Russell Brand's articulate murmurings about his desire for God and his positive belief that God does exist (see below) provides the springboard for Haworths Fifth Way. There are profound human yearnings that no earthly thing will ever satisfy. As C. S. Lewis remarked somewhere, "If I find in myself a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."
This argument seeks to demonstrate that the universal phenomenon of the human desire that God exist is in itself sufficient evidence that such a God does in fact exist. Atheistic thinkers have sought first to underline the human desire that God exist and have then boiled it down to one of two factors; either wish-fulfilment or evolutionary biology. The reality is, actually, that neither the wish-fulfilment hypothesis nor the facts of evolutionary biology (though they do explain the human desire that God exist) in no way effectively disprove the existence of God. What has been offered, in fact, is a genetic fallacy in each case (the "how" of something doesn't explain the "why" question it elicits).
It was Sigmund Freud who was the first to try to explain the phenomenon of religious belief on the basis of psychological wish-fulfilment. His theory has been enormously influential. It is simply this: in the face of the suffering and difficulty of life, people hope there is a kind, loving God. Although the notion of God is an illusion, it is a wish that people cling to as it offers comfort and hope in the face of inevitable death. Of course, Freud is probably right; most people do hope and wish that there is a good and loving God who can do away with death. But just because it is a wish and a hope in no way discredits this basic human desire. The two can go together; we can have a psychological belief or hope that does actually accord with reality. To simply describe the psychological belief and then discount it on that basis is simply a genetic fallacy. People, on the basis of their psychological make-up, may hope and wish that there is a God. There is nothing to say that such a psychological need is not a fundamental God-given human trait. The argument from religious need begins with this most fundamental human desire or need and builds on it.
Before we look at this argument, it is worth noting the other genetic fallacy that often passes for a serious argument against the existence of God. It is a variation on the wish-fulfilment hypothesis. Generally, atheistic writers will assume that religious belief is a quirk of evolutionary biology, something that evolved in humans over time to enable them to adapt and cope with a difficult environment. Now, again, this in no way disproves the existence of God. It is a genetic fallacy. The reality is that if God has created all things and is supreme over the evolutionary process of all life, it is not unlikely he would factor in an in innate desire or sense of the divine in his creatures. Just because such a desire is present in no way disproves the existence of a Creator God. Both can go together.
Having dealt with the only two major arguments that would seek to undermine the integrity of belief (the argument from wish-fulfilment and evolutionary biology), the next step might be to simply underline the continual and constant evidence of the human hunger and need for God. The basic form of the argument is as follows:
1.Human beings really need God.
2.What humans really need probably really exists.
3.Therefore, God really exists.
The second premise may prove to be problematic but it is simply necessary to point out the difference between unfulfillable immediate wants and deep-seated, fundamental needs. The universe would be irrational if the basic needs of humans did not correspond to what could satisfy them (hunger corresponds to the existence of food and thirst corresponds to the existence of water, and so on). However, the crux of the argument is this: do humans have a real need for God or is it merely a felt need? If there is a real need then why does not everyone experience it?
The oft-repeated quote of Augustine, to the effect that our hearts are restless until they rest in God, chimes in with what this argument drives at. Firstly, it is important to point out that the felt need for God is not limited to unthinking, uncritical or psychologically needy people. Some of the greatest minds have confessed a deep and profound hunger for God; theologians like Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, scientists like Galileo Galilei, Nicholaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and philosophers like Rene Descartes, John Locke, Soren Kierkegaard and Simone Weil were all massively influential thinkers. One cannot claim that it was intellectual deficiency which led to their perceived need for God. Secondly, it is important to note that even atheists, despite their protestations to the contrary, feel what can be called a religious impulse. Jean-Paul Sartre reputedly stated: “I needed God…I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it myself.” In his book, Beyond Consolation, John Waters writes about a debate in University College Cork in which he went up against the atheist thinker Peter Atkins (the motion was: ‘That This House Believes Religion Has No Place in the Modern World’). In the aftermath, as they spoke together, Waters writes:
“As we walked across the campus afterwards, I jokingly said to him that it was somewhat ironic, given his vehemence in the argument, that of the two of us, I alone had a chance of being vindicated. He asked me what I meant. I said, ‘If you’re right, neither of us will ever know, whereas if I’m right, we’ll both know.’ He laughed, fell silent for a moment and responded: ‘It’s much worse than that, I’m afraid, because if you’re right, I’m going to be very happy!’
Even committed atheists will often admit to their personal desire that God exists, despite the philosophical framework of their beliefs. As Waters goes on to remark, there is a fundamental human need for hope and a vision of some destination beyond the repetitions of earthly reality. This fundamental human need is only answered by the existence of God.
The theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834) defined religion as a feeling of absolute dependence. This could be expressed as a fundamental dependence on the “All” or the “Ultimate”, the sense of life as “sacred” or a sense of personal insignificance (even dread) in the face of the vast universe. If that is true, we can enlarge our definition of what defines the fundamental religious impulse. Most people will admit to this basic feeling of dependence that Schleiermacher spoke of. This can be unpacked further: why is there a fundamental feeling of dependence that frames human experience and existence? Is it not likely that such a feeling might correspond to our basic reliance on the God who brought us into being? In another sense, the religious impulse can be defined as an “ultimate commitment” or any ideal that is pursued with great conviction. In that sense, everybody is religious. Everyone has a life-goal to which their abilities, time and energy are directed toward. There is a basic human need for significance and a commitment to a higher ideal.
Finally, though, it has to be said that satisfaction originates in the personal. We were created for an “I-Thou” relationship, not an “I-it” relationship. Religious experience is always personal. As persons we are most satisfied when in relation to another person, another “thou”, rather than an object, an “it” – whether that is an ideal, a mathematical theorem (a “theory of everything”) or a philosophical framework. As such, although people will direct their ultimate commitment to humanist ideals or a form of science devoid of God, inevitably such things will be imbued with personal, God-like qualities. What emerges is a warm-hearted devotion to theories, frameworks or ideals that is fitting only in the context of an “I-Thou” relationship. In other words, God is displaced by something other. And yet, whatever that “other” may be, it is nothing less than “God” for those who commit themselves to it. We cannot escape the fact that human beings were created for a personal “I-Thou” relationship with the living God. If people refuse to acknowledge and worship the God who is there, inevitably they will worship something (or someone) else to fill the vacuum. Human beings are fundamentally religious. The desire for transcendence and a personal encounter with the divine is insatiable.
The argument from religious need simply aims to zone in on this basic human appetite for transcendence and the desire for God. It strives to pointedly force the following question: if there is a fundamental human need for God (that cannot be explained away by appeals to psychology or science), is it not likely that the need corresponds to a real reality, the reality of the God who is there?
No comments:
Post a Comment