WEEK 6 ARGUMENTS FROM DESIRE AND ABSURDITY
Different between “Apparent goods” and “Real goods” (Aristotle)
Mortimer J Adler writes:“We may actually desire what we ought not to desire, or in fact fail to desire what we ought to desire. That which is really good for us is something we ought to desire….But that which only appears to be good for us….may be something we ought not to desire….even though, at the time we want it, it appears to be good because we want it.”
Aristotle divided “means” from “ends”
Money is always a “means”
“Even the miser who hoards money does not see the possession of money as an end, but as a means to feeling secure, or powerful.”
But ends are to do with eventual states of being
Williams writes:“The Christian answer to Aristotle’s question about the good life is that “the good life is one built around a reciprocal love relationship with God within the community of people who love God because he first loved them.” Love of God is our summum bonum, and it directs us towards our totum bonum. Both begin in this life, and flourish in the next. This end is an unlimited and normative real good because it involves knowing and loving God and neighbour for eternity as God intended from the foundation of the universe. As Ravi Zacharias puts it “Man’s primary pursuit should be God himself, and all secondary and tertiary pursuits fall into place.””
Williams continues, “Hunger can be calmed only food, for hunger is the desire for food. Likewise, only God can meet man’s spiritual hunger, for man’s spiritual hunger is a desire for God…..
That is the hypothesis. If the evidence verifies the existence of a hunger that cannot be met by anything which we know is not God, then, by elimination of the alternatives, this is verification of the hypothesis that God exists.”
In other words – meeting and knowing God is satisfying an innate desire deep within us and this desire is a pointer, if not a proof, towards God.
C S Lewis writes: “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probably explanation is that I was made for another world.”
To reject this understanding of human desire would force us to take a gloomy view of life as ultimately unfulfilling.
Pascal wrote:“What does this greed and helplessness proclaim, except that there was once within us true happiness of which all that now remains is the outline and empty trace? Man tries unsuccessfully to fill this void with everything that surrounds him, seeking in absent things the help he cannot find in those that are present, but all are incapable of it. This infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite, immutable object, that is to say, God himself. He alone is our true good. From the time we have forsaken him, it is a curious thing that nothing in nature has been capable of taking his place.”
Ecclesiastes 2.10-11
“I denied myself nothing my eyes desired:I refused my heart no peace.
My heart took delight in all my work,
And this was the reward for all my labour.
Yet, when I surveyed all that my hands had done
And what I had toiled to achieve,
Everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
Nothing was gained under the sun.”
According to Dr Ravi Zacharias, the Christian finds fulfilment in the most astonishing way
“His conscience responds to the holiness of God; his mind is nurtured and nourished by the truth of God; his imagination is enlarged and purified by the beauty of God; his heart, or impulses, respond to the love of God; his will surrenders to the purpose of God.”
Complaining about life raises an interesting question – why do we complain? Is it because we think there should be something better?
Williams writes “We do not complain about two and two equalling four. We do not complain about squares lacking roundness. In other words, we do not complain about things that cannot be other than they are.”
Williams writes
“I think there is enough evidence to conclude that God really is the answer to people’s need for meaning, direction and so on; and that it is the lack of God which therefore causes these desires. The evidence comes from those who say their experience of God meets those deep needs, and from the fact that these needs are just what we should expect people to have if God exists and they are not correctly related to Him. The desire for God is not a misplaced desire, it is the search for the real answer to a real need. It’s our endless, out-of-proportion wishing for more money, possessions, popularity, fame, sex, drink and drugs that are the misplaced desires.”
Drugs v Faith
Williams outlines the similarities and differences – wish for transcendent experience, communal activity, spiritual high. But he also shows how people’s lives are empty when left in a neutral non-drug induced state and how this differs from religious experience.
This is similar to the Freudian linkeage between the Womb and Heaven as a theory behind the desire for religious experience
The argument being that we want to go back to the womb.
But “Eternal life involves receiving forgiveness, engaging in communal activities, worship and moral struggle; none of which find an easy parallel in womb-life.”
Augustine wrote “You made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you.”
Williams writes “The person who feels that life is meaningless, suffers from an unfulfilled desire; but their suffering reveals their need and, if they allow it to, this need can lead them to the discovery that God answers their need.”
Faith in God helps to answer the big question – What is the meaning of life?
William Lane Craig writes “Since the Enlightenment, when he threw off the shackles of religion, man tried to answer these questions without reference to God. But the answers that came back were not exhilarating, but dark and terrible”.
Williams writes “We are the accidental and unintended by-product of time plus matter plus chance. There is no purpose that our existence fulfils and our destiny is the grave. So runs the received wisdom of secular belief.”
Modern-day atheist Peter Atkins writes
“I’ve always thought that I was insignificant. Getting to know the size of the Universe, I see just how insignificant I really am! And I think the rest of the human race ought to realise just how insignificant it is. I mean, we’re just a bit of slime on a planet belonging to one sun.”
Bertrand Russell wrote “Man is the product of causes that had no foreknowledge of the end they were achieving…his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves, his beliefs, are but the outcomes of accidental collocations (placings side by side) of atoms….(while) the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins….Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation, henceforth, be safely built.”
Now let’s move on to Absurdist theory.
Nihilism – the Absurd World-View
Williams writes
“An absurd universe is one which does not form a coherent whole. If there is a divorce between the demands placed upon humanity by the universe and what humanity can achieve, or between the needs of humanity and what the universe has to offer by way of satisfaction, then life is absurd. As Stephen T Davies writes:
“Camus’ basic assumption was that life is absurd…We long for some sort of meaning in life, but there is none….We want there to exist a kindly, loving God, but no such being exists…We hope for life after death, but death is the end of our existence. We long for some sort of grand, over-arching explanation of life and history and human existence, but no such over-arching explanation is available.”
Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl wrote
“The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of hereditary and environmental factors – or, as the Nazis liked to say “of blood and soil”. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz…were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but…in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
Atheism in Williams view describes an absurd universe
The nihilist’s universe is one in which
1) Human existence has no objective purpose
2) There are no objective moral values
3) Human beings have no objective or instrinsic worth
4) We are the accidental by-product of impersonal forces that place within us the mere feeling that objective moral values exist and oblige us to purse the summum bonum.
5) Ultimate reality is impersonal and so does not share in this project.
6) There is no guarantee that “good” will triumph over “evil”.
7) Each life ends in death and humanity is doomed along with the universe to extinction.
8) Nothing we do, as individuals or as species, has anything but a temporary, subjective value.
What do you think????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The argument that says there is a rational case for God falls at the first test -there is no rationality to religious faith because there is no test or reason that plausibly supports it. Pascal also argues that in the absence of evidence, it is perhaps better, and sensible to assume a god because rationally, if there is no hereafter, it does not matter, but if it does, then it allows for an opportunity to be saved. Yet surely if there is an omnipotent God, then he or she will see that falsehood of faith and the faithless beliver will end in hell. It is religion that is absurd. What about the pope abolishing limbo? What happened to all the unbaptised babies supposedly held there. If limbo was devised by an infallible pope, how can it not now exist by the infallible wish of another pope? The protestant church is no different in it's contradictions of intepretation of it's faith. Faith is simply that. Faith. And an absurd one at that. Why are christians the most vehement opponents of mercy killing when our elderly are in distress and pain and want to die? Surely if there is a heavenly hereafter, a christian would at least allow for speedier passage of those most willing and desperate of voyagers to heaven. Faith has allowed the most bloody and awful wars and suffering in its name. Even now, the so-called terrorism and extremism are actually wars of ignorant faith. Ireland was explained in terms of terrorism and politics but it was of one christian faith upon another and especially the brainwashing of children into forms of christian faith and loyalty. There is no christian child, just as there is no marxist child. They are children of religious parents who bring them up with prejudice and hate for other creeds and faiths. I am baffled as to why leading religious figures are treated as having authority when their opinions are based on belief and faith alone, just as it is astounding that theologians are regarded with the same repect as an academic, or scientist or craftsman who has worked all their life with complex facts and skills. What of the famous prayer experiments that proved prayer had no impact whatsoever. If such an experiment were conducted by a scientist pursuing truth about a phenomenon, then when there was no postive result, they would learn from that and revise their thoughts. But what happened with the prayer experiments? Religous leaders of the project claimed that of course God would know it was an experiment and naturally that explained the nil result - but think how different it would be if the power of prayer had appeared to work. Would the result have then been denounced? This particular module summarises how meaningless life would be without God and how morality would have no compass. I'm sorry to say this is offensively arrogant. The splendour of nature and human endeavour is quite enough for most of us and morality is imprinted upon us through the co-operation and evolution of our species. It's why we are who we are. Rarely, if ever, have wars and oppression been fought in the name of atheism. Fewer even than we first imagine. Hitler was an avowed catholic (which might explain his extraordinary relationship with Rome)although his sincerity was rightly doubted. And Stalin was undoubtedly influenced by his seminary background and promulgated just another kind of oppressive faith. I value our English tolerance and freedoms and have no problem with any group proclaimimng their faith. But that is what it is -an irrational, personal belief that cannot be substantiated. No better, and no worse, than complementary medicine or the flat earth society. The moment rationality casts it's gaze on religious faith, any suggested evidence simply melts away. The argument that God exists because the desire and hunger are palpable is preposterous. The same arguments apply to all faiths and all people. And with the same logic, since we are talking about just one God, then by that logic, on passing over, what if we find our bit of nonsense was wrong, and it was, instead, Baal or some other Godhead that inspired our hunger? Stick to blind faith if it helps, but I don't see any argument for this or any other God -and I'm very happy, moral, and free from desire or hunger without the faith of God thankyou.
Thank you Contented Whitstable Native for expressing your views so clearly.
My reply would be as follows:
1) Any evidence for God that was empirical and scientifically attestable would mean that freewill to believe or not would immediately go out of the window.
So I agree with you if you are saying that belief requires a leap of faith - it does.
When you say faith is "irrational" then, if you mean by this that it is not scientifically proven, then I agree with you. If it were scientifcally proven that God existed we would all have to believe in and follow him and there would be no free will. As a Christian I believe God deliberately does not disclose himself in this way in order to give us freewill.
This course all along says there is no scientific proof for God and the people that have been coming to the course, many of them not believers, have I hope not felt pressurised to believe by me or by anyone else on the course.
2) To say that all faith is totally irrational is to ignore a number of key points
a) If good or evil do not exist independently of human construction, then morality can only be a human construct which will vary from culture to culture and from century to century. Our innate belief in good or evil points to a deeper independent moral source, which is something that humans instinctively feel. This is the moral argument which is expounded in more detail on the website. It is not suggesting that believers are more moral than atheists. I admit that many atheists can live much more moral lives than believers. That is not the issue.
2) The Cosmological argument argues that every physical thing depends on something else for its construction. This is a simple law of physics. The laws of logic say this pattern cannot go back into the past for an infinity number of sequences. Something must have started off the existence of matter that was not dependent on something else for its construction. There must exist therefore an independent thing. This independent thing cannot be matter as matter by its nature is dependent on something else for its existence. THis is week 2.
3) Week 4 - the design argument, points at the intricate web that has made up creation and argues that if it was just a random event, why has something as DNA been arranged with such seeming intelligence as the foundation of its design. You can read more abou this again on the web.
To say that belief in God is naive and irrational is to show a lack of respect for huge swathes of the world's population = not just Christian, but Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, tribal religions, and so on.
It also fails to take account that people of high intelligence believe in God. Churches throughout the country and the world are attended by judges, barristers, MPs, doctors. If you want me to show you the various websites for Christian lawyers or Christian Medics I can.
4) On other matters:
The infallibility of the pope is something that many Christians would feel uncomfortable with, so I agree with you there when you talk about limbo. Yes, some Christians are against mercy euthanasia - but by no means all. I am in favour of euthanasia on certain conditions as I agree with you it is horrible to see someone suffer against their will.
The argument that faith has caused wars is something I would not agree with. Northern Ireland may have been exacerbated by ill-founded religious prejudice, which I agree does exist, but it has been at heart a politically fuelled problem. Any reading of the history of NI will agree with this. I do agree religion has been abused in Northern Ireland, but having worked there I would also say it is one of the warmest and most friendly parts of the British Isles, in both Catholic and Protestant communities.
Nearly every war I can think of was caused by political factors. Yes religion is often in the background, but more often it is humanity's desire for more land for their country. Do you seriously think the first and second world wars were caused by religion? Or the Vietnam war? Or the Falklands war? Or Korea? the Crimea war? the Boer war? the Napoloeonic wars? the war of the Roses? the English civil war?
Some say the current Iraq conflict is casued by religion. Yes, there is some justification to that, but it is more to do with an abuse of religion.
Hitler and Stalin both persecuted the church during their reigns. HItler may have been baptised a Cathlic but he followed a Nordic Germanic form of creed and was heavily in astrology. Many priests ended up in Siberia under Stalin.
Under Stalin, continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in the near-extinction of the Orthodox church, as Stalin was influenced by a God-denying form of Communionism. By 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938. During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time.
Anyway - do come back to me
Simon
Post a Comment