Argument From Desire by Peter Kreeft
Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. Lewis, Mere Christianity Macmillan, , pp. Beyond some biblical hints at such reasoning John and John , the core of this argument goes back to Eusebius of Caesarea c. Lewis popularized the argument in Mere Christianity.
Since then, several apologists have expanded it to include other alternatives beyond the traditional "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Based on the evidence and the truth of the Bible, these apologists, like Lewis, conclude that the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus is who He claimed to be. In it, he not only makes the case for God, but also the case for heaven. Lewis believed that everyone experiences sensations of desire and longing.
We may spend a lifetime trying to fulfill these desires by pursuing earthly pleasures such as taking vacations, moving from one sexual partner to another, or trying different hobbies — "always thinking that the latest is 'The Real Thing' at last — yet always ending up disappointed. Our experience tells us, Lewis continues, that "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. But desires of the first type do indeed correspond to, and infallibly indicate, the existence of the states of affairs that will fulfill them: hunger points to the objective existence of food, thirst to the objective existence of drink, sexual longing to the objective existence of the sexual act, etc.
And this is much more than a set of correspondences that simply happen to be the case; the correlation is born of the real participation of the desire in its object. By its very structure, the mind already participates in truth.
So what kind of desire is the desire for perfect fulfillment? We know that all humans are mortal because humanity, as such, involves mortality, it is the nature of a human being to be mortal; mortality follows necessarily from its having an animal body. We can understand that. We have the power of understanding, or intellectual intuition, or insight, in addition to the mental powers of sensation and calculation, which are the only two the nominalist and empiricist give us. We share sensation with animals and calculation with computers; where is the distinctively human way of knowing for the empiricist and nominalist?
When there is no real connection between the nature of a proposition's subject and the nature of the predicate, the only way we can know the truth of that proposition is by sense experience and induction. For instance, we can know that all the books on this shelf are red only by looking at each one and counting them. Question 2 : Suppose I simply deny the minor premise and say that I just don't observe any hidden desire for God, or infinite joy, or some mysterious X that is more than earth can offer?
Reply : This denial may take two forms. First, one may say, "Although I am not perfectly happy now, I believe I would be if only I had ten million dollars, a Lear jet, and a new mistress every day. You won't like it. In fact, billions of people have performed and are even now performing trillions of such experiments, desperately seeking the ever-elusive satisfaction they crave. For even if they won the whole world, it would not be enough to fill one human heart. Yet they keep trying, believing that "If only.. Next time..
It is like the game of predicting the end of the world: every batter who has ever approached that plate has struck out. There is hardly reason to hope the present ones will fare any better. After trillions of failures and a one hundred percent failure rate, this is one experiment no one should keep trying. A second form of denial of our premise is: "I am perfectly happy now.
- Identitätsentwicklung (German Edition).
- eBooks - THE Apologetics - LibGuides at Global University Library.
- Defend the Faith Like C.S. Lewis, Part 2 - Focus on the Family;
- Sam nipalmortre.tk Reader Forum | Argument from Desire.
- The Apologetics of Joy: A Case for the Existence of God from C.S. Lewis's Argument from Desire.
- Weihnachtsfieber: Gay Christmas Story (German Edition);
It requires something more like exorcism than refutation. This is Meursault in Camus's The Stranger.
- 8 Reasons to Reject C. S. Lewis’s Argument from Desire | Bob Seidensticker.
- Please Change Your Mind : Because You Are What You Think?
- Police Officer Exam: Power Practice?
- Il Parnaso 53 (Italian Edition).
- Defend the Faith Like C.S. Lewis, Part 2.
This is subhuman, vegetation, pop psychology. Even the hedonist utilitarian John Stuart Mill, one of the shallowest though cleverest minds in the history of philosophy, said that "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Question 3 : This argument is just another version of Anselm's ontological argument see Argument 13 in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics , which is invalid.
You argue to an objective God from a mere subjective idea or desire in you. Reply : No, we do not argue from the idea alone, as Anselm does.
Rather, our argument first derives a major premise from the real world of nature: that nature makes no desire in vain. But desires of the first type do indeed correspond to, and infallibly indicate, the existence of the states of affairs that will fulfill them: hunger points to the objective existence of food, thirst to the objective existence of drink, sexual longing to the objective existence of the sexual act, etc. And this is much more than a set of correspondences that simply happen to be the case; the correlation is born of the real participation of the desire in its object. By its very structure, the mind already participates in truth.
So what kind of desire is the desire for perfect fulfillment? Since it cannot be met by any value within the world, it must be a longing for truth, goodness, beauty, and being in their properly unconditioned form. But the unconditioned, by definition, must transcend any limit that we might set to it.http://gofornat.com/galaxy-note-8-mobile-tracking.php
The Heart of Apologetics
And this gives the lie to any attempt—Feuerbachian, Freudian, Marxist or otherwise—to write off the object of this desire as a wish-fulfilling fantasy, as a projection of subjectivity. In a word, the longing for God participates in God, much as hunger participates in food.
And thus, precisely in the measure that the desire under consideration is an innate and natural desire, it does indeed prove the existence of its proper object. One of the best proponents of this argument in the last century was C. In point of fact, Lewis made it the cornerstone of his religious philosophy and the still-point around which much of his fiction turned.