Peter Kreeft debates the Argument from Desire

[Arizona_Mike]

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft (Boston College) debated the Argument from Desire recently on the British radio show/podcast “Unbelievable!” with atheist philosopher Richard Norman. The show is always worth listening to - it usually has two people (sometimes a theist and an atheist, or sometimes two believers) debating for about an hour in a very polite, low-key format. Kreeft presents what often is seen as a very simple, even unsophisticated apologetic argument - that our longing to experience the transcendent points towards the existence of God in the same way that our natural (not artificial) desires points towards the existence of such things as food, water, and love - very effectively, and includes some arguments I haven’t previously heard that follow on the initial premises. Well worth a listen. You can download it and the other podcasts in the series for free on iTunes, or directly from the station’s website: premierradio.org.uk/shows/saturday/unbelievable

 

[Boulder257]

Thanks for sharing. Kreeft is amazing and can certainly make a compelling argument!

 

[grannymh]

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft (Boston College) debated the Argument from Desire recently on the British radio show/podcast “Unbelievable!” with atheist philosopher Richard Norman. The show is always worth listening to - it usually has two people (sometimes a theist and an atheist, or sometimes two believers) debating for about an hour in a very polite, low-key format. Kreeft presents what often is seen as a very simple, even unsophisticated apologetic argument - that our longing to experience the transcendent points towards the existence of God in the same way that our natural (not artificial) desires points towards the existence of such things as food, water, and love - very effectively, and includes some arguments I haven’t previously heard that follow on the initial premises. Well worth a listen. You can download it and the other podcasts in the series for free on iTunes, or directly from the station’s website: premierradio.org.uk/shows/saturday/unbelievable

You have my permission to laugh until your sides hurt. Being older than dirt, to me a podcast is either used when a bone is broken or it is some kind of secret language. In addition, I am having my usual
go-around with linked websites. I also do not listen to radio. And yes, as a child, I had a pet dinosaur.

No matter, I have a simple question regarding the Argument from Desire. Did Peter Kreeft include information about the basic foundation for “desire” which dates back to the first humans? This simple foundation is human nature’s inherent capability to sense the spiritual, i.e., to be aware of the super-natural in some form.

 

[prodigalson2011]

No matter, I have a simple question regarding the Argument from Desire. Did Peter Kreeft include information about the basic foundation for “desire” which dates back to the first humans? This simple foundation is human nature’s inherent capability to sense the spiritual, i.e., to be aware of the super-natural in some form.

To paraphrase Descartes (his faults aside), “I observe that there is nothing in my intellect that has not entered from outside of myself. So whence this notion of a perfect being?”

 

[Innoruk]

To paraphrase Descartes (his faults aside), “I observe that there is nothing in my intellect that has not entered from outside of myself. So whence this notion of a perfect being?”

From the same place where the notion of a seven-headed, fire-breathing dragon and the iron-nosed witch came from: our wonderful imagination!

I don’t want to break the forum rules, so I will give a very mild, politically correct assessment of this “argument”. If we would evaluate all the different arguments for God’s existence on a scale of one to tem (where ten would be a compelling argument for any atheist)… this argument would reach the mind-boggling NEGATIVE one on this scale.

 

[grannymh]

To paraphrase Descartes (his faults aside), “I observe that there is nothing in my intellect that has not entered from outside of myself. So whence this notion of a perfect being?”

Good to talk with you again.

That notion of a perfect being is evidence that within human nature per se is the innate capability of rational thinking which is necessary in order to understand both notion and perfect. Whatever knowledge enters one’s being is possible based on the fact that a human can receive such knowledge, analyze it, conceptualize it, evaluate it, chew on it a bit, and ultimately accept or reject it.

Is Descartes’ “nothing in my intellect” the same idea as a blank slate? Both intellect and the symbolic blank slate have to exist some place in order to act upon outside information. By the way, there is a Blank Slate Brewing Company in Cincinnati, Ohio.

 

[polytropos]

From the same place where the notion of a seven-headed, fire-breathing dragon and the iron-nosed witch came from: our wonderful imagination!

I don’t want to break the forum rules, so I will give a very mild, politically correct assessment of this “argument”. If we would evaluate all the different arguments for God’s existence on a scale of one to tem (where ten would be a compelling argument for any atheist)… this argument would reach the mind-boggling NEGATIVE one on this scale.

Indeed, that on its own would make a very poor argument. Fortunately that was not the complete formulation of Descartes’s ontological argument, and the existence of anything you can imagine does not follow from it (Descartes, for all his faults, was not that stupid), so the seven-headed fire-breathing dragon doesn’t quite work as a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[prodigalson2011]

From the same place where the notion of a seven-headed, fire-breathing dragon and the iron-nosed witch came from: our wonderful imagination!

Heads, reptiles and aesthetically unappealing old ladies are all things within the realm of our experience. Try imagining any fantastic creature without utilizing features you’ve never observed: try imagining a creature of a color you’ve never seen, or a texture you’ve never felt. None of our wildest imaginings are completely beyond the realm of our sensory experience, they are only wild variations, recombinations and exaggerations of things we already know. God, on the other hand, is beyond any such comparison.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

prodigalson

**God, on the other hand, is beyond any such comparison. **

Yes. Aside from that, the world has never felt the compelling need to believe in fire-breathing dragons. Yet it has felt everywhere and through all ages the compelling need to explain the universe by reference to Something or Someone who created it. Those who do not feel this compulsion are a distinct minority, and while a minority is not always wrong, they are also not always right, much as they might like to think so.

The closer we come to death, the stronger the compulsion to believe becomes, as even the famous atheist Jean Paul Sartre (and some others) have found out.

 

[Innoruk]

Heads, reptiles and aesthetically unappealing old ladies are all things within the realm of our experience. Try imagining any fantastic creature without utilizing features you’ve never observed: try imagining a creature of a color you’ve never seen, or a texture you’ve never felt. None of our wildest imaginings are completely beyond the realm of our sensory experience, they are only wild variations, recombinations and exaggerations of things we already know. God, on the other hand, is beyond any such comparison.

Nonsense. God is simply a ridiculously overblown ultra-super-duper human… nothing more. We value certain human traits, and God - as imagined - is a manifestation of these traits, brought to the impossible extreme. Knowledge without bounds, “infinite power”… “infinite love”, which is compatible with genocide (this is the wet dream of all the tyrants, who want to do whatever their evil little heart desires, and still wish to be praised as the epitome of goodness)… Yeah, right.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Good to talk with you again.

That notion of a perfect being is evidence that within human nature per se is the innate capability of rational thinking which is necessary in order to understand both notion and perfect. Whatever knowledge enters one’s being is possible based on the fact that a human can receive such knowledge, analyze it, conceptualize it, evaluate it, chew on it a bit, and ultimately accept or reject it.

Is Descartes’ “nothing in my intellect” the same idea as a blank slate? Both intellect and the symbolic blank slate have to exist some place in order to act upon outside information. By the way, there is a Blank Slate Brewing Company in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Notions are evidence?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nonsense. God is simply a ridiculously overblown ultra-super-duper human… nothing more. We value certain human traits, and God - as imagined - is a manifestation of these traits, brought to the impossible extreme. Knowledge without bounds, “infinite power”… “infinite love”, which is compatible with genocide (this is the wet dream of all the tyrants, who want to do whatever their evil little heart desires, and still wish to be praised as the epitome of goodness)… Yeah, right.

A disembodied, omnipresent, unchanging, unmoved and unmovable, eternal intelligence in whom there is no distinction whatsoever between will and knowledge, knowledge and power, power and being, being and love – in fact no composition whatsoever – which exists outside space and time and yet permeates it, sounds nothing like a human being to me.

A proper explication merits much more than the scant few words I have given the subject here, but suffice it to say your comment betrays a very simplistic and misinformed concept of the Catholic understanding of God.

Tales of dragons, witches and the like have permeated all cultures throughout history, which is indicative of their imaginary origins. Yet the monotheistic concept of God as we know it was completely alien to all cultures outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and was only realized outside of that worldview by the most exacting of pre-Christian philosophers, and then by a process of reason, not imagination.

My apologies if my saying this gives offense, but I honestly find the kind of hand-waving, condescending dismissal your remarks exemplify comes across as both arrogant and ignorant. It’s insulting to the intelligence of everyone here.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Innoruk**

Nonsense. God is simply a ridiculously overblown ultra-super-duper human… nothing more.**

This is an arrogant and ignorant assertion without even the offer of proof.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

And since there is no proof that God does not exist, the question poses itself:

If there is a God, is it not common sense that this God would plant in us a desire to know Him?

 

[DaveE]

Nonsense. God is simply a ridiculously overblown ultra-super-duper human… nothing more. We value certain human traits, and God - as imagined - is a manifestation of these traits, brought to the impossible extreme. Knowledge without bounds, “infinite power”… “infinite love”, which is compatible with genocide (this is the wet dream of all the tyrants, who want to do whatever their evil little heart desires, and still wish to be praised as the epitome of goodness)… Yeah, right.

I am a former atheist who, until very recently, would have read the above and generally supported the concept that God could not be explained and therefore would be impossible to prove and personalize. Calling Him out as “ridiculously overblown” on a Catholic forum is of course picking a fight. But it’s a fight that the atheist feels not the slightest concern that he would ever lose. In fact, to win in his mind, everything simply needs to stay muddy and indefinite (or infinite).

Those who believe in the Church’s theology see writers like Peter Kreeft as wonderful examples for apologetics, very pure and straightforward in style, cutting right to the heart of the matter. However, the apologetic style, wonderful in enhancing the faith of the believer, will do nothing to convince the non-believer.

My question for Innoruk is: Are you posting because you like to engage in word fights that cannot be lost or do you post because you inherently feel that the destruction of the believer’s mindset is a requirement to advance mankind’s collective cause? If it’s the former, what satisfaction do you really get out of this? I would guess not enough to do it in the first place, unless you were a psychotic bully . . . or driven by a mysterious urge to destroy. If not, tell me why undermining the Christian’s meaning of God is a positive course of action?

If Innoruk weighs in, great. Otherwise, I’m interested in any other feedback.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dave

I don’t speak for Innoruk.

As a former atheist, I used to think it was some satisfaction to prove to myself that atheism is true. This could be done in one way by calling out Christians and taunting them to produce proof for God. However, they could not produce the kind of compelling proof that I wanted them to. Ergo, my belief in atheism was bolstered.

It was only when someone turned the tables on me for the first time, and asked me to produce proof of atheism, that I realized I had even less proof for atheism than most theists have for God. I was the intellectual hypocrite that I accused theists of being.

 

[DaveE]

Dave

I don’t speak for Innoruk.

As a former atheist, I used to think it was some satisfaction to prove to myself that atheism is true. This could be done in one way by calling out Christians and taunting them to produce proof for God. However, they could not produce the kind of compelling proof that I wanted them to. Ergo, my belief in atheism was bolstered.

It was only when someone turned the tables on me for the first time, and asked me to produce proof of atheism, that I realized I had even less proof for atheism than most theists have for God. I was the intellectual hypocrite that I accused theists of being.

Very interesting. I would suggest that your quest shows a humility and intellectual discipline and obviously, a real interest in Truth. I, unfortunately, did not possess this ability. My atheism was focused on obscuring Truth by embracing all answers as possible. Unfortunately, my path to light led me first through a great, harrowing darkness.

 

[Innoruk]

My question for Innoruk is: Are you posting because you like to engage in word fights that cannot be lost or do you post because you inherently feel that the destruction of the believer’s mindset is a requirement to advance mankind’s collective cause? If it’s the former, what satisfaction do you really get out of this? I would guess not enough to do it in the first place, unless you were a psychotic bully . . . or driven by a mysterious urge to destroy. If not, tell me why undermining the Christian’s meaning of God is a positive course of action?

How about neither? I am simply interested in the religious mindset and its workings.

Very interesting. I would suggest that your quest shows a humility and intellectual discipline and obviously, a real interest in Truth. I, unfortunately, did not possess this ability. My atheism was focused on obscuring Truth by embracing all answers as possible. Unfortunately, my path to light led me first through a great, harrowing darkness.

As soon as someone utters the word “Truth” (capitalized) I lose interest.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dave

**I would suggest that your quest shows a humility and intellectual discipline and obviously, a real interest in Truth. **

Well, that’s part of the story, that I was interested in Truth, or should I say Wisdom?

The other part is that I had finally reached an age when I could see things better than the teenage atheist I used to be could see them. What I mean is that I think getting to be fifty or so is about the time a man begins to settle accounts with himself. It’s about the time when death looms significant (as in the death of our parents), and hope seems to be a more rational alternative than cynical despair. The mind then begins to air itself out, as does the heart. The stuffy closet of atheism, which had always disguised itself as liberating, had begun to suffocate me. I really believe that in the long run it is the heart, rather than the mind, that opens up to us a vision of things celestial. Then the heart liberates the mind to think in ways it had, like a merciless tyrant, never allowed itself to think.

Those who believe there is no epistemology for religious claims simply have no heart that can rise to the epistemology.

 

[DaveE]

Dave

**I would suggest that your quest shows a humility and intellectual discipline and obviously, a real interest in Truth. **

Well, that’s part of the story, that I was interested in Truth, or should I say Wisdom?

The other part is that I had finally reached an age when I could see things better than the teenage atheist I used to be could see them. What I mean is that I think getting to be fifty or so is about the time a man begins to settle accounts with himself. It’s about the time when death looms significant (as in the death of our parents), and hope seems to be a more rational alternative than cynical despair. The mind then begins to air itself out, as does the heart. The stuffy closet of atheism, which had always disguised itself as liberating, had begun to suffocate me. I really believe that in the long run it is the heart, rather than the mind, that opens up to us a vision of things celestial. Then the heart liberates the mind to think in ways it had, like a merciless tyrant, never allowed itself to think.

Those who believe there is no epistemology for religious claims simply have no heart that can rise to the epistemology.

Very well-said and definitely resonant. It was shocking to experience a sudden bliss and humility in place of a long-entrenched dread and uncertainty. My only experience previously with that joy had been in occasional moments with my kids as newborns, when they looked into my eyes and I suddenly realized their absolute faith in me.