Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it.
Posted on: September 8, 2009 - 1:17pm
Offline
Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it.
I just received this in my inbox:
Hi, your handle and suggested reading list are provocative to say the least. Have you ever encountered this argument for the existence of Heaven (synonymous in my mind with eternal life:1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it.
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality.
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death.
In defense of the first premise, it is argued that “If there is hunger, there is food; if thirst, drink; if eros, sex; if curiosity, knowledge; if loneliness, society” (Kreeft, Handbook, 250). Nature rushes to fill a vacuum.
The second premise is supported by appeal to a mysterious longing that differs from all others in two ways: First, its object is indefinable and unobtainable in this life. Second, the mere presence of this desire in the soul is felt to be more precious and joyful than any other satisfaction. However inadequately we express it, what we long for is paradise, heaven, or eternity. Even one who uses 'thereisnogod' as his chess handle must experience this longing
If these premises are true, then there is 'more' than this life; there is a life to come. The fact that we complain about this world, pain, and death—but never about eternity—reveals a deep-seated desire for it. We may never attain it, but this no more disproves its existence than life-long singleness proves there is no marital bliss or starvation proves there is no such thing as food.
I'm sure this is a bit different from the teleological or ontological views that you're probably used to grappling with.
Jim
I think Jim is off by miles on point 1. to say nothing of the rest of the message.
Thoughts?
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
- Login to post comments
This is kind of like the First Cause argument. This falls into the same trap. Just like how everything we observe has a cause, this is unfortunately not grounds to say everything must have a cause and the argument breaks down. In the same way we do not have enough data to suppose that all innate human desires have real world ways to satisfy them.
Aside from that this is a rigged question. Innate human desires are based on what helped us survive and get here. If we didn't need to eat we would not have evolved the hunger reflex and therefore we would not evolve the opposite effect, that is satisfaction after having eaten. It makes no sense that we would evolve a fixation on rocks and whenever we felt like we didn't have enough of them we'd be compelled to go out and find more.
Also I'd like to point out that its not so much that we want to be immortal, its that we don't want to die. This has obvious evolutionary advantages. You know, because if you want to die... you won't try to keep yourself alive... and then die.
Obviously the emailer is starting with the idea that heaven exists. They do seem sincere, maybe asking them for negative evidence would be useful.
I really, really want a dragon.
I also really, really want a flying car.
I would like to be the most powerful wizard who ever lived.
I especially want a space ship that can ignore all the laws of physics, and travel instantly to wherever I want to go. Also, it should be stocked with a variety of sexbots.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Dibs on Lichedom and the bottomless beer keg
What Would Kharn Do?
and a really good band to play all the songs I make up. Yeah. Also, I'd like to be really good at making up songs.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yay. More problems with semantics than I can count.
Edit: Not sure how he established 1. before 3.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
=
Thanks, very much. Highly amusing.
What's that from?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
That is an outtake from Clerks 2. Shall I take it that you have not gotten into Kevin Smith just yet?
=
I have really enjoyed many of Kevin Smith's movies. I watched Clerks years ago, and enjoyed Jay and Slient Bob Strike Back, and of course liked Dogma (though it could've been better). I have not seen Clerks 2, though.
Looks like I'll have to watch it.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
The problem I see is desire for immortality != heaven, it equals procreation and survival instinct. That makes more sense than assuming it requires a supernatural explanation where nothing else does.
Using the argument about wanting dragons and such might not work though, because those are desires for companionship, power, sex, etc. The theist would just say that those are specific manifestations of the basic desire.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
True, but so does god. There may exist a fountain of youth, for instance, or maybe there is a particular diet one may follow to live forever. Or, there may be a method of dropping yourself unharmed into a black hole. All you need to do is present alternate solutions to the problem to distinguish the flaw in the argument (besides the unsupported assertion at 1).
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers