Argument From Desire

[Rivers]

This argument for the existence of God is one that I haven't heard before.

Essentially our desire for God is evidence for God in the same way that hunger is evidence for the existence of food. Father Baron articulates it better than me:

Anybody find this to be a compelling argument?

[Calm]

The video isn't there....my mistake...If it is simply desire that demonstrates something exists than the world should be full of dragons and unicorns and superheros and elves and Santa Claus and lots of other stuff.

It does not seem that desire for God is a natural instinct if otoh he is saying that. Not everyone naturally believes in God or desires God, unlike hunger where everyone will if they do not eat eventually get hungry unless there is something significantly wrong with them.

Edited December 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

According to Lord Siddharta, Desire is the beginning of sorrows.

[Kenngo1969]

And "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." –Proverbs 9:10.

 

(I don't know why; I just felt the urge to throw that in there. )

 

Carry on!

 

P.S.: OK, to respond to the opening post somewhat, remember the man who told Christ, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." And remember what Alma said: "Even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." Alma 32:27.  While desire, alone, does not create belief, it's certainly a useful starting point.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[3DOP]

I dunno about compelling. Only for those who don't need compelled. I believe the idea. If there was no God, it would be the first instance in which nature placed in a creature (me) a desire for that which is unattainable. But I haven't seen the video.

[The Nehor]

I think C.S. Lewis articulated the argument much better in his books. I agree with it but I think this guy's take is off. Lewis called it "sweet desire". Basically there are times in our lives, usually when we want something, that that desire becomes supernal. It seems like achieving it would be wondrous and the desire itself (even unfulfilled) is heavenly and we wish it could last forever. I experienced it first as a child wanting a toy collection. I have experienced it since in romantic desire, interest in a career, acquiring and preparing to read a book, a vacation, a game, a hobby, a spiritual gift, a prayer, etc.

It is wonderful and the fulfillment of that desire seems so right and so good that any sacrifice would be worth it to fulfill it. The object it is attached to never lives up to the hype even though the toy is fun, the career is interesting, the book is good, the vacation is wonderful, etc. As I grew up I enjoyed the sensation while recognizing it as a fraud. When I read Lewis's book my eyes popped wide open. I thought I was the only one to experience desire in that way. He pointed out that a desire that can have no fulfillment is pointless. It serves no evolutionary purpose. Either it is a mistake or it is like sexual desire or a desire to eat and there is fulfillment. If it cannot be fulfilled in this world then I must be designed for a different world. Somewhere out there is a mansion for me and a life that will give me true fulfillment. It will seem as if it were designed for me and I for it because we were. I think everyone has some desire of a different "flavor" that was put into us by God to guide us home like the garments Adam and Eve wore which were said to carry the scent of Eden on them.

To me that is strong evidence of God. His (to me) more vague desire for perfect justice does not strike such a chord with me.

[mfbukowski]

This argument for the existence of God is one that I haven't heard before.

Essentially our desire for God is evidence for God in the same way that hunger is evidence for the existence of food. Father Baron articulates it better than me:

Anybody find this to be a compelling argument?

I like the idea, but ultimately it is perfectly backwards.

 

Again, he has been trained to think like Aquinas; the whole thing focuses on the idea that if there is a "desire" there must be an "object" of desire which is somehow "real" and out there somewhere floating around. And suddenly we have metaphysical castles in the sky, dreamed up because the words sound nice.  He is making words into things, which is the central fallacy of- dare I say it in front of 3 DOP-  Neoplatonism.

 

One can actually reduce this argument to Evolution if one would want to- obviously we desire food because we need it to live.

 

The desire for food is not "evidence for the existence of food"- if food did not exist, we would have no desire because we would not be alive!  It's exactly backwards.

 

We desire food because it keeps us alive.  We desire peace and calm because it keeps us alive- we do not live well where terrorists bomb people, there is no food, the climate is inhospitable, etc.  It is not good for us to live that way. 

 

It is not good to live where people steal, lie, rob and commit violent acts.  It is not good for us to live where people do not treat us as we all wish to be treated.  when married people cheat, happy families become impossible, and children are not raised with optimal values.

 

One could call that a "desire for the existence of the 10 commandments" but that would be an odd way to see it.

 

My view is that we interact with the environment because that is what organisms do to survive, and survive "well", being defined as ways of life which work to give us what we need- peace, love, fellowship, etc.

 

Do we all have a desire for peace, love, meaning in our lives, and indeed some explanation for it all?  Of course!  Is that a desire for God?  Certainly something like God.

 

But that is why I like Mormonism.  The highest good for us is the Ideal Man- the Man of Holiness, who embodies the highest ideals we can imagine for mankind, and those highest ideals are completely in tune with the most perfect happiness we as humans can imagine- family

 

So in a way the good Father is right- we desire the best ideals for ourselves and organize our worlds to fulfill our highest ideals, and God is the personification of our highest ideals. 

 

But he sure doesn't say it that way.

Edited December 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Mark hey...writing from Riverside County this week visiting our newest grandson. I hope you are well and anticipating a wonderful Christmas season.

 

I doubt that the argument is based on a philosophic approach that insists that for every desire there is an object. To have validity from my point of view, the argument would need to be that ordinarily, the observable desires of every species of living animals are able to be met in some way. It would then need to be demonstrated. He would then need to show that there is an innate desire in the human animal for something more than perpetuation of the species, food, and shelter transcendence, God, whatever you want to call it. I tend to think the argument has validity, but it doesn't affect my belief in God anyway.

 

If he starts out with the proposition that every animal desire necessarily has a real object as opposed to an ideal object, I would agree that it is false. I have not watched the video, but maybe those who have can tell us if he is "making words into things" as you claim. Do you believe in desire? Or is it just a word? Is desire something or nothing? If a desire, which almost everybody believes in, is something instead of nothing, it follows that the object of desire is also something. I do not hold that every idea is a mirror of reality. But ideas are more than nothing. Even if they are ideal (only in the mind)...that makes them some thing. If that makes me a Neo-Platonist, so is almost everybody you know. Neither justice, nor love, nor Wednesday are made out of matter. They are ideals (realities of the mind) which are almost universally understood and believed in...and they can be distinguished from material objects, but they are not nothing.

 

Heading down to Escondido with the babies (parents) and grandbabies now. Maybe I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for your consideration.

 

Rory 

Edited December 10, 2014 by 3DOP

[cursor]

I dunno about compelling. Only for those who don't need compelled. I believe the idea. If there was no God, it would be the first instance in which nature placed in a creature (me) a desire for that which is unattainable. But I haven't seen the video.

 

If you've not taken the time to view the OP's supplied video, why comment at all. "I dunno about compelling," ... how might you know?

[cursor]

From the first minutes of the video presentation:

 

"One of the classical arguments for God's existence is the argument from desire. It can be stated very succictly as follows ... Every natural or innate desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it. For example, hunger corresponds to food, and thirst [uh] to drink. But we have in us -- all of us -- as a natural innate desire, a desire for perfect fulfillment ... ultimate peace ... ultimate joy. Nothing in this world can possibly fulfill this desire. Therefore, it must correspond to some objective supernatural reality, which does fulfill it."

 

Wait ... 

 

Desire relates to (or is explained by, or is satisfied by) "some objective state of affairs that fulfills it." Wow. Deep.

He talks of "ultimate peace ... ultimate joy" ... for whom, and by whose standards? "[since] nothing in this world can possibly fulfill this desire ... it must correspond to some objective supernatural reality."

 

Does anyone else see clear conflict in the the term "objective supernatural reality"?

 

While finding it difficult to continue watching this video, I will finish it.

[pogi]

He distinguishes between "natural" or "innate" desire and "artificial" or "psychological" desire.  He then suggests that we can know if our desire is artificial or not if the object of our desire is real or not.  Well...that just brings us back to ground zero in my book (Is God real?).  Does the object of our desire ("uncondition of reality" or ultimate joy, peace and justice) exist in some "supernatural reality"?  Any atheist will simply claim "I will believe it is an innate or natural desire when you can prove to me that the object of my desire is real.  Again, back to ground zero. 

 

The whole argument goes like this:  Desire proves that the object of your desire is real, IF the object of your desire is real.  Brilliant!

Edited December 10, 2014 by pogi

[3DOP]

cursor, hi.

 

I have heard about, read about, and thought about the idea without seeing the video. I supposed, perhaps mistakenly, that one could have an opinion about the idea without looking at an eight and a half minute video that is probably repetitious. Obviously, I am not passionate about the question and it doesn't take much more encouragement to get me to bow out. Feel free to ignore anything I have said or will say if you think I disqualify myself from previous or further discussion when I admit that I still remain adamant against watching the video.

 

3DOP

Edited December 11, 2014 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

According to Lord Siddharta, Desire is the beginning of sorrows.

 

And if I wanted to slink into oblivion and be absorbed into some pantheistic ideal I would go along with that. We are told that at the Final Judgement we will get what we desire. So what happens if you desire nothing?

[mfbukowski]

To have validity from my point of view, the argument would need to be that ordinarily, the observable desires of every species of living animals are able to be met in some way. It would then need to be demonstrated.

Think about that for a minute. They HAVE "desires" because they have biological needs, so of course the desires can be "met" because as organisms they evolved that way. Whales have no need for wheat, but they have need for fish.

Camels do not eat fish, pandas do not eat crocodiles, so they don't "desire" these things. It is as plain as day if you just think about it. Animals evolved to need what is in their environment- it is not about "things" called "desires"- they are just biological needs and urges and instincts. No magic, no mystery, no metaphysics. You are hungry, you eat. You are cold, you create a house or make a fire or put on a blanket. You want to live long, you don't pick fights with your neighbors

 

If he starts out with the proposition that every animal desire necessarily has a real object as opposed to an ideal object, I would agree that it is false.

I don't have the clue what a real object is vs an ideal object.

I have not watched the video, but maybe those who have can tell us if he is "making words into things" as you claim. Do you believe in desire? Or is it just a word? Is desire something or nothing? If a desire, which almost everybody believes in, is something instead of nothing, it follows that the object of desire is also something. I do not hold that every idea is a mirror of reality. But ideas are more than nothing. Even if they are ideal (only in the mind)...that makes them some thing. If that makes me a Neo-Platonist, so is almost everybody you know. Neither justice, nor love, nor Wednesday are made out of matter. They are ideals (realities of the mind) which are almost universally understood and believed in...and they can be distinguished from material objects, but they are not nothing.

My friend, read that again. You yourself are making words into objects. THAT is Neoplatonism virtually by definition. Plato said that ideas are more "real" than chairs tables etc, because he made words into things. Very abstract words like "good" and "being" and "substance" were the most real things of all because abstract is better than concrete, thought is better than action and on it goes. Because we have the words "something" and "nothing" does not mean they are objects. Is zero a "number"? How many is it? How many somethings fit in a zero?

Heading down to Escondido with the babies (parents) and grandbabies now. Maybe I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for your consideration.

Sounds like a great trip but tomorrow is my temple day. I would love to meet you sometime though absolutely! Sorry if I have offended you, I am just trying to get you to see things as I see them even for one flash of a second!

[mfbukowski]

From the first minutes of the video presentation:

 

"One of the classical arguments for God's existence is the argument from desire. It can be stated very succictly as follows ... Every natural or innate desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it. For example, hunger corresponds to food, and thirst [uh] to drink. But we have in us -- all of us -- as a natural innate desire, a desire for perfect fulfillment ... ultimate peace ... ultimate joy. Nothing in this world can possibly fulfill this desire. Therefore, it must correspond to some objective supernatural reality, which does fulfill it."

 

Wait ... 

 

Desire relates to (or is explained by, or is satisfied by) "some objective state of affairs that fulfills it." Wow. Deep.

He talks of "ultimate peace ... ultimate joy" ... for whom, and by whose standards? "[since] nothing in this world can possibly fulfill this desire ... it must correspond to some objective supernatural reality."

 

Does anyone else see clear conflict in the the term "objective supernatural reality"?

 

While finding it difficult to continue watching this video, I will finish it.

 

I finished it as well, but I have been well inoculated against Neoplatonism

 

Every natural or innate desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it

 

There you have it- the correspondence theory of truth twisted slightly.

 

"Ideas" "correspond" to "reality".  That is the bane of the existence of Western philosophy for 2000 years, and the basis for why a restoration was needed.

 

Spiritual experience therefore cannot be "real" because it doesn't "correspond" to "reality".

 

Alma teaches that truth works it our lives as it grows "sweet" to us.  THAT is the difference here.  Experience is what is real- sweet and sour, good and evil, head and heart- the full gradient of the world as we experience it, no bifurcation into "thoughts" opposed to "reality", no chasm between spirit and matter.

 

THAT is why I am Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

 

The whole argument goes like this:  Desire proves that the object of your desire is real, IF the object of your desire is real.  Brilliant!

Yes, that's it and as usual you nailed it!

[TheTyler90az]

I think C.S. Lewis articulated the argument much better in his books. I agree with it but I think this guy's take is off. Lewis called it "sweet desire". Basically there are times in our lives, usually when we want something, that that desire becomes supernal. It seems like achieving it would be wondrous and the desire itself (even unfulfilled) is heavenly and we wish it could last forever. I experienced it first as a child wanting a toy collection. I have experienced it since in romantic desire, interest in a career, acquiring and preparing to read a book, a vacation, a game, a hobby, a spiritual gift, a prayer, etc.

It is wonderful and the fulfillment of that desire seems so right and so good that any sacrifice would be worth it to fulfill it. The object it is attached to never lives up to the hype even though the toy is fun, the career is interesting, the book is good, the vacation is wonderful, etc. As I grew up I enjoyed the sensation while recognizing it as a fraud. When I read Lewis's book my eyes popped wide open. I thought I was the only one to experience desire in that way. He pointed out that a desire that can have no fulfillment is pointless. It serves no evolutionary purpose. Either it is a mistake or it is like sexual desire or a desire to eat and there is fulfillment. If it cannot be fulfilled in this world then I must be designed for a different world. Somewhere out there is a mansion for me and a life that will give me true fulfillment. It will seem as if it were designed for me and I for it because we were. I think everyone has some desire of a different "flavor" that was put into us by God to guide us home like the garments Adam and Eve wore which were said to carry the scent of Eden on them.

To me that is strouong evidence of God. His (to me) more vague desire for perfect justice does not strike such a chord with me.

 

There is a difference between the desire you describe and the one talked about in the video. Natural vs unnatural

[mfbukowski]

Suppose we worshiped the Great And.

 

Andness is an objective spiritual principle, which causes people to come together.  It is like glue.  It causes reality to become ONE.  If it were not for And, all things would be in disarray.

 

The Great And is opposed by the Principle of Butness.  The Horrible But is the cause of confusion and disarray, and disagreement

 

Because the Great And exists in opposition to the But, we have peace in society, and goodness exists.

 

Humans have a desire for peace and order, therefore the Great And exists.

 

Praise the Great And!

 

 

For those who are sarcasm impaired, this is an example.

Edited December 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[TheTyler90az]

It does not necessarily have to be a desire for deity, per se. It is just that natural desire for something greater than one’s self. The problem is that desire can be met with a multitude of other options than God.  For example, it could be met by helping others or joining a religious community. That means that natural need is met. The argument then becomes null and void. It also hinges on idea that we were created.

 

Three questions that must be answered for this to work are:

Were we created?

Does everyone desire that abstract thing greater than one’s self?

Is that abstract desire God?

 

I still like the argument, must think on it more.

[mfbukowski]

On the other hand, dropping the jargon and dropping the tendency to make Words into Things, it is clear to me that when all humans go out and look at the night sky they are humbled by their smallness and insignificance

 

When we gaze out over the ocean at sunset, or stand on a mountain top and look out over the ocean or the land, we feel the same thing.

 

I think that displays a yearning for something beyond us which we can ignore or accept as valid, and I think that yearning and the answers we give for that yearning become central beliefs in our lives.

 

I think that desire or yearning DOES perhaps suggest that we are pre-programmed, or gifted- choose your own word- with the seed of something greater within us.

 

So yes, the good father has a point.

 

But for me, all that objectification of every word really makes no sense to me.

[mfbukowski]

It does not necessarily have to be a desire for deity, per se. It is just that natural desire for something greater than one’s self. The problem is that desire can be met with a multitude of other options than God.  For example, it could be met by helping others or joining a religious community. That means that natural need is met. The argument then becomes null and void. It also hinges on idea that we were created.

 

Three questions that must be answered for this to work are:

Were we created?

Does everyone desire that abstract thing greater than one’s self?

Is that abstract desire God?

 

I still like the argument, must think on it more.

Dworkin has written an interesting book on this- called "Religion Without God" http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/

The familiar stark divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude. Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a “personal” god, they nevertheless believe in a “force” in the universe “greater than we are.” They feel an inescapable responsibility to live their lives well, with due respect for the lives of others; they take pride in a life they think well lived and suffer sometimes inconsolable regret at a life they think, in retrospect, wasted. They find the Grand Canyon not just arresting but breathtakingly and eerily wonderful. They are not simply interested in the latest discoveries about the vast universe but enthralled by them. These are not, for them, just a matter of immediate sensuous and otherwise inexplicable response. They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it.

So Dworkin sees the "desire" the priest does but interprets it far differently

But for me, I think the LDS answer is far superior because it provides us with a plan for the perfection of mankind- not just some vague way to notice a vague desire for "something greater"

Clearly that yearning is for what we know as God, the ideal Human Man of Holiness who is our Father in Heaven.

The yearning for "Social Consciousness" is ultimately the yearning, I believe, for what we call the Patriarchal Order with all humanity sealed as one family in the Celestial Kingdom.

Choose your terminology, but choose it carefully.

You can't argue the points, yearnings are not subject to logic. We can only choose our vocabularies and the way we think about these issues, nothing more.

Edited December 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Hey Mark, 

 

Thanks very much for your reply. If the good Lord wills, I too would like to meet for lunch or something one of these times when we are down here. No worries about offending me this time. I take it as a compliment that your "dared" to raise the spectre of Neo-Platonism, when its chief proponent, 3DOP, was known to be lurking about (even though 3DOP has never to his knowledge deliberately adopted the tenets of Neo-Platonism). Heh,

 

So....Why aren't ideas things according to your way of thinking? 

 

I mentioned love, justice, and Wednesday. It seems to me like these are what we have been taught to call nouns. A noun is as we all learned in school, a person, place, or thing. None of the three are persons or places. They are ideas. Immaterial things. This is why I thought that according to the way we have been taught to communicate, any idea, even if it is an idea we would not approve of or accept ourselves, has to qualify as a noun, as a thing. I used love, justice, and Wednesday because I thought those were ideas which are pretty universally accepted.

 

Catch you later, Mark.

 

Rory

[Robert F. Smith]

And if I wanted to slink into oblivion and be absorbed into some pantheistic ideal I would go along with that. We are told that at the Final Judgement we will get what we desire. So what happens if you desire nothing?

Well, as Mick Jagger might explain it, when your cravings, lust, and other desires are not satisfied, you just might get what you need instead.

 

The insight of the Buddha was to see that temporal pleasures are transitory.  We desire that they remain constant, which is impossible in Lehi's world of opposites and change. You cannot have pleasure without pain, joy without sorrow, etc.  By separating oneself from human desires (through meditation and self-control) Buddhists rise above the usual, sorrowful cycle of life (samsara):  By following the Noble Eightfold Path with the right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, one may overcome the world, and end the eternal cycle of death-rebirth.

 

However, for Mormons, Jesus has already overcome the world, and He wants us to take life as it is, and without the phony cycle of reincarnation.  Instead, we are to accept the challenges which worldly desire brings to us.  To plunge into life wholeheartedly, with love and a hope for the world to come in which we may be exalted.

[cursor]

This post is targeted to 3DOP.

 

You complain that I COMPLAINED that since you didn't view the referenced video, your comments aren't worth much. Really ... an 8:34 minute video ... you failed to invest, yet you voice not one, but two opinions/posts. Hey, just watch the video (invest), then comment. T'ain't that hard ... really.

[mfbukowski]

Hey Mark, 

 

Thanks very much for your reply. If the good Lord wills, I too would like to meet for lunch or something one of these times when we are down here. No worries about offending me this time. I take it as a compliment that your "dared" to raise the spectre of Neo-Platonism, when its chief proponent, 3DOP, was known to be lurking about (even though 3DOP has never to his knowledge deliberately adopted the tenets of Neo-Platonism). Heh,

 

So....Why aren't ideas things according to your way of thinking? 

 

I mentioned love, justice, and Wednesday. It seems to me like these are what we have been taught to call nouns. A noun is as we all learned in school, a person, place, or thing. None of the three are persons or places. They are ideas. Immaterial things. This is why I thought that according to the way we have been taught to communicate, any idea, even if it is an idea we would not approve of or accept ourselves, has to qualify as a noun, as a thing. I used love, justice, and Wednesday because I thought those were ideas which are pretty universally accepted.

 

Catch you later, Mark.

 

Rory

Back up on that one, and look up "noun".  Let's pretend that writers of dictionaries are actually gods who are ominipotent and inerrant.

 

noun/

noun

Grammar

noun: noun; plural noun: nouns; noun: common noun; plural noun: common nouns; noun: proper noun; plural noun: proper nouns

1. a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things common noun, or to name a particular one of these proper noun.

 

Notice that the god of the dictionary, who knows all things, says that a noun is a word.

 

It is a "part of speech"- it is a statement in language about the structure of language itself.

 

We now call these "Hashtags"

 

Soon we will be debating incorrect hashtags, and what correctly belongs in each.