I am so good at being so wrong. For a long period of time, I was not persuaded by the argument from innate desire for the existence of the transcend beings. Even though I deserted atheistic worldview 6 years ago, I am incapable of completely breaking free from the philosophical ghosts of my past. The shekels of empiricism and positivism are still strongly intervened in my Christian worldview.
David Hume, whose philosophy I strongly followed, captured how I went about evaluating whether a particular argument was persuasive when he wrote,
When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume, of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, “Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?” No. “Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?” No. Commit it then to the flames. For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion” (Hume 2000: 123)
I committed the arguments from desire to the flames. In Mere Christianity and The Weight of Glory, C. S. Lewis presented one of the versions of this argument that I rejected. Lewis contended that creatures possess innate desires that correspond to their satisfaction. Creatures possess some of innate desires that finds none of their satisfaction in this world. Therefore, it is probable that there is another world beyond this world. He argued,
Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.(Lewis 2001: 136-7)
I deemed Lewisian-like arguments as nothing but sophistry. Their crucial premise did not contain any experimental reasoning concerning its matter of fact or existence. That the transcendent beings (i.e. existence of God(s), life after death, dualism, absolute morality &c.,) are intuitive innate beliefs, and therein spring our desires, was lacking.
This picture changed with preponderance of scientific evidence emerging from the field of cognitive science. Cognitive science provides empirical data that appears to be pointing us towards a conclusion that humans are intuitive theists. We are wired to believe in transcendent beings. The works of Olivera Petrovich, Deborah Kelemen, Scott Atran, Jesse Bering, Pascal Boyer, Stewart Guthrie, Robert McCauley, Bradley Wigger, Justin L. Barrett, Nicola Knight and Ilkka Pyysiainen, among others, placed on the table empirical data showing that our beliefs in transcendent beings are innate.
My version of argument from desire, thus, could be outlined as follows:
1. Transcendent beings (existence of God, afterlife &c.,) are creaturely innate desires.
2. Every other creaturely innate desire, that we know of, there exists a corresponding object of its satisfaction.
3. It is mostly probable than not that the objects of creaturely innate desires of transcendent beings exist.
This argument, if sound, does not lead to the conclusion that a specific understanding of God is correct, but a general theistic worldviews. Is this a sound argument? I do not know. The opponent of this argument needs to show which premise(s) is false. Would it persuade an atheist to reconsider his/her position? No. It would not. But it is my hope that it will show him/her that one does not have to abandon reason to believe in transcendent beings.
Hume, David (2000) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lewis, C. S. (2001) Mere Christianity. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Even if one finds your arguments persuasive they do not point to the Christian God of the Bible as the one true God. More than 1.5 billion Muslims would claim any evidence of God would help to prove Allah is the one true God. It seems to me the Christian apologist not only has to prove the existence of God but then also, and perhaps more importantly, that the Christian God is the correct God! I understand that may not be your specific argument presented here but I find the arguments unpersuasive as there are many theistic belief systems in the world and more than one cannot be right.
Correct its just a starting point.
I’m an atheist, and as you might expect, I disagree with your logic.
#1: Not every human has a desire for the existence of god (see Christopher Hitchens). So your arguments needs to change to “Some”, or at best “Most”. At which point you have to ask yourself: “Does the logic still work?”
#2. We are more imaginative than other animals, therefore I don’t think it’s logical to say that anything we want exists because this is the case for other (much more primitive) animals. But I think I know why you went to other animals, because there are countless human desires that do not lead to existence (to fly like birds, to live forever, to meet/know aliens, the Tooth Ferry, Santa, telepathy, telekinesis, to travel back in time, etc.). Marvel Comic Books has made a fortune off of these irrational desires.
Thank you Frank for your comment. It helps me clarify lots of materials I left out to keep my post concise.
#1: P1 is about implicit belief in supernaturalism (belief in God(s), afterlife, moral realism, dualism etc). From this, I argued, comes a desire for such beings. If you have read my article Naturalness Of Theism, there I presented a number of contemporary data(research from 2010-2013) from the field of cognitive psychology that shows that both theists and atheists implicitly hold beliefs in supernaturalism. Atheists with much cognitive effort explicitly and continually suppress such innate beliefs while theists affirms what is intuitive natural. See my article, Naturalness Of Theism, for more. In sum, every human being with proper working mind implicit hold beliefs in supernaturalism. Some, e.g. atheists, explicitly suppress it yet it has being shown that they cannot get ride of it implicitly.
#2 Frank, I do not speak of desires in general but innate desires. Tooth fairy, Santa etc are not innate desire but cultural indoctrinated beliefs. Such beliefs would be foreign to native Africans or South America. From cognitive science, supernaturalism is innate belief. It is cultural transcendent. Each culture past in time,everywhere you go hold such beliefs.
I hope I began to highlight unclear points. It is okay to disagree with my logic. I am not after agreement but simply understanding each other’s position.
So you do not think that humans have innate desires that can’t exist? To fly like birds, to live forever, telepathy, telekinesis, to travel back in time – none of these? I have not done the research, but in my mind some of these must be culturally transcendent.
Frank, that is not my claim. My claim is all innate desires that we know of have the objects of their satisfaction. Hunger, thirst, sexuality, fellowship e.t.c are viewed as such since they are not learned but natural evolves with our cognitive faculties.
I do not know about those desires you listed anywhere in cognitive science as understood to be innate. In the last two years I have read numerous published journals mostly from 2005-2014 and have not come across such desires as innate. This does not necessarily mean that therefore they are not. I would be appealing to ignorance if that was the case.
My argument is probabilistic not deductive because of the scope of data. I based on what the evidence in cognitive science, so far, allow as to infer. If you can present just one innate desire (e.g. presenting data from anthropology or cognitive psychology) that has no object of its satisfaction then you have refuted my version of argument from desire.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/03/the-icarus-complex-how-humans-long-to-fly.html
This is not innate desire from implicit belief but reflective desire from explicit belief. We look at birds and reflect on how we could fly.
Moreover even if true, it is innate desire, this will show that such a world is possible. The idea of flying like angels but in corporeal sense. So either way it does not affect the argument, rather reinforce it.
The article doesn’t talk about looking at birds. Not sure where you got that.
And also not sure how you think the desire can be realized. We can create machines that fly; we can fly in our dreams, but we cannot fly reality.
If the desire to fly is innate, and we can’t fly, it does affect the argument.
I got it from reflecting how the expression of that desire is. If you note, the idea of flying goes with wings, just like the birds.
Innate desire araises not from reflection of external world but a non-reflective belief. So, I could offer a defeater defeater at this level.
But I can grant, for argument sake that desire to fly is innate. It will simply show that there is a possible world to which we long for. The world to which we can fly. This possible world, theists call heaven.
Lewis put it like this: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”(Lewis 2001: 136-7)
“If you can present just one innate desire (e.g. presenting data from anthropology or cognitive psychology) that has no object of its satisfaction then you have refuted my version of argument from desire.”
“But I can grant, for argument sake that desire to fly is innate. It will simply show that there is a possible world to which we long for. The world to which we can fly. This possible world, theists call heaven.”
Do you see a problem with these two statements? This is where atheists get frustrated debating with theists. When theists are in a tough place logically, they appeal to god’s omnipotence or god’s “mysteriousness” – and end of discussion.
Frank, I do not see the problem. I did not appeal to any of God’s attribute or nature. I showed that your objection could be answered in two ways, and thus not a defeater of my argument.
To rebut my defeater defeater you need to show that desire to fly is innate unreflective desire. Moreover you have to show that it is metaphysically impossible for humans to fly.
My point is that this discussion is pointless if you are going to say that any innate desire that does not have an object in this life could have an object in the afterlife. In doing so, I believe you actually weaken the argument. The whole point of the argument is that, supposedly, we can see the object of all innate desires in all animals, except that of the desire for a god in humans; therefore, following the trend, god must exist. When you must appeal to metaphysics for other innate desires as well, the trend is weakened.
”When you must appeal to metaphysics for other innate desires as well,
the trend is weakened.”
Explain.
Perhaps a desire for God is more like hunger a need rather than a simple desire.
It is like hunger a need to be satisfied by certain object. Given that all other natural or innate need have the objects of satisfaction then it is most probable that a like hunger for God has an object. God.