Peter Kreeft debates the Argument from Desire

[DaveE]

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

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

Great. Glad I was able to help.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dave

**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. **

Now you have the eyes of the child looking into the eyes of the Father.

 

[westNwewaxation]

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.

I am really interested in the psychology of conversion, so this was a great post for me to read. I know theologically it is the grace of God that truly converts people, but sometimes I think we can avoid wasting time and “casting pearls before swine” if we can discern that a person is not really open to the truth and is perhaps only trying to make us angry and get a rise out of us by profaning something we hold sacred. Sometimes it is more wise to simply try to build some kind of goodwill by talking about something mundane, or sports or something, or perhaps just ask questions, until perhaps they get to the point that they back off of animosity and perhaps signal sincere curiosity by asking us a sincere question…

I basically think too that humility is that first step that God builds on.

 

[westNwewaxation]

I had trouble finding the correct show, and finally found it here so if you are also having trouble finding the Peter Kreeft episode I found it here:
premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7B51E6C8A1-D0F2-484A-AAF7-CDA669E94A34%7D

 

[Charlemagne_II]

west

I basically think too that humility is that first step that God builds on.

Adam and Eve fell off that first step when they fell for the serpent’s offer to be as God.

 

[jonathan_hili]

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’m not sure this criticism works. I don’t think anyone would deny that our imagination is involved in understanding divine reality. Indeed, our imagination is involved in understanding everyday reality. However, to conclude that it is just imagination is problematic since there is a sense - a real, intimate sense - in most human beings who have ever lived that the divine or supernatural is a true reality. Yet very few, I think, believed that fanciful constructions such as seven-headed dragons are real. So there may be a qualitative difference here.

But let us assume the reply is simply to an argument like the Ontological Argument. I think that’s fair enough, as I don’t believe the Ontological Argument works as a proof - though it is a very powerful qualifier to other arguments and seems to place the burden of proof on the atheist. However, Kreeft’s focus is on our desire for the supernatural, rather than our imagination of the supernatural.

 

[Innoruk]

I’m not sure this criticism works. I don’t think anyone would deny that our imagination is involved in understanding divine reality. Indeed, our imagination is involved in understanding everyday reality. However, to conclude that it is just imagination is problematic since there is a sense - a real, intimate sense - in most human beings who have ever lived that the divine or supernatural is a true reality. Yet very few, I think, believed that fanciful constructions such as seven-headed dragons are real. So there may be a qualitative difference here.

That would be another instance of “argumentum ad numeram”. Besides, just because many people believe something that is not indicative that the object of that belief is real.

But let us assume the reply is simply to an argument like the Ontological Argument. I think that’s fair enough, as I don’t believe the Ontological Argument works as a proof - though it is a very powerful qualifier to other arguments and seems to place the burden of proof on the atheist. However, Kreeft’s focus is on our desire for the supernatural, rather than our imagination of the supernatural.

The presented “argument” is not like the ontological argument, which suffers from its own problems. It simply says that the fact, that many people “desire” some continuation to this life, or the existence of some deity, that “desire” should be regarded as an evidence. Of all the suggested “proofs” for God’s existence this is probably the most childish, primitive arguments. For the purposes of entertainment only, peruse the following link: Hundereds of proofs for God’s existence

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Innoruk

Of all the suggested “proofs” for God’s existence this is probably the most childish, primitive arguments.

Then you are insulting the vast majority of mankind as childish and primitive. That must make you feel superior indeed, as I guess it made me feel superior when I was in the atheist camp.

Truth to tell, there is not even a childish or primitive proof that God does not exist. Nor is there and intelligent or adult proof that God does not exist. All you ever get from the atheist is flat out denial and maybe a contemptuous giggle that anybody should be so stupid as to believe in God…

That being said, what if God does exist?

Would it seem to you that he might be regard us as his children? That he might regard himself as our Father? That he might plant in us, as you might plant in your own child, the desire to know you and love you and never let you go?

 

[Innoruk]

Then you are insulting the vast majority of mankind as childish and primitive.

I rather doubt it that the “vast majority” of mankind would consider this argument worth to contemplate. It is my experience that even the majority of the believers consider this argument “vastly inferior” - to say the least.

Truth to tell, there is not even a childish or primitive proof that God does not exist. Nor is there and intelligent or adult proof that God does not exist. All you ever get from the atheist is flat out denial and maybe a contemptuous giggle that anybody should be so stupid as to believe in God…

Anyone who thinks that a “universal negative can and should be proven” definitely deserves all the contempt we can pile upon him or her.

That being said, what if God does exist?

Would it seem to you that he might be regard us as his children? That he might regard himself as our Father? That he might plant in us, as you might plant in your own child, the desire to know you and love you and never let you go?

If he does consider us as children, then he would be the worst deadbeat dad out there… and if he planted some “desire” in us, than he “messed up”, just like he messed up when it came to care about us. Why should anyone “desire” to be with someone, who never manifests his existence to us, who never comes to aid us when we need help, who never expresses his alleged “love” for us - in any way shape or form that we can observe as such? When my child needed (and needs) me, I am there to help. He does not even have to ask me, I offer the help without being asked. If he turns down that help, I do not get “miffed”, I do not consider it an insult (it happened). Yet, I accept that he has to live his own life, I am not the center of his existence. I do not want gratitude (much less some adoration) for what I did, I did it because it was my duty as the father. To call God a “father” is the worst kind of insult to all the real, good and loving fathers on this Earth.

 

[grannymh]

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

Me, too. Going back to the dawn of human history.

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

It seems to me that the Argument from Desire requires some kind of Truth to be present. Yet, if one examines human nature history, the inherent capability to recognize some sort of super-natural reality does not always result in an objective truth. The interesting twist, at least to me, is that the Argument from Desire applies to human history because a natural capability for understanding something transcendent exists as part of human nature.

In other words, the religious (as in spiritual) mindset has always existed in all civilizations since Adam and Eve. Would this be the “philosophical” question – If the ability to recognize the existence of the spiritual world leads to the seeking of God because of the normal [intellectual] desire to know God, does that demonstrate the existence of God? I think it does.

 

[POJIUJH]

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

It needs to be pointed out that even our imagination cannot make us desire something that doesn’t exist - even in some masked and distorted form. Our imagination is more a product of our desire.

If you are fond of novels (and/or philosophy) I would make an honest recommendation of what JRR Tolkien and GK Chesterton have to say on the topic. I have never been much into fiction, but the profoundly deep and solid logical understanding they have is very impressive.

youtube.com/watch?v=NzBT39gx-TE

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Innoruk

**To call God a “father” is the worst kind of insult to all the real, good and loving fathers on this Earth. **

But if he gave us all the universe you the gift of life, what kind of an ingrate does that make you?

Anyone who thinks that a “universal negative can and should be proven” definitely deserves all the contempt we can pile upon him or her.

So anyone who thinks that God does not exist without one iota of proof must be admirable? Does not compute.

**I rather doubt it that the “vast majority” of mankind would consider this argument worth to contemplate. It is my experience that even the majority of the believers consider this argument “vastly inferior” - to say the least. **

And you know this how?

If he does consider us as children, then he would be the worst deadbeat dad out there…

Right. So deadbeat he would die on a cross for our sake.

 

[Innoruk]

Me, too. Going back to the dawn of human history.

In a sense it is true. Superstition is as old as humanity, and it stems from (a) ignorance and (b) our attempts to explain reality - since a proper interpretation of reality has a huge survival value.

But the rain-gods, the hunter-gods, and all the different “gods”, who “needed” to appeased slowly and gradually disappeared, since experience and knowledge gave us a good, reliable, repeatable method to try and predict the effects of our actions.

It seems to me that the Argument from Desire requires some kind of Truth to be present.

Which makes this argument nonsensical. There are innumerable true statements, but there is no “Truth” as an ontological object.

Yet, if one examines human nature history, the inherent capability to recognize some sort of super-natural reality does not always result in an objective truth.

Hold it, right there. Who says that there is a “supernatural reality” and who says that it is “recognized”? All I see is a bunch of wishful thinking, and some so-called arguments, which cannot stand the light of reason.

 

[Innoruk]

It needs to be pointed out that even our imagination cannot make us desire something that doesn’t exist - even in some masked and distorted form.

Why not? I would desire a very long and healthy life (thousands of years) with the physical capacity of a twenty-some years old, but that does not indicate that such a long life is possible.

Our imagination is more a product of our desire.

Ah, then we also “desire” hell and damnation, since those are also a product of our imagination. Nice to know that our “desire” has a “creative” component built into it. As a matter of fact, I already heard something like this from some “new-agers”, who asserted that “you create with your mouth” - meaning that if you predict something, it will happen, be it good or bad.

 

[jonathan_hili]

That would be another instance of “argumentum ad numeram”. Besides, just because many people believe something that is not indicative that the object of that belief is real.

It depends what you mean by “believe”. If people believe in the existence of the supernatural through their personal experience (which many have) or comprehension of reality, then I think it is at least indicative. It might still be false, but it should not be ignored.

The presented “argument” is not like the ontological argument, which suffers from its own problems. It simply says that the fact, that many people “desire” some continuation to this life, or the existence of some deity, that “desire” should be regarded as an evidence. Of all the suggested “proofs” for God’s existence this is probably the most childish, primitive arguments. For the purposes of entertainment only, peruse the following link: Hundereds of proofs for God’s existence

That’s not exactly the argument, at least as I’ve heard Peter Kreeft use it. The argument is that there is a natural desire for the numinous, for a supernatural Other. If all other natural desires have some kind of possible natural fulfilment, then it follows (or at least suggests) that this desire too must have such a fulfilment.

 

[grannymh]

In a sense it is true. Superstition is as old as humanity, and it stems from (a) ignorance and (b) our attempts to explain reality - since a proper interpretation of reality has a huge survival value.

But the rain-gods, the hunter-gods, and all the different “gods”, who “needed” to appeased slowly and gradually disappeared, since experience and knowledge gave us a good, reliable, repeatable method to try and predict the effects of our actions.

Which makes this argument nonsensical. There are innumerable true statements, but there is no “Truth” as an ontological object.

Hold it, right there. Who says that there is a “supernatural reality” and who says that it is “recognized”? All I see is a bunch of wishful thinking, and some so-called arguments, which cannot stand the light of reason.

May I suggest that you read again what I attempted to communicate. My post 30 was directed to human nature per se. The real question which needs to be answered is – how can a human person even describe rain-gods and shamans and any superstition without the recognition that “something” beyond what can be seen and touched can exist? Human nature has the ability to consider “possibility.”

Please notice that upfront I stated: “Yet, if one examines human nature history, the inherent capability to recognize some sort of super-natural reality does not always result in an objective truth.” The words “inherent capability to recognize” refers directly to human nature itself.

Yes, there are people who refuse to consider that there is “something” out there. The scientific definition for that is extraordinary phenomenon.

My apology if post 30 sounded like I was referring to * “Truth” as an ontological object.* Allow me to rephrase. Objective truth refers to something which exists independent of our wishful thoughts. objective is the operative word. For example, the sun exists in the sky. The existence of the sun is an objective truth because the sun was in the sky before we were born and it will remain in the sky after we die. Objective truth is something or someone that is real outside of ourself. Rain-gods are usually formed by human’s wishful thinking which is basically subjective, not objective, thinking.

Rain-gods indicate that the human person is capable of considering something super-natural, even something that is spiritual. Weather forecasters are naturally real; rain-gods are not naturally real.

The curious person, when faced with a human history of rain-gods and weather forecasters who, at times, wish they could change an approaching hurricane, will start to question from where did the idea of super-natural come from. It cannot be from ignorance because ignorance would prevent this kind of creative imagination. The light of reason would conclude that there had to be some kind of outside impetus or stimulus in order for thoughts about an “outside” theory could even originate. Like begets like.

At this point, the simple truth is that logically the something super-natural in some form exists. Knowing that they have the innate ability to understand the difference between the natural and super-natural, humans sought the super-natural and found God.

 

[Innoruk]

It depends what you mean by “believe”.

You mean it depends on what “IS” is?

If people believe in the existence of the supernatural through their personal experience (which many have) or comprehension of reality, then I think it is at least indicative. It might still be false, but it should not be ignored.

Correction: “(which many have)” should be “(which many BELIEVE THEY have)”. And if it false, then it MUST be ignored.

That’s not exactly the argument, at least as I’ve heard Peter Kreeft use it. The argument is that there is a natural desire for the numinous, for a supernatural Other.

And how would he know that there is a “natural desire” for some supernatural? Did he interview everyone? Speaking only for myself, I have no desire for anything supernatural. As a matter of fact the “promised” eternal “bliss” or eternal “damnation” only fill me with horror.

If all other natural desires have some kind of possible natural fulfilment, then it follows (or at least suggests) that this desire too must have such a fulfilment.

A typical case of putting the cart in front to f the horse. The desires come from natural, biological needs, not the other way 'round.

 

[Innoruk]

Yes, there are people who refuse to consider that there is “something” out there.

Those who refuse to even consider it are too closed-minded. Do not confuse them with those people who are willing to consider it, and who find the offered evidence insufficient.

The scientific definition for that is extraordinary phenomenon.

Quite contrary to the usual saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”, I do not wish to demand special “proofs” for religious claims. I need equal proof (evidence) for ALL claims.

My apology if post 30 sounded like I was referring to * “Truth” as an ontological object.* Allow me to rephrase. Objective truth refers to something which exists independent of our wishful thoughts. objective is the operative word.

I agree with you 100% .

Rain-gods are usually formed by human’s wishful thinking which is basically subjective, not objective, thinking.

The proposition of all gods fall into the same category. There is no objective evidence for the existence of ANY gods.

Rain-gods indicate that the human person is capable of considering something super-natural, even something that is spiritual. Weather forecasters are naturally real; rain-gods are not naturally real.

Sure. They were simply the most plausible explanation for the natural phenomenon before science was advanced enough to create an even rudimentary meteorology. Of course people should have realized that the hocus-pocus of the tribal shamans did not produce good results, and yet they kept on believing. Of course today people utter millions of prayers every day - just look at the sub-forum of “Prayer intentions” - and almost none of them are fulfilled - yet people keep on believing that “prayers are fulfilled”. Not much of a difference compared to our cavemen ancestors.

… will start to question from where did the idea of super-natural come from. It cannot be from ignorance because ignorance would prevent this kind of creative imagination.

On the very contrary, it does come from ignorance.

The light of reason would conclude that there had to be some kind of outside impetus or stimulus in order for thoughts about an “outside” theory could even originate. Like begets like.

Actually, I read a very plausible explanation for the emergence of “super-natural”. It cannot be verified, since the roots go back hundreds of thousands of years, but the facts are still unquestionable and the conclusion is very logical.

At this point, the simple truth is that logically the something super-natural in some form exists. Knowing that they have the innate ability to understand the difference between the natural and super-natural, humans sought the super-natural and found God.

That “logic” escapes me.

 

[Innoruk]

So anyone who thinks that <an invisible, red, fire-breathing dragon> does not exist without one iota of proof must be admirable? Does not compute.

Oh yes it does, to anyone who is at least a little bit rational. There are no “proofs” of non-existence. Yet, the truth is, that “absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence”. You know what? Leave me alone until you learn the difference between “proof” and “evidence”. Hint: “proofs can only happen in the formal axiomatic systems”.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Correction: “(which many have)” should be “(which many BELIEVE THEY have)”. And if it false, then it MUST be ignored.

Well, isn’t that what I said? I said they have a personal experience which they interpret as one of divine or supernatural origin or connection. The question is: is it more likely to be false than not? If it is, you have to argue that most of the human population is deluded (in some sense) about reality. I don’t think you can ignore a priori.

And how would he know that there is a “natural desire” for some supernatural? Did he interview everyone? Speaking only for myself, I have no desire for anything supernatural. As a matter of fact the “promised” eternal “bliss” or eternal “damnation” only fill me with horror.

Kreeft (following from Lewis, following from Augustine) spoke of an inner yearning for the divine. Obviously he didn’t interview everyone but it seems to be well-documented throughout history. It also helps us to understand to origin of religion and religious behaviour, which is universal among humanity.

Could your aversion to the supernatural perhaps bias your judgements? I think that’s why I hold Augustine and Lewis’ view in some regard - both wanted to run away from God but felt this inner pull.

A typical case of putting the cart in front to f the horse. The desires come from natural, biological needs, not the other way 'round.

Huh? On the one hand you argue there’s no such desire, on the other you say that if there is, it’s natural. Why would you believe it is a natural biological desire when our natural biological nor anything in the world can fulfill this desire?