Home » CS Lewis, Doctrine, God, The Future

The Argument from Desire

2 April 2009 4 Comments

godisnotasecret_21-300x150I thought you would enjoy this article written by my son Sam…

Throughout the history of Christianity, many great apologists and philosophers have attempted to develop logical arguments to rationally demonstrate that God exists. One of the most notable of these attempts is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who laid out several persuasive arguments for God’s existence in his multi-volume work Summa Theologica. No argument can really prove God’s existence, but cumulatively they can be very compelling and persuasive. One of the less well known of them but one I think is among the most deeply engaging is the argument from desire. The premises of the argument are laid out below:

#1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

#2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

#3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

#4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

(Argument outline borrowed from Peter Kreeft)

Two of my literary heroes, C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft, both have named this argument as their favorite. Many former atheists and agnostics, while finding ways to rationally get around the various arguments, have suddenly stopped dead in their tracks when they ran into this argument, unable to ignore its penetrating profundity.

What makes this argument stand out from the rest is that it doesn’t point to the universe, science, biology, history, or any other study to find evidence for God’s existence. Instead of directing the gaze of humanity to that outside of itself, it points directly into the human heart, revealing its deepest longings and desires. Its simple but keen insight into human nature is seemingly irresistible. Following is my own interpretation of the 4 premises of the argument as laid out above.

#1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

All of us as humans are born with a set of built in needs and desires that have natural satisfactions in this world. We are born with hunger, which corresponds to food. We are born with a desire for fellowship and community, which corresponds to friendship and social interaction. The list goes on. The point is that all of our innate desires have corresponding satisfactions in this life. A desire like a child’s longing to fly through the air like Superman does not apply because that kind of desire is not innate in human beings but is rather produced through cultural conditioning (i.e. movies and comic books).

#2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

There is a desire inside all of us that nothing can fulfill. We all long for a kind of “ecstatic happiness” that we never even get close to achieving in the realm of time. We try to fill this void with various things this world offers us, but in the end, we are left emptier than before. As my Dad would say, every one of us has a fundamental feeling of “homelessness” that we can’t get rid of, try as we might. In short, everyone is ultimately unhappy. The greatest pleasures we get in this life often only make us more aware of our persistent unhappiness. They only leave us with echoes of an ultimate satisfaction far beyond anything this world can offer.

#3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This premise follows logically from the first and second. Its implications are mind-boggling. Is there really something that can bring the restless human heart to peace? What possibly could be out there that can completely satisfy this ubiquitous longing for a better country? What can fill the gaping void? It must be something more than anything and everything we have in this world.

This premise does not mean that all of our desires are always met, but it does mean that some kind of satisfaction must exist to meet those desires. C.S. Lewis makes this point well:

…we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness can satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? “Nor does being hungry prove that we have bread.” But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation of a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.

#4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

Although this last premise does not declare the existence of the Christian God, or any God in particular, it still awakens the heart to begin searching for the truth about reality. Because the satisfaction for the desire must be outside of time and space, the simple answer is that it must be what people call “God.” He is the only thing that can give us the ecstatic happiness we all long for.

The Christian God certainly does offer ultimate joy and satisfaction to all who desire it. Ps. 16:11 says: “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand there are pleasures forevermore.” Our God freely gives eternal joy to those who trust Him for it, and that joy is found in Himself. A relationship with Him provides eternal happiness beyond all imagination. The only true home for the human heart is in Him.

4 Comments »

  • Gabe said:

    Great article, tell Sam congrats, it is a very mature work.

  • Becka said:

    Nice job Sam! Its now apparent where your dad gets his talent;)

    I do think however, my love for flying (as in my dreams) is an innate desire to be rid of the weight of life that must first be lived out here, in the fallen world. Then comes the exchange. The weight of glory.

    Superman will be sooooo jealous.

    I hope you will keep borrowing this blog space!

  • Paul Hartung said:

    Sam wrote:
    “Although this last premise does not declare the existence of the Christian God, or any God in particular, it still awakens the heart to begin searching for the truth about reality.”

    This is the weakness of the argument in general (not that it doesn’t have a kind of compelling force still)- that it doesn’t reveal anything about God Himself, and what it says about the human condition is subjective (to some, not me). Further, if I follow you correctly, it may not ‘awaken the heart…for the truth about reality’ as much as it could place a premium upon discovering/crystallizing one’s recurring, carnal passions.

    Point #2 could be considered by many sinners to be an unnecessary inference since none of us have universal experience (they don’t argue against this ultra-desire, but against the rather negative assessment that it’s beyond our grasp in the flesh). And so, the vain pursuit continues since the hedonist is never challenged at his core of what is true and good in itself. Many simply mask over the hollow nature of their pursuits with hope of ultimate ecstasy (somewhere, somehow) in the very kinds of things that are causing the hollow in the first place (perhaps more or better versions will do the trick next time?).

    Why such hope over what has brought a measure of despair? Why such suicidal optimism? There is no taste or savor of the divine (that is detectable to their palette). When confronted with a measure of the truth, it is perceived as an obstruction to their pursuit and must be discarded out of hand. To offer that these need not be in conflict if understood properly, the fork in the road is made plain: do they love darkness or do the love light?

    It is at this point where ultimate desire itself becomes the gauge by which sons of light and sons of darkness are manifest. Your argument becomes quite relevant to those who are at the discovery level of the vanity of this life apart from the satisfaction of Christ. Conversely, it becomes relevant in discerning those that prefer hollow darkness too.

    So while the argument doesn’t sew up the human race into one collectively able-to-test body of truth seekers (via the God-shaped void), it does, however, present a screed or filter to see who is really who.

  • Sylvia said:

    Wow, very nice post. In response to Paul’s comment, I think that even the hedonist will eventually have to come to term with the truth about his life (i.e. it is unsatisfying and empty) because his way of life leads not only to moral but also to physical decay. It is when a person reaches rock bottom that they can, though not always do, realize their intense need for God. A great example of this kind of experience, leading to conversion, is St. Ignatius of Loyola, who after being injured in battle and deprived of his source of evident fulfillment, being a soldier, turned to God in his emptiness and weakness.

    The other option is, of course, despair. We see despair become all too prevalent in our modern society. Indeed, if this is the most compelling argument in favor of God’s existence, the most compelling one against it is not any scientific or biological case but rather the one from the fact of evil in our world. People see so much suffering and refuse to see how their desires for happiness could be fulfilled; they cannot reconcile an all-good God with all the hurt and harm that goes on every day. I think the only response is the response of hope, which this demonstration of St. Thomas Aquinas displays.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.