My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« How Dare You Atheists Make Your Case! Or, The Fisking of Armstrong, 123 | Main | Atheist Memes on Facebook: The "100% Certain" Mistake »

Comments

Blake Stacey

"Yearning for something doesn't prove that it exists."

If it did, then unrequited love would never happen, and poetry would never have been invented.

pegleghippie

I think the quote you might be looking for is, “’There are no atheists in foxholes’ isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes” – James Morrow

Rieux

My impression was (is?) that the argument you're beating up here was first, or maybe just most prominently, pushed by C.S. Lewis:

A man’s physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.

In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will. A man may love a woman and not win her; but it would be very odd if the phenomenon called “falling in love” occurred in a sexless world.

- Lewis, The Weight of Glory (1949)

Other skeptics' fiskings of the argument here and here.

arensb

(Oh, bleah. Somehow Imanaged to reply to the wrong post, earlier.)

Someone (I can't remember who now) recently pointed out that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument, [is] actually a strong argument [...] for God as a sign of desperation in desperate times.

I had a post on ths subject in the Carnival of the Godless last year. Is it possible you were thinking of that?

Because that would be cool. And since I yearn for Greta's recognition, it must automatically be true :-)

arensb

Dang. Forgot to mention. The post in question is this one.

G.S.

"There's plenty to yearn for right here."

I agree. There is so much mystery, wonder, and amazement in this world, so many yet-unaccomplished possibilities, that this world is wonderful enough, even if it is the only one that exists.

Thank you for another wonderful post, Greta.

Rationalista

I think the supposed need for god is a leftover emotion. Before science, god (or gods) were needed to explain the world. As science began to rise, god became more and more abstracted. Unfortunately, while all this was going on, god was becoming completely ingrained into the culture. Now some think that the need for god is a "natural" yearning because they believe god is a "natural" part of the world.

Liz Highleyman

I like the restless heart argument. I've always thought of the "yearning for something greater" as an outgrowth of the fact that humans evolved to be self-conscious and aware of the fact that we, and those we love, will die. While animals are surely aware of death and develop strategies to avoid it, only humans are heir to the existential angst of contemplating the possibiliy this this really is all there is. But I think the restlessness argument adds yet another explanation for the seemingly unquenchable thirst many people seem to feel for the supernatural. As for why some people have it and some don't, I suspect that's probably like sexual orientation, or the "maternal urge" -- a matter of nutural individual variation.

mikespeir

I have a bit more pedestrian take on this restlessness. I suspect even that springs from our instinct to survive. We're hungry to know because the more we know the better prepared we are to deal with situations that might threaten us. Granted, the lust to know and experience with which Nature equipped us can take us far beyond what Nature "intended." But I suspect that's fundamentally why the yearning lies within us.

windy

CS Lewis, evolutionary psychologist!
"But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.
In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will."

He uses a sleight of hand here- the first part is correct, of course: our desire for food or love is caused by living in a world where these things exist. Our ancestors experienced them and passed on a tendency to seek them; most of us have personally experienced these things and have a memory of them; and we've observed other humans enjoying these things. But none of these reasons should apply for the supposed desire for Paradise even under the Christian scheme, so it does not make sense to say that the desire for Paradise came about "in the same way".

alastair

"And those impulses aren't limited to survival. Like so many of our evolutionary strategies, they're deeply rooted in our psychology, and they spill out into every area of our experience: into art, science, friendship and love, philosophy."

If God doesn't exist, then we got done pretty hard by evolution :(

You raise wonderful points Greta, but I find them incompatible with reality. Contrary to what you said about finding fulfilment in 'seeking, exploring, inventing etc.' I can find a good number of philosophers, businessmen, artists, scientists etc. who have spent their whole lives doing and doing, and yet find that at the end of the mountain climb they are no better off from when they started.

If what you're saying is true, we've evolved ourselves into unfulfilment!

Greta Christina
If God doesn't exist, then we got done pretty hard by evolution :(

Well, yes. Evolution doesn't give a damn whether we're happy, or comfortable, or fulfilled. Evolution cares only and entirely about whether we survive and produce fertile offspring who also survive. Thus making it a somewhat harsher hypothesis than the hypothesis of the loving God... but one that's a lot more consistent with reality.

But I don't agree that this means we've evolved into unfulfillment. It's just that we often make the mistake of thinking that fulfillment comes with the achieving of goals... rather than the act of the work itself, and the experience of losing ourselves in it.

alastair

" It's just that we often make the mistake of thinking that fulfillment comes with the achieving of goals... rather than the act of the work itself, and the experience of losing ourselves in it."

Haha, now you're sounding pretty religious yourself :)

Yeah, evolution IS a pretty depressing theory. I always thought the word evolution had a positive connotation -- like we were evolving towards something better, more adaptive, more intelligent. I guess not.

If evolution was geared towards making us more able to survive, why didn't evolution stop at cockroaches though? They seem to display a better survivability than us. They don't get a lot of predators, and they can take a lot of damage from nature. Also, they don't band together and start wars with one another, a tendency human has that doesn't speak well of our "survivability".

What's the link between survivability and our existential awareness? In other words, using your very definition of evolution -- "Evolution cares only and entirely about whether we survive and produce fertile offspring who also survive" -- how does becoming aware of our own existence make us more evolved?

Jesse

Evolution concerns not the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the sufficiently fit.

As for awareness, the answer really depends on how you would answer this question: is it possible to create something with the processing power of the human mind without producing consciousness? If you answer yes, then you are a dualist of some kind, and I have no idea of how dualists approach the evolution of awareness. If you answer no, then any evolutionary increase in brain complexity would result in greater awareness as a natural consequence.

Greta Christina
If evolution was geared towards making us more able to survive, why didn't evolution stop at cockroaches though?

That's a misunderstanding of evolution. In the theory of evolution, there's no peak or pinnacle or stopping place. As long as the conditions continue to change, living things will continue to adapt to the changed conditions... and will continue to speciate (i.e., divide into different species) to fill newly available evolutionary niches.

What's the link between survivability and our existential awareness? In other words, using your very definition of evolution -- "Evolution cares only and entirely about whether we survive and produce fertile offspring who also survive" -- how does becoming aware of our own existence make us more evolved?

We have an evolutionary niche that is heavily based on exploration, discovery, and invention. Consciousness seems to help with that.

And while evolution is in some ways a harsher hypothesis than theism (I did say "harsh" and not "depressing," btw), at least with evolution we don't have to be wondering why a god who supposedly loves us has created us in such a way that our terrible suffering is inevitable. I'm not just talking about human- caused suffering: I'm talking about floods and famines, Alzheimer's and pediatric cancer. With a naturalistic explanation of the world, we don't have to contort and torment ourselves trying to figure out why God wants us to suffer do horribly... or why he doles out suffering and happiness more or less at random.

More importantly: Evolution is consistent with reality, while theism is not. The most uplifting and inspiring hypothesis in the world isn't going to do much good if it isn't, you know, true.

Finally: Experiences of transcendence and losing one's self in one's work and activities are not necessarily religious. They don't require a belief in the metaphysical or supernatural, and many atheists have them.

Shaun

I think that a major flaw in the 'god shaped hole' argument is that a belief in god does not fill this hole. If it did, religious people would not be unsatisfied or yearning for more.

Locutus7

Greta and others so inclined,

Check out below site, which contains a paper on self-trancendence and damage to the parietal occipital cortex.

The main point is, the feeling of being one with the cosmos (or god) emanates from a specific portion of the brain, no supernatural or external stimulus required.

http://www.ibcsr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147:removal-of-portions-of-the-parietal-occipital-cortex-enhances-self-transcendence&catid=25:research-news&Itemid=59

random ntrygg

that we yearn for something more is not different than the drive to obtain better paying employment, the best possible partner

it's just the striving to be part of something better and bigger than we are and what we have

if we didn't yearn, we'd still be in the stone age, because that was good enough for survival

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau


  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz


Powered by Rollyo

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff