Against the Argument from Desire

[Kane]

Christian theists have a bevy of arguments on-hand to bolster their credulous claims that there is a divine superintendent pacing the universe everywhere at once. No doubt, dear reader, you have heard of such gaseous arguments as the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Aesthetics, the Moral Argument, et al. In the mind of the theist, these arguments suffice as sufficient explanations for the existence of God; a ‘proof’, more or less (I wager “less” since a ‘proof’, properly speaking, usually removes the barrier between doubt and certainty. But I digress!).

To add to the miasma, however, I ran across a ‘proof’ that reads essentially like follows:

1. All natural desires can be satisfied;

2. Humans have an unquenchable desire that natural means cannot satisfy;

3. Therefore the unquenchable desire must be supernaturally satisfied (i.e., by God);

4. Hence God must exist.

How sad that a theist has been brought so low in his frantic attempt to ground his fairy-tales in reality that he has morphed god into a cosmic vending machine. That aside, such syllogisms should be re-labelled ‘silly-gisms’ (with all the nuance such silly theological ejaculations suggest) if not for their abstruse logic, but for their abject contradictions.

In the first instance, there is no reasonable reason to assume human beings have unquenchable desires that natural means cannot satisfy. How does one go about qualifying such a brash assumption? By the testimony of people who believe in like manner to the person attempting the above proof? What observable evidence suggests that people, who are a part of nature, spoil for more than nature? How does a person desire what is beyond the natural context that informs their desires in the first place?

In the second instance, if we grant quarter to the theist advocating this argument from desire – if we assume that it is true that people yearn for something that only a supernatural being can fulfil – then, in the context of Christianity, we run adrift of an incendiary contradiction. Namely, Christians, along with all other sane individuals on earth desire peace, an end to hunger, the termination of suffering. They couch it in eschatological terms such as “I long for the peace in the new world to come, the new Zion.” But unless they are sociopathic, they desire the same sane things that pretty much everyone desires who cares to introspect for even an instant.

The difficulty comes when that same Christian admits that his own god made such grandiose claims as “whatsoever you desire, when you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mk. 11:24). On bended knee, the sincere Christian petitions his god for an end to global suffering, an end to warring and strife. In effect, he expresses his ‘desire’ for a peaceful world where everyone can get on and play well with others. But does this god meet his petitioner’s prayers? No. One need only look about to see that sincere Christians everywhere are desiring a world free of pain, praying for the fulfilment of said desires – which can only be granted through divine agency – and coming up denied.

What can we say then of such arguments as the ‘proof’ from desire? At once it assumes what it concludes: unquenchable desires can only be met by god, and therefore god exists. Furthermore, this same god, who, in turn, allows us to have desires that cannot be quenched, tells his followers that by petitioning him in prayer, their desires will be effected in reality. At the risk of sounding too critical, however, the collective desires and prayers of the faithful, the world over, and across the millenia, still have not moved the hand of god to capitulate to the faithful, even on his own terms.

If this doesn’t place a floodlight on the flagrant error in the theist’s argument from desire, then it is doubtful that reason holds a place in the vocabulary of that same theist. It is clear to reasoning people that such paradigms as the ‘argument from desire’ beggars logic and defies sensibility. In the end, one simply cannot make the case for human temporal desires being directly correlated to eternal, divinely sanctioned, non-temporal satisfactions. I recognise that last sentence as a bit of a mouthful, but if you can excuse the sudden turn of tone and phrase, it at least avoids the trap of being a mouthfull of shit. A lamentable fate that arguments such as the one from desire cannot exculpate itself from.

[Imogen]

I agree with your perspective: the argument from desire is absurd when applied to the mind of a human being.

It can be made if the only consideration is primarily physiological and/or pertains to the natural/material reality such as that mammal infants are born with sucking reflexes in anticipation of milk. But a desire and therefore correlating acquisition of the supernatural? No. Fairy-tales should (to the reasoning mind) elucidate the reason why assuming this is absurd.

It would strengthen your argument to use an example of an individual's unrequited pleas for his own personal end to suffering, because the christian faced with your example will simply retort that god doesn't force the hand of the unwilling, or that to do so contravenes free-will, or some such switcheroo nonsense.

[Dante]

Both premises 1 and 2 are complete fantasy. The possible desires of a conceptual being are unlimited due to the similarly unlimited scope of the imagination. Premise 2 projects the longing of the religious person for "some larger purpose" onto the entire human race. Simple fantasy.