Before I begin, let me qualify the fact that I haven't read deeply into the
Argument from Desire, so my critiques here may not hold up when confronted
with a more informed version of the argument. My main sources here are Edward
Feser's blog post
Arguments from Desire, Peter Kreeft's
article on the
argument and the C.S. Lewis Institute's
digital handout on the argument. I will mostly be engaging with these three sources in this article, so it's
recommended that one thoroughly reads these three before reading this, as I
don't go into as much detail as they do, in explicating the argument.
1 The Argument from Desire
First, let me lay out the argument itself, before I start to give my
thoughts on it.
The argument can be put in such a syllogism:
P1 every innate desire that we have has a corresponding thing that can satisfy
it
P2 we have an innate desire that no limited creature in time and space can
satisfy
P3 therefore, there is something unlimited, that is outside of time and space
that can satisfy this innate desire
P4 this is what we call God
P5 therefore, God exists
1.1 Innate and External Desires
Kreeft makes a distinction between innate desires and external desires.
Innate desires, also called natural desires, are desires that are "built into"
a person. As Feser articulates, such desires are essential to the person, and
not just accidental. For example, the desire for food is of the essence of a
person, it is built into the human nature. Thirst, the desire for water or
drink, is also essential.
External desires are more so accidental and are as such circumstantial. For
example, as Kreeft says, the desire to have a sportscar is not innate or
natural to us.
This distinction is important to the argument, since the first premise only
applies to innate desires and not external desires. This means that just
because we desire a sportscar, it doesn't necessarily exist.
1.2 Conclusion of the Argument
The argument then concludes that there exists an unlimited, transcendent,
timeless and spaceless object that corresponds to our innate desire for it.
As Kreeft admits, this object isn't the traditionally-conceived God of the
monotheistic religions, but a mysterious force that draws us nearer to it,
that can satisfy our deepest, most transcendent desires.
Also, as one may have realised, the Argument from Desire is considered a
teleological argument, as there is a sort of "ordering towards" involved in
this argument.
2 General Critique
With the basic argument in place, let me start to critique it.
2.1 Why Think Innate?
The first problem that I can see for this argument is that no proper
justification is given for the claim that our desire for something
transcendent and immaterial is truly an innate desire, as opposed to an
external desire.
If anything, I'd argue that our desire for something transcendent is much more
like an external desire, as opposed to an innate desire, just off the examples
that Kreeft, Feser and Art give in their treatments of the argument.
While an innate desire usually is something that we require for our being,
like food or water, an external desire is something that we don't need to get.
And if one were to argue that we this deep feeling within us truly has to be
fulfilled, showing that it's more like an innate desire, I would point out
that such a line of reasoning is far too subjective for any atheist to accept.
2.2 Evolution and the Physical
My second objection to this argument is that it seems to ignore evolutionary
theory. I'm not the most learned on biology, but I'm at least informed enough
to know that the theory of evolution tells us that complex lifeforms and human
beings came about by natural selection and random mutations. At least this is
the core of evolutionary theory.
This would mean that our desires came about by evolutionary processes of
natural selection and random mutation. Since this is a physical process, then,
in principle, any object of desire that our faculties of desire would have
evolved to desire would be physical. So, we could not possibly desire anything
transcendent, immaterial or timeless, as the process that caused our desires
would not allow for it.
Now, of course I do not think that evolution was a random and unguided
process, but a process with innate teleology, guided by a creator. But the
project of natural theology, as Richard Swinburne notes, must begin with
premises that both the theist and atheist will accept. So, our arguments
should either avoid the theory of evolution or account for it, as most
atheists accept it as an unguided process.
2.3 Evolution and Explanation
My third objection is also related to evolution, which I think could give a
more plausible account of our innate desire for transcendence. Since I have
already given a basic explanation of evolution and what it proposes in the
previous section, I will not do so again.
I think that a better explanation for why we desire the transcendent would be
for survival. Let me give an example to better illustrate my point here. An
example that Feser gives of an innate desire that is transcendent is our
desire for life after death. And, according to the Argument from Desire, this
means that immortality is, in principle, achievable.
I think that it's far more likely that we desire immortality because desiring
immortality and to live on will motivate us to survive, so we evolved this
desire.
The same could be said for happiness or joy, that seems to be transcendent, it
promotes survival as it allows us to want to continue to live on or to
reproduce and take care of our children, as we love our spouse and offspring.
So, we evolved this desire.
The same line of reasoning could be said for basically every instance of our
desire for the transcendent, and, given my second objection, such alternative
explanations will be far more likely.
Now, I am a theist and do really believe that such desires for God and joy and
love really do have significance and meaning, but I just don't think that this
can be shown using the Argument from Desire alone.
2.4 Mind the Gap
My fourth objection would be the gap problem. Even as Kreeft admits, the
object of transcendent desires is not like the God of classical monotheistic
religions. We cannot deduce that it is all-good, all-powerful or all-knowing,
among other things.
So why think that this is a successful argument for the existence of God?
Unless we can show that this object has such properties, the atheist can
rightfully say that we have not yet succeeded in proving what we wanted to
prove, allowing the atheist to maintain their atheism.
2.5 Conclusion of Critique
In conclusion, while I agree with the conclusion of the Argument from Desire,
I think that it works on premises that an atheist, and indeed maybe even a
theist, would reject, and therefore is unsuccessful and shouldn't be used
until one can overcome the challenges that I have proposed here.
3 Suggestions
However, I don't think that the argument, as I have presented here, is
completely unsalvageable. I think that it could be reformulated to argue
instead that theism best explains such transcendent desires, as opposed to
atheism, as worldviews. Of course, one would have to overcome my third
critique, but I have a few rebuttals in mind. For example, maybe we don't
really need to love our spouse in order to reproduce. Why not just purely see
them as a sexual object? Such lines of reasoning could be employed.
Further, my evolutionary debunking arguments, as they are called, could be
weakened if one were to use C.S. Lewis' Argument from Reason, an argument that
I actually think is good and will defend in future.
While this new argument wouldn't be the exact same argument, it's in the
spirit of the original, and one that I think C.S. Lewis would endorse.
4 Use
I do still think that the Argument from Desire illustrates a powerful point:
that we do desire something transcendent and that our intuitions tell us that
this desire is very, very real.
While I don't think that it's necessarily successful as an argument, I think
that it's successful in exposing our desire for God and that we truly aren't
complete without Him, which may help motivate one to search for Him.
5 Conclusion
While I may not find the argument particularly convincing, it can certainly be
tweaked a bit to serve as evidence in favour of theism and can encourage
someone to seek God for themself.
No comments:
Post a Comment