Peter Kreeft debates the Argument from Desire

[jonathan_hili]

That is not the point. You said that one should investigate the claims of supernatural. I say: “you do it” - in a proper fashion (double blind, control group tested). If the result is statistically significant, then fine.

Sure, I’ve no problem with this as a general rule.

That is precisely the reason to have double-blind control groups. Besides, there are very reliable “trick” methods, which allow you to gauge the honesty of the respondents, to see if they wish to “skew” the results. In testing for personality traits, people try to “show their better side”, and the psychologists developed tests to find out if people are lying about themselves.

Sheesh… are you serious? What kind of experiment is that? Don’t you think people who don’t want something to come out are capable of doing this, let alone God? I mean, it’s not just a question of testing personality traits but testing their integrity, which I’m sure they wouldn’t necessarily appreciate.

Since none of those were performed in proper format, they are correctly disregarded as anecdotal.

“Proper format”? Who defines this? Again, you’re treating miracles like repeatable natural phenomena, which they are not - or else they wouldn’t be miracles.

Let me give an example. There are literally millions of instances when people report that they had a premonition about something, and their premonition came true. I am not talking about a paltry few hundred “miracles”, but literally millions. Let’s assume that all those people are perfectly honest, they did have that premonition, and it really came true. Do you think that millions of positive results are truly an indication of “premonition”?

What do you mean by “premonition” here? Do you mean “predictions of the future”? How specified would these be? I think it depends on every case.

Fatima is a remarkable example of such a thing. How would you understand that?

 

[grannymh]

Every terminally ill cancer patient desires a cure for his illness. Therefore there is a real medicine that will satisfy that desire. All you have to do is wish for something and your wish will be magically fulfilled!

May I gently point out that humans, on the whole, are not gods.

This simple observation is why the comment “Every terminally ill cancer patient desires a cure for his illness. Therefore there is a real medicine that will satisfy that desire. All you have to do is wish for something and your wish will be magically fulfilled!”
fails.

Another example

Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

This example needs some common sense reasoning when it comes to the word “us”. “Us” does not mean that we are gods in that we have total control of everything in our own particular situation and environment.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Every dying person desires a cure for his dying. That cure actually exists. Life eternal!

 

[Innoruk]

Sheesh… are you serious? What kind of experiment is that? Don’t you think people who don’t want something to come out are capable of doing this, let alone God? I mean, it’s not just a question of testing personality traits but testing their integrity, which I’m sure they wouldn’t necessarily appreciate.

They don’t even know about it. That is the beauty!

“Proper format”? Who defines this? Again, you’re treating miracles like repeatable natural phenomena, which they are not - or else they wouldn’t be miracles.

The believers assert that supplicative prayer “works”, meaning that it gets “fulfilled”, and that this fulfillment is many times called “miraculous”. The testing for the efficacy of the prayers is definitely a real-world, repeatable endeavor, along with the alleged fulfillment of these prayers.

Therefore the “proper format” is the same as it is for all statistical expectations: “establish a test group, a control group, make sure that none of the direct participants are aware in which group they belong - this is the double blind setup.” And then after a suitable amount to time (defined beforehand) examine if there is a statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group.

What do you mean by “premonition” here? Do you mean “predictions of the future”?

Obviously.

How specified would these be? I think it depends on every case.

It does not matter. Suppose that the requirements are very precise. Suppose that still you will get millions of “true positives”. Do you think that these positives can be taken “seriously” as an indication of “premonition”? (Hint: you really need to be familiar with statistical analysis to answer correctly.)

Fatima is a remarkable example of such a thing. How would you understand that?

It is only an anecdote from a long time ago.

 

[Innoruk]

May I gently point out that humans, on the whole, are not gods.

This simple observation is why the comment “Every terminally ill cancer patient desires a cure for his illness. Therefore there is a real medicine that will satisfy that desire. All you have to do is wish for something and your wish will be magically fulfilled!”
fails.

Of course it fails. It was the intent to show that the “argument from desire” is sheer nonsense.

 

[grannymh]

Of course it fails. It was the intent to show that the “argument from desire” is sheer nonsense.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*May I gently point out that humans, on the whole, are not gods. *

Perhaps, it will be more understandable if I added that humans are the pinnacle of God’s creation because they are both spiritual and material. One must not confuse the eternal spiritual world of God with the material world of our decomposing anatomy.

The argument from desire succeeds because it is based on the reality of human nature destined for joy eternal with God.

Perhaps, where we differ is that I give credit to natural human nature…
I do not demean it by reducing its intellectual ability. I when I look at the wonders within the human person.

 

[Innoruk]

The argument from desire succeeds because it is based on the reality of human nature destined for joy eternal with God.

In that case I am not a “human”, since I have absolutely no desire to live “forever” either with God or without God. What I would desire is to live as long as I wish to live, in a physical form as healthy and strong as I was in my early twenties, with a constantly evolving and sharp mind (which I still enjoy in my upper sixties). Alas, no matter how strong this desire is, it is not an indication that it is possible to fulfill. Desire does not point to a reality of the fulfillment of that desire.

My favorite author (Stanislaw Lem) wrote once that people do not desire eternal life, they simply do not want to get old and die. Swift wrote in his wonderful “Gulliver’s Travels” about the “struldbrugs” - the most pitiful kind of creatures, who are unable to die, but they are cursed with eternal existence. Nothing could be more horrible than any kind of “eternal existence”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Innoruk
**
Therefore the “proper format” is the same as it is for all statistical expectations: “establish a test group, a control group, make sure that none of the direct participants are aware in which group they belong - this is the double blind setup.” And then after a suitable amount to time (defined beforehand) examine if there is a statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group. **

This would be **** science and would settle nothing.
**
Of course it fails. It was the intent to show that the “argument from desire” is sheer nonsense.**

You may take a different view on your deathbed, as Jean Paul Sartre did.

**Nothing could be more horrible than any kind of “eternal existence”. **

Pretty much of a sheer nonsense statement, but certainly predictable for an atheist.

 

[jonathan_hili]

They don’t even know about it. That is the beauty!

Well, if they don’t, that’s a different thing. But when you try to “experiment” with God, He does know about it, so obviously the results will not be as we expect.

The believers assert that supplicative prayer “works”, meaning that it gets “fulfilled”, and that this fulfillment is many times called “miraculous”. The testing for the efficacy of the prayers is definitely a real-world, repeatable endeavor, along with the alleged fulfillment of these prayers.

Therefore the “proper format” is the same as it is for all statistical expectations: “establish a test group, a control group, make sure that none of the direct participants are aware in which group they belong - this is the double blind setup.” And then after a suitable amount to time (defined beforehand) examine if there is a statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group.

Again, I think you’re failing to understand people, Innoruk. Supplicative prayer “works” because God fulfils our prayers - but not always, in much the same way as asking our parents for pocket money works sometimes but not on every single occasion. Therefore, you can never get the same repeatable test as you do with non-rational creatures or non-living things.

I mean, imagine I said to my wife: “Honey, know I think you love me, but I want to make sure, so I am going to conduct this double blind experiment through this and this means to make sure you do love me.” I wouldn’t be surprised if she slapped me and threw me out of the house (which would seem to indicate that she doesn’t love me, but actually shows the contrary)! You can’t treat people as if they are just objects and then expect them to fulfil your plans. In fact, one of the greatest insults to God (as we see in the Book of Job) is acting as if He isn’t here.

It is only an anecdote from a long time ago.

Really? It occurred about 100 years ago (which isn’t that long ago) and is very well attested and documented. Are you going to disregard it even though there is so much evidence of it occurring?

 

[Innoruk]

Well, if they don’t, that’s a different thing. But when you try to “experiment” with God, He does know about it, so obviously the results will not be as we expect.

Your defense is worse than my accusation. You say that the statistical method does not work, because God intentionally distorts the results. In my humble opinion to call God a “cheater” is much more disrespectful than doubting God’s existence.

Again, I think you’re failing to understand people, Innoruk. Supplicative prayer “works” because God fulfils our prayers - but not always, in much the same way as asking our parents for pocket money works sometimes but not on every single occasion. Therefore, you can never get the same repeatable test as you do with non-rational creatures or non-living things.

If God would grant prayers based upon his alleged value system (he acts in our best interest both here and the hereafter) then we certainly could test for it. The test only fails is God intentionally makes the result incorrect. Of course the result does not show any distortion. If clearly shows either indifference or out-right malevolence by God.

I mean, imagine I said to my wife: “Honey, know I think you love me, but I want to make sure, so I am going to conduct this double blind experiment through this and this means to make sure you do love me.”

Actually you do it every day and all the time - not formally, but informally.

Really? It occurred about 100 years ago (which isn’t that long ago) and is very well attested and documented. Are you going to disregard it even though there is so much evidence of it occurring?

Yes, I do. And for the same reason that I would disregard those one million, properly documented instances of “premonition”. The explanation is simple, but you need to understand some elementary probability theory and statistical analysis.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Your defense is worse than my accusation. You say that the statistical method does not work, because God intentionally distorts the results. In my humble opinion to call God a “cheater” is much more disrespectful than doubting God’s existence.

Ummm… I’m saying God is personal and therefore doesn’t have to respond to any kind of scientific experiment because He has free will. Just like you and I. Response to prayer (at least in the way we think) is no more guaranteed than a child asking his parents for some chocolate. The statistical method doesn’t work with free agents, especially if they know they are being experimented on.

If God would grant prayers based upon his alleged value system (he acts in our best interest both here and the hereafter) then we certainly could test for it. The test only fails is God intentionally makes the result incorrect. Of course the result does not show any distortion. If clearly shows either indifference or out-right malevolence by God.

Since we don’t know (i) the future, (ii) all possible contingencies resulting from the granting of any specific prayer to the petitioner or others, and (iii) what God has planned, I don’t think we can conclude any of this. Again, how would a child know why his parents refused to give him whatever he asked for? And compared to God, we are far less than children in knowledge.

Actually you do it every day and all the time - not formally, but informally.

Do you? Don’t you take a lot on faith (i.e. trust) that she does actually love you? If what you mean is that one’s wife shows love towards her husband in many ways, which vindicates his belief that she loves him, that’s fine, and I would say the same about God: His love is shown to me in so many ways (uncountable, in fact), and I believe this vindicates my trust in Him.

Yes, I do. And for the same reason that I would disregard those one million, properly documented instances of “premonition”. The explanation is simple, but you need to understand some elementary probability theory and statistical analysis.

Oh, that’s interesting. Again, the Humean objection to miracles. What is it specifically about Fatima that you find unconvincing?

 

[Innoruk]

Ummm… I’m saying God is personal and therefore doesn’t have to respond to any kind of scientific experiment because He has free will. Just like you and I. Response to prayer (at least in the way we think) is no more guaranteed than a child asking his parents for some chocolate. The statistical method doesn’t work with free agents, especially if they know they are being experimented on.

Since we don’t know (i) the future, (ii) all possible contingencies resulting from the granting of any specific prayer to the petitioner or others, and (iii) what God has planned, I don’t think we can conclude any of this. Again, how would a child know why his parents refused to give him whatever he asked for? And compared to God, we are far less than children in knowledge.

Ok, let’s use your example. A child actually begs his parents to give him some food, because he is very hungry. The parents do not even “refuse verbally”, they simply ignore the child. Do you really say that such behavior (constantly!) on the part of the parents does not justify the child to reach the conclusion: “my parents don’t care about me”.

If you go to the “prayer intentions” sub forum, you will never see anyone to beg for million dollars. They ask that their loved ones would get better. Some may ask for mundane results, for sure, but most of the petitioners ask for something that is “supposed to be” in line what God has in mind for us. And their plight goes unanswered. If you say that all those “petitions” are contrary to God’s “plans” then God’s plans are very cruel and uncaring indeed. Not just God does not display any caring about our temporal well-being, but he refuses to give help if one needs it to get “closer” to God.

When there is a conversation about prayer and its effects, I am reminded of this farcical story from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/. Maybe you will see how this “prayer-thing” looks from the other side…

Do you? Don’t you take a lot on faith (i.e. trust) that she does actually love you? If what you mean is that one’s wife shows love towards her husband in many ways, which vindicates his belief that she loves him, that’s fine, and I would say the same about God: His love is shown to me in so many ways (uncountable, in fact), and I believe this vindicates my trust in Him.

Nope, not after 33 years of being together, when half of the time she can finish my sentences and the other half of the time I can finish hers. There is no “faith” involved (faith does not equal trust anyhow). Now, if you say that God manifested his love to you “uncountable” times, that is great. He sure never manifests his love to the hungry, to the sick, to the tortured… so, if God loves everyone equally () he sure does not manifest that “love” equally.

Oh, that’s interesting. Again, the Humean objection to miracles. What is it specifically about Fatima that you find unconvincing?

As the old saying goes: “one swallow does not a summer make”. But even one million of such instances would not make one ounce of actual evidence.

 

[myelin]

Life is all about becoming something else and evolving through change or what could be said doorways. Thats the set up and how man came to be, the organizing of life and how the mind and everything works. So its difficult to take the set-up which in every way in idea promotes an inner limb of soul for getting through a doorway, and saying the set up defies the idea in principal. I could see it if man was made bingo, or to live forever…then there would be a contradiction in the idea in going into something else. Life is a job and there is probably another job to do in a different way if it can be handled. All people need to do is look at science and the unique evolving idea’s in the butterfly. These things are the engineering and organization of a process. The OP clip is all about being reminded through art, justice, beauty, music and so on that we are …not alone in this underlying need for…more then what is somewhat held in secret or the soul in its requirements for realization ( measure-a reciprocating just and infinitely timeless or perfect boundary allowing for a unity) So unity and its role in organization in the creation and ourselves through these things inspires not that there is a god i don’t think…but there is in fact an infinite real part of man in potential…a soul…so for now I guess I’m somewhat criticizing the OP and hauling out value in my own way…which is ok with his idea because he did say there was wiggle room…plus it was short and he would prob say being an expert…oh well your saying the same thing knucklehead…ha ha ha. were not designed to major worry on these things and I refuse.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The following at U-tube (about three minutes long) is by Mozart, who desired to praise the Eucharist. That he did so with such ardor and genius suggests that he was not drawn to a figment of his imagination, but to a reality he desired in his heart.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

 

[jonathan_hili]

Ok, let’s use your example. A child actually begs his parents to give him some food, because he is very hungry. The parents do not even “refuse verbally”, they simply ignore the child. Do you really say that such behavior (constantly!) on the part of the parents does not justify the child to reach the conclusion: “my parents don’t care about me”.

Sure, I agree with you. Yet you need to bear in mind a couple of points: (i) our ultimate good; (ii) we are not omniscient; and consequently (ii) that we do not know the future or all possible contingencies. These must be taken into account before we can fairly criticise God for not granting our prayer requests.

Having said that, God doesn’t constantly refuse our prayer requests. In fact, He grants them constantly, even when we may be unaware, or grants them in a way that we don’t expect. I can personally attest to this, and I’m sure many others on this forum can as well.

If you go to the “prayer intentions” sub forum, you will never see anyone to beg for million dollars. They ask that their loved ones would get better. Some may ask for mundane results, for sure, but most of the petitioners ask for something that is “supposed to be” in line what God has in mind for us. And their plight goes unanswered. If you say that all those “petitions” are contrary to God’s “plans” then God’s plans are very cruel and uncaring indeed. Not just God does not display any caring about our temporal well-being, but he refuses to give help if one needs it to get “closer” to God.

Again, I would suggest that we consider what is our ultimate good - and our ultimate good isn’t continuous - or even necessarily happy - existence on this earthly plane. Rather it is union with God. The reality is that we are all going to die so God cannot fulfil such requests regarding health indefinitely. But I think each case needs to be looked upon based on its own merits. It’s also important to consider that God Himself was willing to suffer and die for us when He could easily have only pretended to suffer and die, but endured the pain because of His great love. Lastly, even when God does not answer prayers to do with health issues and our loved ones suffer and die, there is solace in God’s word, love and knowing that this life isn’t all there is.

I’d like to know how God refuses to help those who want to get closer to Him. You seem to speak from personal experience, so I think it is good to talk about it. We’re not just about arguments here.

Nope, not after 33 years of being together, when half of the time she can finish my sentences and the other half of the time I can finish hers. There is no “faith” involved (faith does not equal trust anyhow). Now, if you say that God manifested his love to you “uncountable” times, that is great. He sure never manifests his love to the hungry, to the sick, to the tortured… so, if God loves everyone equally () he sure does not manifest that “love” equally.

So, you would take your wife’s love for granted? Again, I’m not sure she’d appreciate that. Just because people grow accustomed to one another, it doesn’t mean they love one another. I know at least two old couples who know each other back to front but I’m not sure how in love they are.

Have you spoken to those who are hungry or suffering? One thing that I find remarkable is that those who are suffering are usually the ones who see God more in their lives and love God more. I’d suggest a film like The Human Experience, which you can watch on Youtube.

Furthermore, God’s love doesn’t always mean material or physical well-being. As noted above, the end of man is to be with God.

As the old saying goes: “one swallow does not a summer make”. But even one million of such instances would not make one ounce of actual evidence.

Of course, you come from the Humean perspective, which a priori rules out the miraculous. So really there is no point in discussing them. I find Fatima - or many of the healings at Lourdes - quite remarkable. I’d ask you to consider them but your worldview seems closed from the outset. It’s interesting, and reminds me of something Chesterton said: that materialists are actually incredibly closed-minded, because while a Christian can accept science and religion, the natural and the supernatural, the materialist is by his very creed closed off to the latter. Again, I honestly suggest reading into Fatima or Lourdes. It might surprise you and you might find joy in it.

 

[poustiniak]

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

Kreeft always quotes from C.S Lewis and never quotes the bible. He is a false prophet.

 

[poustiniak]

Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Kreeft always quotes from C.S Lewis and never quotes the bible. He is a false prophet.

But he never claims to be a prophet. He claims to be a philosopher.

Big difference!

Kreeft has dedicated an impressive book to understanding the Scriptures. It is titled:

**You Can Understand the Old Testament: A Book-By-Book Guide for Catholics **

 

[poustiniak]

I was duped by Peter Kreeft for a long time

He pretends to be a Neo Platonist, but he is more amused by his own style which is a copy of Woody Allen than to Socrates. He plays to an audience of Americans that have indigestion. He throws them hamburgers and they applaud his wit. But he has never in any of his lectures ever mentioned the fact that he is a plagiarist. All of his lectures are based on G K Chesterton. He twists his audience inside out and he waits. He is a fishmonger and not a fisher of men.

 

[Innoruk]

Sure, I agree with you. Yet you need to bear in mind a couple of points: (i) our ultimate good; (ii) we are not omniscient; and consequently (ii) that we do not know the future or all possible contingencies. These must be taken into account before we can fairly criticise God for not granting our prayer requests.

This is simply an argument from ignorance.

Having said that, God doesn’t constantly refuse our prayer requests. In fact, He grants them constantly, even when we may be unaware, or grants them in a way that we don’t expect. I can personally attest to this, and I’m sure many others on this forum can as well.

If I ask for a piece of bread, and nothing happens, then my prayer was NOT granted.

Again, I would suggest that we consider what is our ultimate good - and our ultimate good isn’t continuous - or even necessarily happy - existence on this earthly plane. Rather it is union with God.

The problem is that this “ultimate” good and our “lesser” goods are not incompatible. There is no reason to refuse reasonable requests here and now.

It’s also important to consider that God Himself was willing to suffer and die for us when He could easily have only pretended to suffer and die, but endured the pain because of His great love. Lastly, even when God does not answer prayers to do with health issues and our loved ones suffer and die, there is solace in God’s word, love and knowing that this life isn’t all there is.

You are off into the mythological never-never land here. Not interested. Besides, I see the most devout believers to be sad when their loved ones die, not to be joyful and happy. If they really believed that death is merely a door to the eternal bliss with God, they would be bursting forth with joyous praises that “finally!” their loved one is with God… but they weep… It tells me a whole lot about their real beliefs.

I’d like to know how God refuses to help those who want to get closer to Him. You seem to speak from personal experience, so I think it is good to talk about it. We’re not just about arguments here.

Of course. All I asked for was to manifest his existence to me, so I can at least know that he exists. Nothing happened. Period. And I will not accept that “blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe”. Nor will I accept that God manifested himself, but I “closed my eyes”. The fact is that I asked for something very plain and simple, and nothing happened. So I was open to the communication, and God “refused”. Actually, he not “refuse” like he did with Timmy Yu… he simply ignored me.

So, you would take your wife’s love for granted? Again, I’m not sure she’d appreciate that.

What do you mean for granted? I know it for a fact, but that does not mean that I simply “sit on my laurels”. A good marriage is a constant loving and caring relationship. It is constant adjustment. Of course, this is not the point. I trust my wife, without needing any “faith” to do so.

Just because people grow accustomed to one another, it doesn’t mean they love one another. I know at least two old couples who know each other back to front but I’m not sure how in love they are.

Is this an argument for something? You asked a personal question, and I replied with my personal experience. I am not in the position to answer for others.

Have you spoken to those who are hungry or suffering? One thing that I find remarkable is that those who are suffering are usually the ones who see God more in their lives and love God more.

Nothing remarkable. “Dum spiro, spero”. If there is no real hope, people turn to imaginary hope. However, even if this would be true, the method to make people to “love” God by making/allowing them to suffer is despicable. Would you constantly ignore your child’s well being so that he will “love” you more out of despair? There was sign on my cube-wall at work: “The beating will continue until the morale improves”. Do you see the significance?

Furthermore, God’s love doesn’t always mean material or physical well-being. As noted above, the end of man is to be with God.

The two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, you come from the Humean perspective, which a priori rules out the miraculous. So really there is no point in discussing them. I find Fatima - or many of the healings at Lourdes - quite remarkable. I’d ask you to consider them but your worldview seems closed from the outset.

It is not closed. And I do not even demand “special” evidence. I look at all the claims equally, and demand the same evidence, whether the claim is the efficacy of a new drug, or the efficacy of prayer. As a matter of fact it is the believers who demand special treatment, not the skeptic. When they don’t get it, and usual analysis proves them wrong, then the white-washing stars. Like you cannot test God… In my opinion that kind of excuse is intellectually dishonest.