few friends of mine. Here is the main outline of the argument that my friend made.

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can actually satisfy that desire.
2. The desire to be eternally happy is a natural desire.
3. So, there exists some real object that can actually satisfy the desire for eternal happiness.

Now, I’ve always thought that premise one is very weak and is only plausible. However, given premise 1, do you think one can criticize premise 2? How would we defend this logically? While it is definitely more plausible prima facie that man desires to be eternally happy. How would we prove it though? Thanks.

Awatkins:
I don’t know why you consider premise one to be weak. True, it is intuitive, but it is not weak. What exigency, desired by people, does not point back to a real object? One could begin listing such objects of desire, until one runs out of paper or ink. But, at some point that exercise becomes absurd. And, you’ll know, sooner or later, that you were sent on a goose chase.

Premise two seems pretty solid, too, in my opinion. I know non-religious persons who desire that. Especially when a person is particularly happy, observe their personality. Their desire for happiness to persevere becomes obvious. To observe and say otherwise is nothing more than a baseless assertion.

The conclusion is perhaps more like the Thomistic conclusions. It doesn’t necessarily point to God, per se. But, it points to what we call God - except, with a caveat. That caveat is that it points to a realm of being that only exists at God’s will and under his direct, constant creation. The atheist’s argument, then, is to list other “objects” that supposedly do the same thing, but are not the realm of God.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ah, the fifth proof, of course. When I think of the causal proofs, I always think of the first three. I like the fifth proof, but that is definitely going to be less acceptable to modern sensibilities than the argument from desire. With the fifth proof we are tied into all kinds of ideas like “final causality” and “telos” which just don’t ring as true to modern ears. And again, I will reiterate, that I don’t think the argument from desire alone proves God’s existence. It only provides plausible evidence.

But no one has ever refuted the Fifth Proof with anything but groundless rationale. Typically, opponents push if off and give it a name that resembles something so archaic we wouldn’t want to be part of it. For example they say, “We are so far advanced, these days, that we don’t even think like that any more.” Or, the opponent says, “You are anthropomorphizing.” The Proof from Final Causality is quite possibility the most powerful of all proofs.

God bless,
jd

 

[reggieM]

I think we should use every argument that gives evidence of God’s existence and not just the ones which show proof by logical necessity. Each argument also provides more information about the nature of God.

A common objection to the 5th way or even to the Argument from Desire is claims of evolutionary developments which created desires in mankind. It’s the same with the Design argument. These are very strongly contested.

But this is where we need to ask “why” there are these universal desires in mankind – and observe that they are never truly satisfied.

It’s very similar to the Argument from Perfection or any arguments refering to a Hierarchy of Values (scale of goodness).

These appeal to human intuition, but they still provide very strong evidence, making the case for God more reasonable.

This one also provides a much better explanation for why all of humanity pursues these desires – knowing they they have never been truly satisfied or fulfilled. Why are we driven to pursue such things? What is the meaning of a life lived with many desires left incomplete?

For example, a scientist spends his life pursuing research on an answer – he is driven to get the result. The desire is intense – he sacrifices much. But then he dies and he never has found the answer. What good was that desire and why would anyone else have a similar interest?

These are philosophical questions that can prompt some good discussion for atheists.

Every atheist shares these universal desires. In my opinion, that’s where a major part of the atheistic-problem lies, in the human person at the level of desire. What does the atheist truly want and why? If life is trivialized to the pursuit of passing pleasures, we can all see that’s not very honorable.

 

[reggieM]

On premise one – a challenge is, what nature, innate human desires do not correspond with a real object?

I can’t think of any, myself.

 

[The_Exodus]

Ah, the fifth proof, of course. When I think of the causal proofs, I always think of the first three. I like the fifth proof, but that is definitely going to be less acceptable to modern sensibilities than the argument from desire. With the fifth proof we are tied into all kinds of ideas like “final causality” and “telos” which just don’t ring as true to modern ears. And again, I will reiterate, that I don’t think the argument from desire alone proves God’s existence. It only provides plausible evidence.

I would agree with you that the fifth proof is not common to modern sensibilities, but, then again, neither are any of the proofs. Ever since Immanuel Kant, the principle of contradiction and law of causality have been called into question (which has lead to such cultural relativism and existentialism). This is why we should stick to our guns and offer the proofs which are founded on Aristotlean rationalism which have never been disproven, dispite the attempts of modernity, nor can their foundation even be called into question unless one is willing to adopt a philosophy of the absurd. It is only by holding unquestionably the two - the law of contradiction and the law of causality - that we ward off absolute skepticism. I agree that we ought to appeal more to the modern mind in a certain way, but we cannot change the principles our faith is built on. Such would be changing the very faith itself.

I suggest you strive to prove the five ways, particularly in this case the fifth way, because they have stood the test of 700+ years of scrutiny, have passed through fideism, existentialism, subjectivism, presuppositionalism, pragmatism, and many other schools of thought which threaten to do away with objective truth. The reason they are so strong as proofs is that they are based off objective sense experience, and are a posteriori. The difficulty is that so many misinterpret what Aquinas is trying to say, and in this respect I do agree with you that we ought to meet modern thinkers on more modern terms; but only to explain an old truth in new language, so to speak, not to change it. Here is a summary I wrote some time ago of the fifth proof, which may make St. Thomas’s language more understandable to modern people:

The fifth way is taken by observing the movement of the universe. By using our senses we see that everything which is moving or changing in the universe is working towards a goal, since things themselves always act for the same end, unless they are interrupted by other things which are acting toward an end themselves. We also see a vast harmony in the workings of nature. Yet to act or strive for a goal is to express a purpose, and purpose comes about through design, and design, we know through experience, is the product of intelligence. Similarly, harmony implies that many things work together simultaneously. This implies intelligence as well as a sort of craftsmanship. We can see this for example by using tools to work towards a goal we intend, or fashioning many pieces together in a harmonious whole. An arrow, for instance, does not fly towards a target unless it is shot by an archer. Neither does a series of letters form a sentence unless put together by a writer. In the same way we see that all things naturally move towards the goal which a Supreme Mind directs or intends them to move toward as a harmonious whole. Such a Mind, which governs the natural universe, is known by people as God.

 

[JDaniel]

On premise one – a challenge is, what nature, innate human desires do not correspond with a real object?

I can’t think of any, myself.

Neither can I.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hi Vardaquinn. What I mean to say is that, the fact is, we cannot prove that every desire has an object corresponding to it which can actually fulfill that desire. There is no syllogism one can make to prove it by logical necessity. However it is a very plausible assertion. What I mean by this is that every single other natural desire we have is fulfilled by some object. We haven’t found any exceptions. So even though he’s right in saying that we can’t prove the first premise, we should accept the first premise because it is very plausible. Think of it like this:

We cannot prove that all dogs die, because maybe there will one day be an exception to this rule. However, it is very plausible to hold that all dogs die since in every observed case the dog has died. Likewise, we cannot prove that for every natural desire there is an object which fulfills it, because there may be an exception to this rule. However, it is very plausible, since in every observed case of a natural desire there is an object which actually fulfills it. I hope this helps.

But, state the syllogism correctly:

a.) All mortal beings die.
b.) All dogs are mortal beings.
c.) Therefore, all dogs die.

Please show me the problem.

God bless,
jd

 

[reggieM]

The syllogism does work but the first premise can be disputed.

All mortal beings die.

We could say “by definition” that is true.

Every being that dies is a mortal being.
All mortal beings die.
Dogs are mortal beings … etc.

But this is not as universal as the Argument from Desire - which I think could be revised like this:

Every desire which has a corresponding real object that satisfies it, is a natural, innate desire.
Every natural, innate desire has a corresponding real object that satisfies it.
But some natural, innate desires cannot be satisfied by any objects on earth or in time (etc).
Therefore, there exist real objects outside of earth and time which satisfy natural, innate desires.

That’s a different phrasing that defines what the desires are.

 

[JDaniel]

The syllogism does work but the first premise can be disputed.

All mortal beings die.

We could say “by definition” that is true.

Every being that dies is a mortal being.
All mortal beings die.
Dogs are mortal beings … etc.

But this is not as universal as the Argument from Desire - which I think could be revised like this:

Every desire which has a corresponding real object that satisfies it, is a natural, innate desire.
Every natural, innate desire has a corresponding real object that satisfies it.
But some natural, innate desires cannot be satisfied by any objects on earth or in time (etc).
Therefore, there exist real objects outside of earth and time which satisfy natural, innate desires.

That’s a different phrasing that defines what the desires are.

Yes. So far, I like yours.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The syllogism does work but the first premise can be disputed.

All mortal beings die.

We could say “by definition” that is true.

Every being that dies is a mortal being.
All mortal beings die.
Dogs are mortal beings … etc.

But this is not as universal as the Argument from Desire - which I think could be revised like this:

Every desire which has a corresponding real object that satisfies it, is a natural, innate desire.
Every natural, innate desire has a corresponding real object that satisfies it.
But some natural, innate desires cannot be satisfied by any objects on earth or in time (etc).
Therefore, there exist real objects outside of earth and time which satisfy natural, innate desires.

That’s a different phrasing that defines what the desires are.

Reg:

I saw that, but, if we modify it ever so slightly, to say/mean that every Mortal Being - that is not kept alive by some other means, such as artificial - dies. It really matters not if we have witnessed all of their deaths or not. We know it is true intuitively. That is why it is definitionally true.

God bless,
jd

 

[reggieM]

Reg:

I saw that, but, if we modify it ever so slightly, to say/mean that every Mortal Being - that is not kept alive by some other means, such as artificial - dies. It really matters not if we have witnessed all of their deaths or not. We know it is true intuitively. That is why it is definitionally true.

God bless,
jd

JD – I agree. If someone argues against it they’re not being honest to what we know intuitively. If someone said, “what if someone living today actually never dies”? – but that’s not an argument based on what we have already seen. It’s saying that something in the future could change, and that is not valid.

“What if someone has a desire some day that does not correspond with an object that satisfies it?”

That’s not reasonable.

All trees are biological organisms.
All pine trees are trees.
Therefore, all pine trees are biological organisms.

Now a person cannot say, “what if we find a pine tree that is not a tree some day?”
That’s not a reasonable argument.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ awatkins69 and reggieM:

Thanks for the help, I think I see how I can use this argument better… I think I’m going to use it as “evidence” for the existence of at least some unknown X beyond space and time that could fulfill our deepest desire to be infinitely happy.

 

[JDaniel]

@ awatkins69 and reggieM:

Thanks for the help, I think I see how I can use this argument better… I think I’m going to use it as “evidence” for the existence of at least some unknown X beyond space and time that could fulfill our deepest desire to be infinitely happy.

You would have to presuppose that that “X” could “think.” It can’t be a gigantic bubblegum machine! So, it will be quite a bit more than just an “X.” But, you might get them to agree to the X first. Then . . .

God bless,
jd

 

[awatkins69]

But, state the syllogism correctly:

a.) All mortal beings die.
b.) All dogs are mortal beings.
c.) Therefore, all dogs die.

Please show me the problem.

God bless,
jd

The problem is that you cannot verify premise b. There may very will be a dog one day who isn’t mortal (interestingly, it’s also unfalsifiable), thus providing a counterexample.

 

[awatkins69]

@ awatkins69 and reggieM:

Thanks for the help, I think I see how I can use this argument better… I think I’m going to use it as “evidence” for the existence of at least some unknown X beyond space and time that could fulfill our deepest desire to be infinitely happy.

That’s the way you’d have to go I think. Best!

 

[awatkins69]

“What if someone has a desire some day that does not correspond with an object that satisfies it?”

That’s not unreasonable. It may very well happen that our desire for eternal happiness is not fulfilled. There’s nothing illogical or contradictory about that at all.

 

[vardaquinn]

“What if someone has a desire some day that does not correspond with an object that satisfies it?”

Lots of people have desires that do not correspond to real objects that satisfy the desire. You could have a desire to fly like Superman or Peter Pan, or for there to be purple cows. We can imagine such a thing in our minds, but there are not real objects of satisfaction for these. However, these are not innate and universal desires.

And… of course if you end up in Hell, you won’t ever experience satisfaction for your desire. Hmmm… I wonder if you’ll have desire in hell still? That seems to make sense…

 

[vardaquinn]

By the way, C.S. Lewis’ book “The Problem of Pain” has a magnificently beautiful treatment of the concept of desire and “sehnsucht” in his final chapter - Heaven. I think it’s one of the most beautiful things he ever wrote…

 

[Windfish]

Here are is possible response:

Is it not true that we are oriented toward an economy of unlimited wants? Aren’t the animals never satiated? But no eternal life and eternal happiness exists to correspond to their desires.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I desire to go instanteously to the moon and back in less than a second, surviving the journey.

Huh? Look at that. My desire to see the moon and look, ever so briefly, upon the Earth, was not fulfilled.

So how do we know that every desire corresponds to a something that will satiate it? Clearly the thing I want that will get me to the moon as I described does not exist.