By Joe Puckett, Jr.
There are many good arguments for God’s existence that make the Christian faith both overwhelmingly plausible and intellectually credible. But one such argument that is hardly discussed in modern apologetic circles is often referred to as the Argument from Desire. While C. S. Lewis is the most well-known proponent of this argument, others before and after him have suggested it. It happens to be an argument that I find most intriguing given the practical dynamics of faith and human nature.
Here is one way to formulate the Argument from Desire:
Premise #1: All natural and universal desires have objects that exist which satisfy that desire.
Premise #2: Humanity’s desire for God is a natural and universal desire.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist as an object (Subject?) that satisfies that desire.
Notice that the argument is valid. That is to say, if the first two premises are true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true also. So if the conclusion is wrong, the critic of the argument must deny either the first or second premise.
Critics of the above argument have often sought to deny the first premise by saying that just because we desire something to be true does not make it so. For example, I could wish that unicorns exist but this does not mean unicorns do, in reality, exist. But this objection fails to understand what the first premise actually says. The first premise does not suggest that every object we wish to exist must exist. There are two fundamental types of desires humans have. Let’s call them natural desires and particular desires. Particular desires are desires that only certain people have. They are not desires that spring from human nature. Examples of these kinds of desires are such things as wanting to drive a Mercedes or wanting to own a purple unicorn for a pet. Such desires do not mean that the objects of these desires exist. We often call these desires wishful thinking.
However, natural desires are desires such as hunger, thirst, and social belonging. Human beings desire these things because they are natural to us. But the main point here is that these kinds of desires insist that objects for their satisfaction must exist. If we are hungry, this implies the existence of food. If we are thirsty, this implies the existence of something to drink. If we desire social belonging, this implies that other persons exist to socialize with. Thus if humanity has a universal and natural hunger for God, then this would also suggest that the most probable and expected conclusion is that God is the “Object” that must exist to satisfy that natural desire.
Consequently, some have attacked the argument’s second premise, saying that our desire for God is not a natural or universal desire at all. They will say something to the effect that they have never felt a desire for God. Therefore the desire for God must not be a natural one. Like Sigmund Freud, they will suggest that our belief in God is mere artificial wishful thinking in a world trying to find something to cure its childish fears. But one can plausibly answer this objection in at least four ways:
First, it is simply wrong to suggest that belief in God or some such divine being(s) is not natural. The Pew Forum on Religion and Social Life has done a survey that found that 92 percent of Americans believe in God or some “universal spirit.” They found that only 2 percent of their research group considered themselves atheists.1 This study is consistent with what is found world-wide. For example, the philosopher Kai-Man Kwon made the observation that “Religious believers are still the overwhelming majority of the world’s population (84 percent), while nonreligious people are the minority (16 percent).”2 Clearly the human tendency to believe in the divine is a universal and natural one.
Second, we could say that the person who denies having any divine desire really does desire God naturally but has misplaced the object of that desire onto something else. The writer of Ecclesiastes did this. He sought to find the true object of his longing through all sorts of things in this world and always came up empty handed (Ecclesiastes 1:1-14). He tried to find satisfaction for his ultimate life’s desire in manmade philosophy (1:17-18), alcohol (2:3), riches (2:7-8), women (2:8, 7:28), and in many other ways. But none of them satisfied what he was really after. His final conclusion was that God was the only one who could fill the empty (albeit natural) void in his heart (12:13). This is what the Argument from Desire basically says. God must exist in order to fill the empty void in the human heart—a void that humans deeply long to fill.
Third, we could say that some have set aside their natural longing for God by willfully numbing their sense of divine presence in life. Seen in this way, natural desires are not coercive. They can be neglected or ignored. Take, for example, a social hermit who has no desire to be loved by others. Sociologists and psychologists recognize that humans are social creatures by nature. We generally want to belong in this world and desire to have people love us. But some people have buried that desire away and have convinced themselves that they have no need for other people in their lives. But the existence of social hermits does not deny that human beings are naturally social creatures. One can push aside their natural desires to the extent that they sincerely believe they have never had them at all. That is to say, just because some people have deadened their natural desire for socialization to some degree does not negate that humans are still naturally social creatures. In the same way, the existence of atheists does not deny that human beings have a natural desire for God. The apostle Paul would say that we are without excuse to deny God’s existence in the face of such a wonderful world that so strongly pulls at our natural desire and intuition to believe (Romans 1:20).
A fourth way someone can learn to ignore his natural desire to believe is by pride and/or the desire to sin. The fool has said in his heart there is no God because the fool would prefer it so (Psalm 14:1). He has convinced himself that there is no God because God is one of the most inconvenient truths for a life committed to its own ways. It is obvious to all that if the Christian God exists, we must stand before Him in judgment. But to stand before Him in judgment would mean that the unbeliever would have to change his life to suit God’s wishes rather than his own. If I am more committed to living my own way, then I will more gladly set aside my otherwise natural inclination to believe in God. This type of unbeliever is no different than a person whose body knows it needs food for nourishment but has set aside that desire for some other self-motivated reason. There are eating disorders that bring one to a place where they no longer desire food. In fact, they often come to hate food. Whenever they eat, they often cause themselves to vomit it out. This is what many atheists have done with their natural inclination for God. That is to say, the fool has said there is no God in the same way that it is the fool who has denied his own healthy desire for food.
Thus the conclusion of the argument is the same conclusion Solomon reached many years ago. Fearing God and keeping His commandments is man’s ultimate end (Ecclesiastes 12:13). And our otherwise empty hearts are witnesses to this truth. Thus while there are great formal arguments in favor of God’s existence, human beings are still naturally created to believe even without them. It is simply instinctive and intuitive to look at the world around us and know that something or someone outside the universe made it (Romans 1:20).
In other words, it is natural to be hungry, so we eat. It is natural to thirst, so we drink. It is natural to adore the Divine Creator, so we worship. While not forced upon us, it is written in our spiritual DNA to have a tendency to believe. In this way God gives man a natural advantage in favor of theism. This is expected in beings made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).
