1. The Perfect Father

[Josh]

So, first off in a series of threads about how Christianity meets our deepest needs, desires, and satisfies our thirst for meaning, I'm going to address the topic of God as Father.

I'm going to approach these topics from a personal angle, admitting some subjectivity right off the bat. My hope is that others will chime in and give their personal perspective on the topic and perhaps explain how important each facet is to them.

So, first off, I believe that Christianity* satisfies a deep, fundamental desire within humanity for a Father** who is loving and perfect. A Father for whom our earthly fathers are only a pale copy- just pointers to the ultimate reality of a transcendant Father who made us and who is concerned for us, and who demonstrates his love for us.

This is one of the most satisfying aspects of my faith. I often experience the certain knowledge that I have a heavenly Father watching over me- who speaks to me, who has a plan for me, who cares about my comings and goings.

Freud admitted that fundamental human need for a spiritual father figure. He just asserted that it was a projection of our unfulfilled desires for our human fathers. To him, the creation of God amounted to a wish-fulfillment deception so powerful that almost all humans in history have succumbed to it.

C.S. Lewis had a lot to say contrary to Freud's analysis- namely that atheism is just as open to the charge of wish-fulfillment. I have a feeling we might get into that if this thread takes off.

But, as for a positive argument, Lewis argued that all other common human desires have a concrete fulfillment in the real world (thirst-water, hunger-food, sex drive- sex). Such a fundamental human desire as the need for a Heavenly Father also should have a concrete fulfillment in the real world.

That's just the tip of the iceburg, but, I'll pause here so others can jump in.


* While this is a widespread human need reflected in all religions, Christianity and Judaism are the only major religions that fully embrace the idea of God as Father without mitigating against it in some way- like Islam's reluctance to use familial terms for Allah, or Hinduism's blurring of the concept through polytheism.
**Mother can also be inserted here. The Bible speaks of God in motherly terms as well.

[moritz]

Hey Josh, I hope you don't mind me rearranging the order of your comments a bit.

First off: The content of this series is a bit surprising for me, because I had expected something else from the topic. “Grandeur” especially in the context of the conversation with hume sounded somewhat adventurous to me. The question of why and how Christianity (and as I hope to show, religion in general) satisfies basic human needs is rather analytical and has little to do with adventures. Anyway, I’d like to start here:

Mar 11, 2009 19:57:16 GMT -8 Josh said:

But, as for a positive argument, Lewis argued that all other common human desires have a concrete fulfillment in the real world (thirst-water, hunger-food, sex drive- sex). Such a fundamental human desire as the need for a Heavenly Father also should have a concrete fulfillment in the real world.

All other common human desires, right? I’m afraid Lewis is very mistaken here, or apparently didn’t reflect much upon the issue. I’m kidding; I’m sure he reflected a lot and that’s why I believe you misquoted him here.
Let me introduce a couple of technical terms, for this topic is an old hat and more professional people than you and I have already structured this persuasively. Stark and Bainbridge write:

“We begin with a mundane axiom about human behaviour: Humans seek what they perceive to be rewards and try to avoid what they perceive to be costs. In various forms, this is one of the oldest and still most central propositions about human behaviour. It is the starting point for microeconomics, learning psychology, and social theories.”

Rewards is the term for the fulfilment of what Lewis called “human desires”. Now:
“Some intensely desired rewards seem not to be available at all.”
Yet the desire for the reward remains. That’s where so called compensators come into play:
"A compensator is the belief that a reward will be obtained in the distant future or in some other context which cannot be immediately verified."
Picture it like a voucher. The classic example for religious compensators is the belief in an afterlife. No one can prove that there is one but for living according to the rules of your religion, you gain the reward in form of a prospect of immortality in a distant future. Compensators are placeholders for direct rewards.

The provision of compensators is a central aspect of religion in general, thus religion can be defined as: “human organizations primarily engaged in providing general compensators based on supernatural assumptions.”

Clear so far? I broke this down to the very essence, so if you have any question, please ask. Don’t be bothered by the technical terms, they are not meant in a pejorative sense.

Okay, now we can look at the Lewis quote again. Things like eating, having sex, drinking are rewards. The concept of a heavenly father watching over us is a compensator. And there are many more compensators then the one you referred to (and let me add: more important ones too), that’s why I said Lewis didn’t reflect enough: Life after death, meaning of life, salvation, total freedom from pain, total justice, answers to every question (omniscience), etc. etc. etc.

Religion provides humans with compensators for the urgent desires they can’t fulfil. The more compensators a religion offers, the fitter it is to be successful. Since religions like Christianity, Islam or Hinduism are quite successful, it is safe to assume that they offer a lot of well designed compensators. There’s no question about that and if this is what you actually want to show with this thread (“in a series of threads about how Christianity satisfies our deepest needs, desires, and satisfies our thirst for meaning”) then you can actually save your time.

What is puzzling me is how somebody can be aware of those psychological mechanisms and still believe. I think the offered explanations are compelling and the fact that there have been and still are thousands of religions underlines this. Important is not the specific belief or ritual, but the compensation of the universal human desires, which spring out of basic drives and impulses like self-preservation, fear, etc.
Religion offers control. We live in a dangerous world and are longing badly for safety and protection. Religion teaches us that we have full control of our destiny; that if we play according to the rules, our ultimate salvation is guaranteed and that we are constantly safe.

Your specific longing for a divine fatherfigure is something I can’t relate to. But I think what is underlying is this need of protection and safety (“watching over me- who speaks to me, who has a plan for me, who cares about my comings and goings”). In this sense what is separating you from Islam is merely semantics. Muslims may not call Allah their father, but Allah in fact has the traits of a father watching over his beloved children. So call it whatever you like, the compensation for the need of absolute safety is delivered by both Islam and Christianity (otherwise Islam wouldn’t be so successful).

In my opinion what you are bringing to the table is among the finest evidence against religion.


By the way: What I think of God as a father can be read in the God's personality thread. The criticism I provided in this thread couldn't be parried by either of the participants. The best they could do was express their hopes and convictions that there is actually a positive explanation within a higher logic we can't reach...

[Josh]

Mo wrote:

First off: The content of this series is a bit surprising for me, because I had expected something else from the topic. “Grandeur” especially in the context of the conversation with hume sounded somewhat adventurous to me. The question of why and how Christianity (and as I hope to show, religion in general) satisfies basic human needs is rather analytical and has little to do with adventures.

Mo, this paragraph made me laugh out loud. You don't see how the concept of "Father" has anything to do with "Adventure"!!!

I'd suggest this might be at the heart of why you find religion unappealing. Or maybe you just need to become a dad.

I'll be back for more.

[Josh]

The question of why and how Christianity (and as I hope to show, religion in general) satisfies basic human needs is rather analytical and has little to do with adventures.

I don't see it that way at all. Adventure is a basic human need, desire, and thirst.

But I think you're right that I regret getting into Freud and Lewis on this thread because it makes the conversation much more analytical/ apologetic. Perhaps the two threads could/should be separated, but I'm not sure how to. I want to respond to your statements about rewards/compensations at least a bit.

I would, however, most like to talk more about why I think a belief in a perfect father is adventurous.

[Josh]

Here's some more on Lewis' argument on desire, from an online article on C.S. Lewis' argument from Desire. Note he starts off by saying "many deep human desires", not all, as I did hastily

by Art Lindsley, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, C.S. Lewis Institute

"Many deep human desires pointed to real fulfillment of these desires, if not in this world, then in the next. Peter Kreeft, philosophy professorat Boston College, wrote an essay showing the formal side of Lewis’s argument. Kreeft found over the
years that this argument for God’s existence was more
compelling to many of his students than many more
philosophical arguments. Kreeft states the argument:

Major Premise: Every natural or innate desire in us points to
a corresponding real object that can satisfy the desire.

Minor Premise: There exists in us a desire which nothing in
time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: There exists something outside of time, earth,
and creatures which can satisfy this desire.

To state it in another way: There is hunger, and there just
happens to be food that satisfies that hunger. There is
thirst, and there happens to be drink to satisfy that thirst.
There is sexual desire, and there happens to be sex , and
so on. But, there are also other desires that seem to be universal, transcending different ages and cultures, that
seem to be similarly inherent to human beings; namely,
spiritual desires such as a hunger for the supernatural, a
capacity for awe and worship, a desire for immortality,
meaning, dignity, and so on. Do these aspirations have a
corresponding fulfillment or not? If nature makes nothing
in vain, if these latter spiritual desires are natural, and if
these desires cannot be adequately explained by nature
alone, then the conclusion must follow. Kreeft points out
that this argument is more than a logical one. It is more of
a meditation on our lives."

Let me know if you want to pursue his "argument from desire" further, because what I've included here so far doesn't really do it justice. Kreeft has fuller explanations, discussions and counter-arguments for each premise above (might be good for a separate thread)

Perhaps I produced some confusion in my phrase "concrete fulfillment in the real world".

What I meant was that somewhere in time and space they have a fulfillment, not necessarily within our human lifetimes.

But I didn't distinguish between desires which have immediate fulfillment and eventual fulfillment.

The concept of a heavenly father watching over us is a compensator

Actually, I would argue it's not (according to your definition of "compensator"): "A compensator is the belief that a reward will be obtained in the distant future or in some other context which cannot be immediately verified." To the believer, the reality of a heavenly father is presently verifiable.

Now, if you're talking about heaven, freedom from pain, etc.., then, yeah, those things don't have an immediate fulfillment, but Lewis is arguing by extension. If all these other desires have objects that can fulfill them, why wouldn't all desires?

More in a bit..

[Josh]

What is puzzling me is how somebody can be aware of those psychological mechanisms and still believe.

Are you aware of the psychological motivations that contribute to an atheist or materialist's perspective?

Freud pointed out that in addition to the basic human need for the comfort of a father figure, there is a basic human impulse to kill that father figure.

Is that the psychological mechanism atheists are tapping into? If so, how can they still believe?

In this sense what is separating you from Islam is merely semantics. Muslims may not call Allah their father, but Allah in fact has the traits of a father watching over his beloved children. So call it whatever you like, the compensation for the need of absolute safety is delivered by both Islam and Christianity (otherwise Islam wouldn’t be so successful).

Well, I'd say Allah has most of the traits, but the insistence of Islam on God's transcendance over imminence limits their tapping into the divine metaphor quite a bit imo. But they're not as far afield on this topic than, say, Buddhists, as far as I know. By the way, as perhaps you might as well, I'd argue that the lack of a father figure in Buddhism limits it natural appeal to your average person as well.

In fact, that's one of my biggest disagreements with Buddhism, though there are many things about Buddhism I respect.

[fionac]

In Marjane Satrapi's book Persepolis, she portrays her relationship with God this way: she is being cradled in his arms. Technically her God would be Allah, but that picture influenced me to progress in my personal devotion to God.

[Josh]

That's a great portrayal... and a startling image from a Muslim since Muslims don't believe in calling God Father in the first place.