The existence of God: The Argument From Desire

There are many topics I’ve wanted to write about but either through lack of time or, more recently, writer’s block, I’ve never quite managed to tackle them. However, today I will begin to scratch a writing itch which I’ve had for some time. Over the next month or so, I will be publishing articles which relate to the classical proofs for the existence of God.

A few days ago, I was talking with a friend on Facebook who is a former Catholic. During our discussion, I mentioned a philosphical proof for God, known as the “Argument From Desire”. He asked me to explain it, so I wrote a brief summary of the proof and we spent a little bit of time going back and forth. So, drawing upon this conversation, I thought that this would be good topic with which to begin this series of posts on the philosophical arguments for God…

The abstract syllogism

The “Argument From Desire” is a proof which I think stands apart from many of the other classical arguments for the existence of God. I say this because it is an argument which personally I find immensely persuasive, but which some people think to be one of the weaker arguments offered in favour of theism. I’ll explain why this is the case shortly, but first I should outline the argument itself. Here it is:

Major Premise: For every natural, innate desire, there exists some real, corresponding object which can satisfy that desire

Minor Premise: We have a desire within us which nothing on earth can satisfy

Conclusion: There must be something outside of the created order which can satisfy this desire. This “something” we call “God”, and eternal life with Him

So, how might we explain this abstract argument in concrete terms? For that, let’s turn to one of my favourite Englishmen…

Lewis’ Favourite

The “Argument From Desire” was a favourite argument of the great Anglican apologist and author, C.S. Lewis. He neatly sums up the essence of the argument in concrete, easy-to-understand terms in his book, Mere Christianity:

“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.

If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.“
– C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

As I present each of these classical proofs for God in this series, I will look briefly at the ways in which skeptics might object to each argument, so let’s look at each of the premises in turn, beginning with the Minor Premise, since this is the assertion I most often hear disputed.

Minor Objection: Are you truly happy?

As I mentioned earlier, I find this argument extremely persuasive. I find it so powerful because the assertion made in the syllogism’s Minor Premise, that we have within us a thirst which cannot be quenched in this world, resonates deeply within me. I don’t have a blog called “Restless Pilgrim” for nothing!

In case you misunderstand me, this doesn’t mean that I’m unhappy, depressed or even just that I haven’t found my niche in the world. Rather, it’s a recognition of the limited nature of things in this finite world. I know I have a burning desire within me which cannot be sated by the things of earth which, in turn, make me hunger for the things of Heaven. I desire perfect peace and perfect joy and, although I experience these in part here and now, I want them in their fullness.

When I presented this argument in my recent conversation, my friend took issue with this Minor Premise. In my experience, this is typically the premise with which atheists take umbrage.

If someone tells me that he is indeed content with this world and its attractions, whether it’s money, sex, power or whatever floats his particular boat, all I can do is ask “Are you sure?” As Peter Kreeft says, the “Argument From Desire” can’t compel, it can only appeal. The most a theist can do is ask the person in question whether he’s sure he’s perfectly happy and really does have all the truth, goodness and beauty that he could ever want.

Major Objection: Not all desires are the same

On occasions, someone will instead object to the Major Premise, the idea that desires must correspond to real objects which can meet these desires. To recap this point, we recognize that tiredness is remedied by sleep. The desire for knowledge is met by the existence of truth. Hunger is sated by food and thirst by water. These desires make no sense apart from their associated objects, much in the same way that the digestive system would be utterly incomprehensible apart from the existence of food.

Some people might dismiss this and say that they have desires which they know cannot possibly be fulfilled. Simply wishing for things doesn’t make them real! For example, Lewis’ friend J.R.R Tolkien wrote his wildly popular “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, which describes a mythical land of elves and hobbits, which many fans would love to visit! However, we know that Tolkien’s land of Middle Earth is not real and so therefore this desire will forever remain unfulfilled. Have we therefore disproved the Major Premise by showing that not all desires have corresponding objects? No, we have not…

If we look carefully at the wording of the Major Premise, we will see that it is asserted that it is only “natural, innate” desires which always correspond to real objects. We recognize desires to be natural and innate if they are internally generated from within our nature and found universally. In contrast, there are desires which are artificial, vary from person-to-person and are externally conditioned by advertising or society. Additionally, we have words which denote the deprivation of innate desires, such as “hunger” and “thirst”. However, there isn’t a word used to describe some nerd’s deprivation of Middle Earth!

While natural, innate desires are always have a corresponding object, the same is not true for artificial desires. Corresponding objects will exist for some artificial desires, but not all. A clever advertising campaign might make me desire an iPod, which does exist, but the masterful writing of Tolkien makes me desire Middle Earth, which unfortunately does not… 🙁

Conclusion Objection: Why God?

Sometimes when I’ve presented this argument, my listener will concede both of the premises but then object to the conclusion. Why does God have to be the logical conclusion of this argument?

In response to this, it is important first to recognize that these classical proofs for God do not prove the Christian God in particular; they would work just as well for proving Allah of Islam. In order to demonstrate that this God is the God of the Bible, we would need to utilize additional arguments. In a similar way, each argument doesn’t prove everything Christians mean when we talk about “God”, although they do describe a God which is entirely consistent with the God revealed in the Bible. The important point is that these arguments do, however, prove enough of God in order to disprove atheism.

So, why is God the logical conclusion from the “Argument From Desire”?

Well, if we have conceded the Minor Premise then we agree that we have a desire in us which cannot be satified by anything created, either animate or inanimate. Additionally, it is a desire which cannot be fulfilled in time. It is a desire which cannot be met by anything which we have found here on earth. This desire requires more truth, more goodness and more beauty than we have encountered, and maximally so. In fact, we want infinitely more, since you can never have enough truth, goodness and beauty.

If we also concede the Major Premise, that all innate desires have corresponding objects of satisfaction, we must conclude that the object of this unmet desire is not a creature, not in this world, is nothing in time and is something that is truth, goodness and beauty itself. The object which best fits this description is the classical definition of “God”.

Christian Life

While I think it is important for Christians to know this argument from an apologetics point of view, I think it’s also an important argument upon which to meditate because, like all good theology, it informs the way we live our lives here and now. I would like to quote a little more from Mere Christianity where Lewis unpacks the consequences of the “Argument From Desire”:

“If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy [my desire]…[then] probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.

If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage.

I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same.”
– C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Here Lewis sees the things of this world as signs, pointing to our Heavenly homeland. As such, we should appreciate the benefit of these signs (a lost pilgrim always welcomes directions) but we should also remember that they are pointing to something, and something greater than themselves. Natural thirst may be quenched by water, but we must remember that we have another kind of thirst which needs “living water” (John 4:13-15), something which can only be given by God.

Next week we’ll look at another classical proof for the existence God, but I would like to conclude this post on the “Argument From Desire” with a quotation which should be extremely familiar to any regular readers of this blog…

You made us for yourself O Lord, and we will wander restless until we rest in Thee.
– St. Augustine, The Confessions