If we unmoor ourselves from what is real and move into complete imagination, then I suppose anything could be true.
This makes the assumption that the divine has to exist in order for religious desire to have a purpose. It could be that the divine does not exist, but shared religious belief does serve the purpose of social cohesion among humans.
Most people and creatures will resist death, so there is definitely desire to live. Death is part of the natural order, so transcending nature would be desirable. So the first challenge I would anticipate to this apologetic is to demonstrate that there is a desire for the divine which is something other than the desire to transcend the purposelessness of suffering and loss.
So we inherently want to defy natural order? Sounds like a divine desire to me. Divine is transcending what is natural is it not?
Why would we want to do that if all there is is natural things and no divine. Why do we even perceive them as bad if they are natural? Or why would we want to transcend them in that case?
This is interesting to me. Nobody doubts the value of social cohesion. Well, not most of the time anyway - or at least not before we saw what social media could do with social ‘cohesion’! (nother story). And I can even see why people might make up a god to ‘cohere’ around. Because some encouragement (even if ultimately imaginary) that some divine entity may bless me and my tribe might be a very confidence-boosting tool in the community toolbox! But what if it’s a god that doesn’t always behave? Was it Lewis (or Chesterton) that said if Jesus had never existed, we could never have invented him? We do like making up our gods because (on the odd chance there may be a real one) - any real ones may not be amenable to our control. But gods that we make up - well - those sorts of gods tend to be very cleanly aligned behind our favorite political party and tribe! And I suppose those are the sorts of gods you want around for social cohesion purposes. You certainly don’t want any god around who’s gonna be telling you to love your enemies and see a crucifixion as victory. But - no worries - most people have pretty effectively dispensed with that God in favor of their own.
I never mentioned religious desire? If there is a desire for something transcendent of nature, that thing should exist (a.k.a divine). We have a desire for the divine, not a desire for religion necessarily.
I don’t know why people just assume religious people believe it because it is comfy. You could equally well say that atheists believe in no God because they are afraid of judgement. Neither one is grounded or true. Furthermore, Christianity is not always comfortable to believe in. It is hopeful, but definitely not comfortable.
Then I will rephrase.
This makes the assumption that the divine has to exist in order for the desire for something transcendent of nature to have a purpose. It could be that the divine does not exist, but the shared desire for the transcendent fuels shared religious beliefs in humans for the purpose of social cohesion.
Yes. Antelope naturally run from predators. They do not willingly submit to the circle of life or bring balance to nature. Most would consider the instinct to survive to be explicable in natural terms. Humans have existential awareness and social institutions, so it is not a stretch that desire can be elevated to transcend the natural.
The divine is different from the transcedence of nature then?
Animals don’t willing do anything. So if you can explain why animals defy nature naturally, and humans still search for something beyond the natural explanation, the question still stands I think.
You tell me. I will rephrase to the definitions of your liking.
Ok, help me understand fully what you’re saying here. Are you saying that we want to transcend things that are natural, like death and suffering, and the divine is different from that?
I don’t want to transcend things that are natural. You and others seem to have this desire, so I am seeing if the divine is needed in order for this desire to have purpose. I think it may be possible that these feelings could have the purpose of social cohesion if the divine does not exist.
Alright, I can accept that. I would say most people have that desire then, since religion exists and most people are part of a religion.
Yeah - good points - and ones that Lewis hammered home well. There are people who believe in Christianity because they want it to be true (the hopeful ones) - and some believe because they don’t want it to be true - (the fearful ones). And there are people who refuse to believe in any theism because they don’t want it to be true (the hopeful ones), or will not believe though they wish it were true (fearful ones). And then … there probabably are also a few who are rightly suspicious of all these desires as being unreliable things in the first place (as far as truth-questing goes).
A great many have made it comfortable. By remaking Jesus (and God) in their own image. That’s where having scriptures around can be a very useful thing - to help put at least some restraints on how much of a makeover Christ can so easily be given in the politically animated imagination.
Agreed. Many people leave the church because of a misrepresentation of Christianity.
Yes, I think that is why we can’t say one way or the other, religious people do it because they are afraid of death, and atheists are atheists because they fear judgement. Skepticism is a great thing, when used in moderation. I am a skeptic of my own beliefs as well, (or I try to be), not to test things, but to make sure I get an objective look on things. I think skepticism is overused sometimes though.
It could be as simple as immortality is appealing.
Exactly. That’s what I’m saying, immortality, life after death, God, etc. is appealing for about 3/4 of the world. Why would we desire it if there was no satisfaction for it.
It’s a nice statement. Like Pascal’s God-shaped hole.
Prove it.
I like Lewis, whenever I read him. As a person. As an artist. As an intellectual explorer. As someone able to make ideas relatable. I admire him as a brother in Christ.
However, I don’t find his apologetics convincing. I read Mere Christianity early in college and found it really encouraging. The last time I read it, 35 years later, I was disappointed. I had a lot more life experience and learning, and I found his reasoning outdated. I think that would be the right expression. Much of his reasoning is based on the assumptions of a particular culture, class, place and time. Arguing to defend it is silly.
Arguing to defend an argument is not a defense of the faith, but a defense of an argument that is not convincing to the person being subjected to it.
There isn’t an example of a desire not having a satisfaction for it or a possible satisfaction for it? By my light at least. Feel free to provide any counter-argument. It is not merely a lack of evidence = it doesn’t exist though. There is positive evidence that desires have possible satisfactions for them. Also, we don’t really prove much in life so to ask that is to set a standard beyond what anyone can achieve. It is beyond reasonable doubt though.
That is a good point and I will admit I am guilty of that quite often. However, I think it is also valuable to defend arguments or at least to be able to defend your arguments if you are talking to someone genuinely questioning for truth.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.