arguement from need

[robtex]

I was having tea last week with a friend of mine who is a Christian. She is the same age as I am. In Austin I can be really openly atheist due to the culture of the metro. Very few people around here that I am in contact with weekly are unaware of my atheism.

I am having tea and we are talking and out of the blue she tells me why she is a Christian. It was one of the most interesting arguements for theism that I heard and I wanted to share it with you.

Her arguement for the existance of God could be summed up as an arguement from need. She said in essence God exits to her because as a human she needs to be nutured and cared for by a "father figure" and therefore to her, God exists.

Furthermore, no intellectual or science based arguement could trump her belief because it was based on her emotional need not on evidencable observations. I appreciated her candor as she was the first person to openly come out and say "God exists because emotionally I need for him to."

And while I have not heard it stated that way before as I pondered it over the days I have come to think that while it was my first to hear the arguement overtly stated as such I think quite a few theists probably rest their arguement for the existance of God on the same notion. I base this on the following obeservations:

1) God is protrayed as a "father figure" in many religions or as a mother in some pagan ones.

2) In many religions one can petition God for divine intervention not unlike one can gain favors from a parent

3) People in many religions refer to their fellow worshipers as their family and the arch-type is the deity of their religious group.

4) God in many religions sets rules like a father does in a household. The rules like the stern father's are not open to debate or questioning.

5) The notion of an afterlife for many is the infinite post-life care guide where God is to take care of the believers though many do not know how. They just "trust in God" to take care of their afterlife needs in exchange for their love for or of him and acceptance of the deity followed.

6) The God in many religions makes makes sacrifices for his followers and the followers make sacrifices for their God and fellow believers. Much in the same way a family does.

7) God is a creator of the universe much in the same way parents are the creater of their children.

8) In many if not all theistic religions the followes look to God for protection and as a componet of such are asked to abide by the tenets of the religion not unlike the structure of many if not most families.

Having said that what do yall think of the arguement from need and if you believe in God is it one of the arguements you have for the existance of your diety?

 

[Mathematician]

I think that if they weren't so reliant on a deity from their childhood, the need factor wouldn't come into play. If you're religious (firm believer), you tell yourself that there is something after death (well for most religions). If you were to come to find no God existed, it could be shocking and cause some unrest.

But I was never really religious. Even when I was young, I always questioned the Bible. Luckily, I grew up in a family that allowed my mind to wander . . .

On an off topic note, I'm glad to hear you're open about it. I am too (Dallas, Texas )

 

[lilithu]

Having said that what do yall think of the arguement from need and if you believe in God is it one of the arguements you have for the existance of your diety?

My God does not stand apart from nature. So I wouldn't say that God exists just because I need God to exist. God exists as surely as existence exists.

However, I would say that I have a concept of God because I need for God to exist. I look at the same universe that an atheist looks at and I see God because I have a concept of God that fulfills a need, whereas an atheist does not see God because they either do not have such a concept or do not have such a need. (And I have met atheists of both kinds - those who are atheist because they reject a concept of god that did not fulfill their needs and those who are atheist because they have no need for a concept of god. I respect the latter. I feel compassion for the former.)

Also, I do not share the same need that your friend seems to. I have no need for a father figure that will look out for me and answer my prayers when I petition him for favors. With respect to that conception of God, I too am an atheist. But I do need to believe that there is meaning in the world, that there is justice and truth and love and beauty, and these are not just human constructs that can be discarded on a whim. I need to know that there is a moral order that stands beyond our relativistic and individualistic viewpoints.

I need to believe, and I do believe that existence has meaning, and purpose, and love, and I choose to call that God. Other people believe that existence has meaning, and purpose, and love, and choose not to call that God but something else, and that's fine with me. Still others have a concept of God that doesn't seem to be intimately tied to meaning, purspose, and love, and frankly I don't understand the point of that.

 

[Fluffy]

I fully agree with your friend, the argument that she outlined is the basis for my own theism. Such a feeling is probably shared by a very large amount of theists but, due to the unfortunate tendancy of people to view this argument as somehow inadequate, most of them skip over or ignore this feeling and try and find justification, often unsuccessfully.

 

[Bea Ond]

But what exactly does she need? Does she need God to exist? Or does she simply need to believe that God exists?

If need is an argument, then surely it is not an argument that God exists, it is an argument that belief exists, which is something that no one could argue against.



(btw, I am not an atheists. I believe in “God” in my own way. But I am highly critical of evidence or arguments for or against.)

 

[Katzpur]

Having said that what do yall think of the arguement from need and if you believe in God is it one of the arguements you have for the existance of your diety?

I think your points are well-taken. However, the bottom line is that God's actual existence is entirely independent of our need for Him. If He exists, He exists, and your not needing Him changes nothing. On the other hand, if He doesn't exist, my needing Him certainly isn't going to will Him into existence.

Speaking of my own personal feelings, I believe that He exists because it is impossible for me to conceive of my own existence as something that simply happened due to a "series of fortunate events." I've actually tried to convince myself that He is nothing more than a figment of my imagination, but I simply can't do it. On the other hand, I am not in any way ashamed to say that I absolutely do need Him! I think that any Christian (I can't accurately speak for theists other than Christians) who says he doesn't need a God would be doing so only to protect himself from criticism from non-theists. Somehow, needing a God is seen by non-theists as a weakness, and I don't know of very many people who enjoy being perceived as weak.

 

[Sunstone]

Rob, your friend's argument intrigues me. Kudos to her for frankly recognizing the basis of her faith in God. But a part of me wonders if the need for a father figure god is not somehow immature. Would a person who was fully adult, emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually, have such a need to believe in a cosmic father figure? What do you think?

I suppose it is much easier for me to understand Lilithu's need for a non father figure god, than it is for me to understand your friend's need for a father figure god.

 

[Scott1]

However, I would say that I have a concept of God because I need for God to exist.

Well said.... but we RC would point out that we believe your "need" for God is not something you created, but is God given:

The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for (CCC# 27).

So this "argument from need", to us, is more like an "argument from God".

 

[michel]

I was having tea last week with a friend of mine who is a Christian. She is the same age as I am. In Austin I can be really openly atheist due to the culture of the metro. Very few people around here that I am in contact with weekly are unaware of my atheism.

I am having tea and we are talking and out of the blue she tells me why she is a Christian. It was one of the most interesting arguements for theism that I heard and I wanted to share it with you.

Her arguement for the existance of God could be summed up as an arguement from need. She said in essence God exits to her because as a human she needs to be nutured and cared for by a "father figure" and therefore to her, God exists.

Furthermore, no intellectual or science based arguement could trump her belief because it was based on her emotional need not on evidencable observations. I appreciated her candor as she was the first person to openly come out and say "God exists because emotionally I need for him to."

And while I have not heard it stated that way before as I pondered it over the days I have come to think that while it was my first to hear the arguement overtly stated as such I think quite a few theists probably rest their arguement for the existance of God on the same notion. I base this on the following obeservations:

1) God is protrayed as a "father figure" in many religions or as a mother in some pagan ones.

I realize that yes, God is a Father figure (only in the fact that I believe we (humans) are all 'brothers and sisters'); it was not until Kathryn mentioned in a very recent post that I consciously thought of God in terms of being a father to me .

2) In many religions one can petition God for divine intervention not unlike one can gain favors from a parent

I have never seen God in this way; I have always believed that I need to do things myself; God's 'help' is something I would not ask for, except in very special circumstances. It is not something I would do lightly, and then never for me.

3) People in many religions refer to their fellow worshipers as their family and the arch-type is the deity of their religious group.

I have never seen fellow worshipers as family (my intro into religion has been haphazzard and with little guidance from anyone, and with literrally no teaching).

4) God in many religions sets rules like a father does in a household. The rules like the stern father's are not open to debate or questioning.

I suppose that is true, but they are only laws that I would apply to myself (save for the commandments which relate only to religion)

5) The notion of an afterlife for many is the infinite post-life care guide where God is to take care of the believers though many do not know how. They just "trust in God" to take care of their afterlife needs in exchange for their love for or of him and acceptance of the deity followed.

Agreed.

6) The God in many religions makes makes sacrifices for his followers and the followers make sacrifices for their God and fellow believers. Much in the same way a family does

.

Never thought of it that way; I have never made sacrifices for God.

7) God is a creator of the universe much in the same way parents are the creater of their children.

Agreed.

8) In many if not all theistic religions the followes look to God for protection and as a componet of such are asked to abide by the tenets of the religion not unlike the structure of many if not most families.

I don't look to God for protection; my life here is for me to resist temptation - God can't help me there because it is a test I must 'do' on my own.

Rob, you'll see that quite a few of your criteria don't 'fit me' - if that is of any import.

 

[Katzpur]

A part of me wonders if the need for a father figure god is not somehow immature. Would a person who was fully adult, emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually, have such a need to believe in a cosmic father figure? What do you think?

See... this is what I meant. Who wants to be told they're immature? That's why a lot of Christians are hesitant to admit to non-theists that they need God.

Obviously, I'm biased , but I see myself as emotionally, psychologically and intellectually "fully adult." Whereas you see the need for a "cosmic father figure" as evidence of immaturity, I see the opposite point of view in exactly the same way. The idea that "I'm too intelligent for all that mumbo-jumbo," strikes me as being extremely naive. Or is it just the phrase "father figure" that you don't like? To me, a father figure is someone who loves me unconditionally, someone who cares about my happiness, someone who listens when I talk to him, someone who is in a position of being able to protect me, and someone who is a whole lot smarter than I am and understands the big picture far better than I do. I don't see how needing someone who has those qualities makes me immature and how not needing someone who has those qualities makes you mature.

(Please understand that when I direct my comments to "you," I'm not intending them to be a personal attack on you, Sunstone. It's just how I see the non-theist's attitude towards believers.)

 

[Sunstone]

I don't believe that everyone who worships God as a father has an immature need for a father figure. The metaphor of God as a father is pervasive in our culture, and I suppose that is why most people who worship God as a father do so...in effect, because they have been taught to do so. But I only ask the question whether there are not some people who worship God as a father because they have an immature need for a father figure?

 

[Fluffy]

I don't believe that everyone who worships God as a father has an immature need for a father figure. The metaphor of God as a father is pervasive in our culture, and I suppose that is why most people who worship God as a father do so...in effect, because they have been taught to do so. But I only ask the question whether there are not some people who worship God as a father because they have an immature need for a father figure?

Why does such a need have to be immature? We continue to need a parental figure right up until we die, in some form or another.

 

[lilithu]

Well said.... but we RC would point out that we believe your "need" for God is not something you created, but is God given:

The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for (CCC# 27).

So this "argument from need", to us, is more like an "argument from God".

Namaste Scott,

a similar argument exists within the UU tradition as well (tho of course, being UUs, with a lot of dissenting voices). William Ellery Channing, one of our founding fathers argued that we are made with a "likeness to God" and therefore all of our wonderful human desires for truth and justice are God-given, and our work towards those ideals is our yearning for God. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a generation after Channing, argued that our consciences are the OverSoul (God) flowing into us and Godliness expressed thru us. And UU's greatest theologian of the 20th century, James Luther Adams, said that "power" comes from God-given conscience and our own freedom to choose, but only when we choose within accordance to God's guidance within us are we happy and fruitful, etc. Evil comes from choosing to exercise the second source of "power" (our free will) contrary to the first source of power (God's guidance).

Of course I agree with these arguments. As a theist, I believe that I need God the way a plant needs sunlight - an innate yearning for the source of being. But as a UU theist, I am always torn between my ever-abiding sense of God and how to couch it in ways that would be appropriate for and respectful to UUs (and hence people) of all persuasions, theists and atheists alike.

 

[robtex]

I think that if they weren't so reliant on a deity from their childhood, the need factor wouldn't come into play. If you're religious (firm believer), you tell yourself that there is something after death (well for most religions). If you were to come to find no God existed, it could be shocking and cause some unrest.

But I was never really religious. Even when I was young, I always questioned the Bible. Luckily, I grew up in a family that allowed my mind to wander . . .

On an off topic note, I'm glad to hear you're open about it. I am too (Dallas, Texas )

Man so many replies to field. Gene You totally rock cause you are a TEXAS ATHEIST!!. About the childhood thing I see that having merit. I have met a few 2nd generation atheists, meaning their parents were atheists and the internal struggle of "Is there a God?" is absent in all of the 1/2 a dozen that I have met. It would be impossible to verify with any validity as the existance of God is such a touchy subject but the theory seems plausable to me.

 

[robtex]

I fully agree with your friend, the argument that she outlined is the basis for my own theism. Such a feeling is probably shared by a very large amount of theists but, due to the unfortunate tendancy of people to view this argument as somehow inadequate, most of them skip over or ignore this feeling and try and find justification, often unsuccessfully.

I admire your candor. I think she told me that last night because I have earned her trust but at first she was very reserved about the topic of religion or God around me. It was a slow process to get to feel comfortable enough to say something like that to me. But as a non-theist I hope to grow from this idea and be religiously tolerant enough for theists to open up to me like that.

 

[robtex]

But what exactly does she need? Does she need God to exist? Or does she simply need to believe that God exists?
If need is an argument, then surely it is not an argument that God exists, it is an argument that belief exists, which is something that no one could argue against.
(btw, I am not an atheists. I believe in “God” in my own way. But I am highly critical of evidence or arguments for or against.)

I understand what you are saying and agree that it is essentially a non-sequitur, however logic is the path to God is a very small minorities book, yet such a large section of the human population, the majority of them, are believers. The new question becomes why? I think this theory is a big "gap-filler" of why.

footnote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

 

[Katzpur]

About the childhood thing I see that having merit. I have met a few 2nd generation atheists, meaning their parents were atheists and the internal struggle of "Is there a God?" is absent in all of the 1/2 a dozen that I have met. It would be impossible to verify with any validity as the existance of God is such a touchy subject but the theory seems plausable to me.

That's an interesting thought. I once knew a woman who had escaped from one of the Eastern European countries back in the late 60's or early 70's, at which time she was probably around 40 years of age. She was an athiest, having lived in a communist country all of her life and having been taught since early childhood that there was no God. She was a pediatrician by profession and was granted political asylum in England. I knew her through my parents, but it's kind of a long story. She and my mom were having a conversation about God once and she said, "Oh, you don't know how badly I want there to be a God when I have the life of a very sick child in my hands." She never said she believed, only that she wanted to. But I thought it was kind of interesting since it counters the notion that we must be taught to believe in God. I think this particular woman had to have been taught not to.

Another woman -- a very close friend of mine -- grew up in Azerbaijan, which, of course, was also under communist rule. She told me once, "I've always knew there was a God." When I asked her how she knew, she said, "Because the communists said there wasn't one and they lied about everything else." Again, to me, this indicates that for many people, a belief in God is not so much taught as inborn.

 

[robtex]

My God does not stand apart from nature. So I wouldn't say that God exists just because I need God to exist. God exists as surely as existence exists.

That is the only thing I have come to understand on your notion of God. That existance is God and vice versa for you. That and you find merit in all religions as an interpretation of what God may be. Mostly I am preplexed by what you call God. Maybe you can define your deity sometime?

 

[robtex]

mIchel in response to your post:

In Christianty God is presented as a father figure. If you read the bible it is a constant theme throughout.

In response to your part of petitioning God I would have to ask "do you pray" ? If so that is a petition.

I am not sure what to say about you not seeing your fellow worshipers as family. All descendants of Adam and Eve and such.

Sacrifices for God as in life-style appropiations to please him. Like sexual absinence, or tithing the church or

Interesting your interpretation of Chistianty is differnt than most Christians. In a good way.

 

[lilithu]

That is the only thing I have come to understand on your notion of God. That existance is God and vice versa for you.

No, existence is not God. God is immanent in existence. I am a panentheist, not a pantheist.

Mostly I am preplexed by what you call God. Maybe you can define your deity sometime?

Probably not.

That's not meant to be evasive, robtex. The first time I ever tried to read the Tao te Ching, I read the first line - "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao" - and tossed the book across the room. I thought that the author was trying to be unnecessarily mysterious and evasive. A year or so later, I picked up the same book, read the same line, and it made perfect sense to me. Some time in between those two tries I had picked up enough experience to understand what the author was saying, and I recognized the opening line to be an absolutely straightforward and true statement. You've probably heard other theists describe God as ineffible, as mystery. It's much easier to say what God is not than it it to say what God is, because any description of God limits God into something finite.

If you want to know my God, read Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, "The Oversoul." He does about a good a job as I've ever seen to describe in Western terms what God is and our relationship to God. I came to UU late, after having investigated a number of different faith traditions and painstakingly constucted my own religious views as a mixture of Kabbalah, Christian Gnosticism, Sufism, Stoicism, Taoism, Vedantism, Zen, neo-paganism, Hermeticism, existentialism, process theology, and science. But mostly, my view of God is framed within the language of Vedantism (Hinduism). It wasn't until I came to UU that I read Emerson, since he is one of our most celebrated founders. And I found that my own view of God has been held within American Unitarianism since its second generation via Emerson (who got "the OverSoul" from Hinduism as well). Of course, this does not mean that you have to agree with Emerson to be a UU, but as a UU, you may want to be familiar with Emerson anyway.