News

A Beginner’s Guide to the Theistic Argument from Desire

by Editor

Chilli Rating: ? ? ? ?

The theistic “argument from desire” (AFD) is a family of arguments that move from an analysis of human desire to the conclusion that God exists (or that something like “eternal life in relationship with God” is the true human telos, goal or purpose). This argument was popularised in the twentieth century by C.S. Lewis, who sought to understand an “unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction,” a mystical experience to which he gave the technical label “Joy”[1] (and which writers in the German Romantic tradition called Sehnsucht): the bitter-sweet experience of feeling draw to a transcendent and innately desirable “something more” beyond one’s worldly grasp. This experience is occasioned but not satisfied by various worldly “triggers” that are somewhat person-relative, but often have to do with beauty and/or natural grandeur (i.e. what the Romantics called “the sublime”).

Lewis produced the pre-eminent literary engagement with Sehnsucht in English, contemplating “Joy” in works of allegory, apologetics, autobiography and theology, and evoking “Joy” in his fiction. He wasn’t the first to explore this theme, which can be found in the Jewish scriptures (Psalm 42 opens with the declaration that: “As the deer pants for pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God.” Ecclesiastes can be read as a meditation upon this theme[2]). Nor was he the first to make a theistic AFD – something done by Boëthius, Pascal, Thomas Chalmers and G.K. Chesterton before him. Nor was he the only scholar of his era to do so (contemporaries who defended the AFD included C.E.M. Joad, Jacques Maritain and Leslie D. Weatherhead). However, it’s primarily due to Lewis’ wide-ranging discussion of the AFD that many contemporary scholars have become interested in exploring, critiquing and/or defending a variety of arguments from desire, with attention paid to the argument by Gregory Bassham, Todd Buras, Michael Cantrell, Winfried Corduan, C. Stephen Evans, Norman L. Geisler, John Haldane, Robert Hoyler, Peter Kreeft, Alister McGrath, Thomas V. Morris, Alvin Plantinga, Joe Puckett Jr., Richard Purtill, Victor Reppert, Erik Wielenberg, etc.


A Cumulative AFD

The AFD is best thought of as a cumulative argument composed of a variety of sub-arguments with different logical formulations.[3] I only have space to sketch some of these arguments here:


Prima Facie AFD

Samuel Alexander’s Space, Time and Deity (1916-1918) introduced C.S. Lewis to the distinction between “Enjoyment” and “Contemplation,” a distinction Lewis would later illustrate in terms of looking at or looking along a beam of light. To take the experience of “Joy” at face value means looking along it towards an innately desirable “transcendent other.” Now, as Lewis points out: “As soon as you have grasped this simple distinction [between looking at and looking along], it raises a question. You get one experience of a thing when you look along it and another when you look at it. Which is the ‘true’ or ‘valid’ experience”?[4] Lewis observes:

It has . . . come to be taken for granted that the external account of a thing somehow refutes or “debunks” the account given from inside. “All these moral ideas which look so transcendental and beautiful from inside,” says the wiseacre, “are really only a mass of biological instincts and inherited taboos.” And no one plays the game the other way round by replying, “If you will only step inside, the things that look to you like instincts and taboos will suddenly reveal their real and transcendental nature”.[5]

Lewis argues that this reductive impulse must be resisted on at least some occasions because its generalization is incoherent: “you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always misled”.[6] Moreover, Lewis’ example of discovering that “the inside vision of the savage’s dance to Nyonga may be found deceptive because we find reason to believe that crops and babies are not really affected by it”[7] illustrates the presumption of innocence conferred in the absence of sufficient reason for doubt upon enjoyed (i.e. looked along) experiences. Lewis concludes “we must take each case on its merits.”[8]

Contemporary epistemology is well disposed to playing the game “the other way round”. For example, consider the “reformed epistemology” of Alvin Plantinga, who argues for the properly basic status of theistic belief evoked by desire.[9]

To further motivate taking “Joy” at face value, one can appeal to the epistemic principle “that we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be (in the epistemic sense) unless and until we have evidence that we are mistaken”.[10] This basic principle of rationality puts the burden of proof upon the shoulders of the sceptic who claims that, despite appearances, to look along a Joy is to experience a delusion rather than the insight into the nature of reality it seems to be from the inside.


Abductive AFD

Alister McGrath notes that “Lewis’s reflections on desire focus on two themes . . . a general sense of longing for something . . . and a Christian affirmation that God alone is the heart’s true desire . . .”[11] For McGrath, these themes form the two prongs of an abductive argument for the Judeo-Christian explanation of “Joy”:

Lewis saw this line of thought as demonstrating the correlation of faith with experience, exploring the “empirical adequacy” of the Christian way of seeing reality with what we experience within ourselves . . . Christianity . . . tells us that this sense of longing for God is exactly what we should expect, since we are created to relate to God. It fits in with a Christian way of thinking, thus providing indirect confirmation of its reliability.[12]

Victor Reppert likewise formulates the AFD as an abductive argument:

On Christian theism God’s intention in creating humans is to fit them for eternity in God’s presence. As such, it stands to reason that we should find ourselves dissatisfied with worldly satisfactions. Let’s put the likelihood that we should long for the infinite given theism at 0.9 . . . I wouldn’t say that such desires couldn’t possibly arise in an atheistic world . . . But how likely would they arise in such a world? So long as the answer is “less likely than in a theistic world,” the presence of these desires confirms theism. Let’s say that, if we don’t know whether theism is true or not, the likelihood that these desires should arise is 0.7. Plugging these values into Bayes” theorem, we go from 0.5 likelihood that theism is true to a 0.643 likelihood that theism is true. Thus . . . the argument from desire confirms theism.[13]

Atheist Erik Wielenberg tries to explain away “Joy” in terms of naturalistic evolutionary psychology (NEP).[14] Wielenberg’s NEP hypothesis, which only engages with “two features of Joy—the restlessness it induces and the nebulousness of its object,”[15] and thereby lacks explanatory scope, suggests that the former feature “might” be advantageous if Joy arose: “Early humans favored with a chronic, ill-defined restlessness of heart might have outcompeted other humans who were naturally more sedentary and complacent.” However, we might think that early humans afflicted with “a chronic, ill-defined restlessness of heart” would be out-competed by humans free from such existential ennui! Again, Wielenberg suggests the somewhat nebulous nature of Joy “might” be advantageous if Joy arose: “Joy’s . . . lack of a clear intentional object, might have led early humans down Lewisian ‘false paths,’ such as the pursuit of sex, power, and adventure, that did have direct fitness advantages”.[16] Wielenberg’s use of “might” doesn’t inspire confidence in either case, indicating that his hypothesis has a low degree of explanatory power.

Finally, Wielenberg offers no explanation for the appearance of “Joy” in our gene-pool, only for its selection should it appear. As Reppert argues:

natural desires that are unfulfillable on earth is precisely what you should expect . . . from the point of view of theism. I seriously doubt that we can do this from the point of view of naturalism, even if a half-way-decent-looking evolutionary explanation of how such desires could arise were forthcoming . . .[17]


Inductive AFD

In Mere Christianity Lewis frames the AFD inferentially:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water . . . If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.[18]

Trent Dougherty likewise presents the AFD as “a defeasible inference [wherein] the premises could be true and the conclusion yet false, but they bear prima facie support for the conclusion”[19]:

  • Humans have by nature a desire for the transcendent
  • Most natural desires are such that there exists some object capable of satisfying them
  • There is probably something transcendent

Aristotelian AFD

In the preface to the third edition of The Pilgrim’s Regress, Lewis offered a deductive AFD:

if a man diligently followed this desire, pursuing the false objects until their falsity appeared and then resolutely abandoning them, he must come at last to the clear knowledge that the human soul was made to enjoy some object that is never fully given . . . in our present mode of subjective and spatio-temporal experience. This Desire was, in the soul, as the Siege Perilous in Arthur’s castle–the chair in which only one could sit. And if nature makes nothing in vain, the One who can sit in this chair must exist.[20]

Here Lewis assumes Aristotle’s (controversial) dictum that “nature makes nothing in vain”[21]:

  • Nature makes nothing in vain.
  • Humans have a natural desire, Joy, that would be vain unless some object that is never fully given in our present mode of existence is obtainable by humans in some future mode of existence.
  • Therefore, the object of Joy must exist and be obtainable in some future mode of human existence.

One can set to one side the universality of Aristotle’s dictum whilst still giving a deductive argument based upon a restricted application of Aristotle’s dictum to innate human desires:

  • Nature makes no type of innate human desire in vain
  • Humans have innate desires that would vain if God doesn’t exist
  • Therefore, God exists

Inductive Aristotelian arguments from desire can be mounted upon the premises that “most types of things in nature are not made in vain” or that “the majority of innate human desires are not made in vain”.

We could interpret Aristotle’s dictum as a heuristic principle.[22] A principle such as “We should assume that no [type of] natural thing exists in vain until and unless we are shown otherwise” could serve as a premise in a deductive heuristic AFD:

  • Humans have natural desires that would be in vain if God doesn’t exist
  • We should assume that no [type of] natural thing exists in vain until and unless we are shown otherwise
  • Therefore (until and unless we are shown that the relevant natural desires exist in vain) we should assume that God exists

Reductio AFD

In Mere Christianity (1952), Lewis framed the AFD as a reductio:

If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.[23]

Various reductio arguments from existentially relevant human desires and the denial of the existential claim that human life is “absurd” can be made. For example:

  • Given an instantiated kind K possessing innate existential desires, the existence of K would be absurd to the extent that it is impossible for any member of K to have those existential desires satisfied
  • Humans are an instantiated kind K with innate existential desires that are [probably] impossible to satisfy unless God exists
  • Therefore, unless God exists, the existence of K is [probably] absurd (at least to a substantial extent)
  • However, the existence of K is [probably] not absurd (at least, not to any substantial extent)
  • Therefore, God [probably] exists

I contend that premise 4 is an intuitively plausible belief that should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. 


Conclusion

The argument from desire points to various existentially relevant desires the fulfilment of which plausibly require God’s existence. The arguments from these desires are mutually consistent, are more powerful when taken together, and most powerful when considered as part of the overall case for Christian theism.

UK based philosopher and apologist Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil) is Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication, NLA University College, Norway. His publications include: Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History (Wipf & Stock, 2019) & A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom, reprint edition (Wipf & Stock, 2019). See www.peterswilliams.com

Recommended Resources

Introductory-Intermediate: YouTube Playlist, “The Argument from
Desire” www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQhh3qcwVEWj3nK3TBydEVAFRtdqfrpW2

Introductory: Kreeft, Peter. “The argument from desire”
www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

Intermediate: Puckett Jr., Joe. The Apologetics of Joy: A Case for the
Existence of God from C. S. Lewis S Argument from Desire (James Clarke
and Co Ltd., 2013)

Advanced: Buras, Todd and Michael Cantrell. “C.S. Lewis’s Argument
from Nostalgia: A New Argument from Desire.” Ed. Jerry L. Walls and
Trent Dougherty. Two Dozen (Or so) Arguments For God (Oxford
University Press), 356-321.

Advanced: Williams, Peter S. “In Defence of Arguments from Desire”
www.peterswilliams.com/2016/11/02/in-defence-of-arguments-from-desire/

 

[1] C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Fount, 1998), 12.

[2] See: John Walton, “Who Wrote Ecclesiastes and What Does It Mean?” https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-ecclesiastes-and-what-does-it-mean/; Peter Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1990).

[3] See: Gregory Bassham, ed. C.S. Lewis’ Apologetics: Pro and Con (Rodolpi-Brill, 2015) and Peter S. Williams, “In Defence of Arguments from Desire” www.peterswilliams.com/2016/11/02/in-defence-of-arguments-from-desire/

[4] C.S. Lewis. “Meditation in a Toolshed” in First and Second Things (London: Fount, 1985), 51.

[5] ibid, 52.

[6] ibid, 54.

[7] ibid, 52.

[8] ibid.

[9] Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000), 307.

[10] Richard Swinburne, Is There A God? rev. ed. (Oxford University Press, 2010), 115.

[11] Alister McGrath, The Intellectual World of C. S. Lewis (Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), 106.

[12] Alister McGrath, Mere Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2012), 110-111.

[13] Victor Reppert, “The Bayesian Argument from Desire” http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/09/bayesian-argument-from-desire.html#comments

[14] See: Gregory Bassham ed., C.S. Lewis’ Apologetics: Pro and Con (Rodolpi-Brill, 2015).

[15] Wielenberg, qtd. in Bassham ed., ibid.

[16] Bassham summarizing Wielenberg, ibid, 116-117.

[17] Reppert, op cit.

[18] C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity (London: Fount, 1997), 113.

[19] Trent Dougherty, “Argument from Desire” http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2005/11/argument_from_d.html

[20] C.S. Lewis, Pilgrim’s Regress, third edition (Fount, 1977), 15, my italics.

[21] Aristotle, The Generation of Animals, qtd. in Brodie, Sarah. “Aristotle’s Elusive Summum Bonum”. https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/objects/files/2014/05/Broadie.pdf

[22] See Mariska Leunissen’s reading of Aristotle in Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle’s Science of Nature (2012).

[23] Lewis, Mere Christianity, op cit, 113, my italics.

What Has Christianity Ever Done For Us?

by Solas

Imagine if there was no religion. Would it really be as blissful and breezy as a chart-topping pop song? Despite the blame religion often gets for the world’s ills, some atheist writers today are realising the incredible benefits which Christian values and ethics bring to our society. As Dr Andy Bannister explains in this Short Answers video, these thinkers are facing a conundrum. If they don’t want to undermine these foundations for our society, they are facing an uncomfortable question: Is Christianity actually true?

Share

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more Short Answers videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support

Short Answers is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

‘Jesus Through Muslim Eyes’ – In Conversation with Richard Shumack

by Editor
Dr Richard Shumack’s latest book, “Jesus Through Muslim Eyes” investigates the Islamic view of Jesus. He spoke to Gavin Matthews from Solas about what he found.

Gavin: Hi Richard, it’s great to speak to you, thanks for joining me.

Richard: Great to see you in person, at last!

Gavin: Most Christians probably know that their Muslim friends have a respect for Jesus – but they don’t know where Muslims draw their ideas from.

Richard: Fundamentally the ultimate source of authority and religious knowledge for Muslims is The Qur’an. The Qur’an is for Muslims the word of God, revelation from heaven, and that’s their starting place for understanding Jesus. Jesus is mentioned 25 times in the Qur’an, that’s not 25 individual places – there are a couple of chunks which are significant, as well as a few other mentions in the text. So that’s the most significant source.

Then there was a scholar named al-Tabari, the first major Muslim historian who put together a history which contains a range of traditions about Jesus. Then you have the Hadith, the sayings and oral traditions around what happened in Muhammad’s life, and things he said – and we find Jesus referenced there as well. Then the Sira, the biography of Muhammad is another early source for Muslims, which again contains references around Jesus, and interestingly the stories of the Apostles heading out as well. The other major source is the Qisas Al-Anbiya the stories of the prophets and that is much later, mystical writing. It contains stories, parables and narrative teaching about what a whole range of prophets did and said, and Jesus has a very major place in that writing. Now that source is much later, and sits in the mystical traditions (which wouldn’t be highly regarded by conservative Muslims); but all of these things are what informs the Muslim imagination about Jesus.

Gavin: Could you then give us an overview of the picture of Jesus which emerges from these sources – a picture which is very important for Muslims..

Richard: Well, the Muslim tradition starts with the Qur’an, but the picture you get of Jesus there is a bit “thin”, I suppose you could say. Muhammad, when he was reciting the Qur’an and mentions Jesus, had this expectation that his listeners would know who he was talking about. So they knew who Jesus was, they knew he was a prophet at least. He was even aware that his audience had encountered Trinitarian Christianity, so he was clear in his message that some people believe that Jesus is the Son of God – but he decisively rejected that idea.

So Muhammad didn’t give a huge amount of details about Jesus, but he drew on their shared knowledge; and insisted that Jesus didn’t do many of the things Christians claim. Rather Muhammad wants to say that Jesus affirmed the same message as him. So Muhammad insists that he stands in the same prophetic line as Jesus, but offers a correction to the Christian understanding of him.

Yet in the middle of that there are some affirmations that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he did miracles, that he was called the ‘Word of God’ and ‘the Spirit of God’, that he ascended into heaven and that he will return on judgement day and judge the world – dividing between those going to heaven and those being punished. That much is completely in line with Christian teaching, but then he says that Jesus is not divine, and that Jesus did not die on the cross. And that’s about all the Qur’an says about Jesus. There is strong focus on Jesus’ birth and the end of his life; but nothing of his teaching, or his apostles. Actually there is more about his Mother and his Grandfather than about him.

Now that pattern continues into the traditions. Al-Tabari for example, includes lots of stories about Mary and the birth of Jesus, and lots more about the judgement day when Jesus will return. But again, there is very little about his life or teaching. When you get to the Stories of the Prophets – only then do you start to get a bit of flesh put onto the story of Jesus’ life. However even there, there are no names, no places, – but there is a bit more about his miracles. Jesus is presented here as being a good believer who was ascetic, didn’t cling onto the world, lived simply, prayed a lot. He was portrayed there as never settling down, but constantly moving from place to place; but with no sense of where he was going.

Gavin: So the Muslims and Christian have some overlap in their views of Jesus’ biography, but key differences in terms of his identity?

Richard: Yes, I think that’s right. Although I think it’s worth emphasising that the Muslim traditions don’t bring anything new to the table. There are one or two flourishes around the start and end of his life, but they are not theologically significant. However, the main focus in Muslim sources is on correcting Christians and saying, ‘We honour Jesus, but no divinity and no death on the cross.’

Gavin: I’m fascinated by the titles ascribed to Jesus in the Qur’an, “Word” “Spirit” “Judge”. It seems extraordinary that they are used. In the book you suggest that those terms are used for Jesus in the Islamic tradition but then not explained or given any theological weight…

Richard: Yes, and “The Messiah” is even more significant. The two most common titles for Jesus there are “Son of Mary” and then he is very strongly identified as “Messiah”. So yes, in the Christian tradition all of those titles “Messiah”, “Word of God”, “Spirit of God” have a lot of theological substance – especially in terms of fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. So when Jesus turns up in the Gospels, so much of what he does is pregnant with the expectations of what the Jewish people expected of a Messiah. Now the terms have come across into Islam, but they don’t seem to be theologically significant in there. So for instance, while they call him “Messiah”, Islam doesn’t seem to have any need or space for a Messiah. There is no expectation within Islam that a Messiah will be required. We know what a prophet does – he brings messages, but if you ask someone in Islam, “Well, what is a Messiah, and why do we need one?” there is very little that they say. And that’s not just ‘in the street’, even within the Islamic scholarly tradition there are huge debates about what a Messiah is, and many, many definitions. But no one seems to agree, and of course the Qur’an itself is silent on it – and Islamic theology doesn’t seem to require one.

Gavin: So, in the book you’ve described this “thin” picture of Jesus in Islam, with these remarkable titles with undeveloped content to them. You also suggest that many Muslims are absolutely fascinated by Jesus, this character who lurks in their tradition. Why is that?

Richard: Well the first thing is that in Islam you are supposed to honour the prophets. So the fact that he has been granted prophetic status means that they are obliged to honour him in that sense – and that’s a theological reason. And a practical reason is that while there is very little about what he taught, the stories of Jesus are fascinating to Muslims. They are aware that he is a prophet, but they often don’t know what he taught, so that creates an interest. They are also told that the gospels, the Injil, are “scripture”. Now most Muslims would believe that these documents have been corrupted, but yet still contain a kernel of truth and are worth taking a look at.

So when you put these things together: Jesus is a prophet, the gospels contain at least a remnant of what he said; then add to that the fact that most Muslims are from traditional cultures that love stories, (and there are great stories about and by Jesus) that adds to the fascination.

There have been times when I’ve sat and told stories about Jesus, and recounted the stories Jesus told, to Muslims, and they’ve been in tears – at the power of the story, the power of his words and the beauty of his life. Jesus himself is an incredibly attractive figure, and Islam insists that he is someone worth honouring and listening to and that opens conversations.

Gavin: So you’ve sketched a picture of a Jesus who emerges from the Islamic tradition which many Muslims find absolutely fascinating, Which aspects of this Muslim view of Jesus do you find compelling and which do you find problematic? Because you tease a lot of that out in the book…

Richard: I find the later traditions completely fascinating and really appealing. So, I mentioned the Qiṣas al-‘Anbiyā’, the Stories of the Prophets, which were actually a form of devotional literature (which is why it’s hard to classify them, they are not scripture, more like poetry). And some of those draw quite directly from biblical material, and they present a very appealing ascetic view of Jesus. Not like he’s a monk sitting on a pole in the desert (!), he’s very engaged with his communities. I find that figure really very interesting. There’s a quest for personal intimacy, not a legalistic approach found there in some forms of Sufism which is fascinating.

I think the most problematic thing though is the cross, a point I make in my book. In the more orthodox Muslim conception of Jesus, he definitely did not die on a cross – and I think that’s problematic historically. Even if you ignore the Jesus of Christian faith, the death of Jesus is one of the few uncontested historical facts of his life. A major historical problem that Islam can’t seem to wrestle with is why all the eyewitnesses and non-Christian sources say that Jesus died on the cross. So while you might have an appealing ‘Jesus of Faith’ in Islam, he doesn’t seem to be strongly connected to the ‘Jesus of History’.

Gavin: It struck me while I was reading your book, while Christians engage with first-century eye-witness reports, the Apostles, document history (you cite Richard Bauckham on this), Islam makes very clear statements about Jesus, that don’t seem to be connected to historical sources – but that this gap doesn’t matter to Muslims…?

Richard: That’s right. And this really moves away from my book and into my research area! But very roughly, traditional Muslim thinking (and some fundamentalist Christian thinking too) says that (i) some knowledge is from God, and (ii) some knowledge is human, that we work out ourselves. Knowledge from God is direct, infallible and you can’t question it. Whereas human knowledge is questionable, so divine knowledge trumps human knowledge every time, and there is an impermeable barrier between those two things. So for a Muslim the Qur’an is ‘divine knowledge’. It is not even seen as a human document but is entirely divine. So whatever that says about Jesus just is true and if history doesn’t marry up with that, then the problem is with history, because that’s human knowledge which is fallible. That’s de facto, you can’t critique that, because that’s just the way it is. You can neither critique God’s knowledge, nor put human knowledge above it. That’s the mindset, the Qur’an trumps everything. Which if the Qur’an is the word of God, is fair enough, that’s a sensible thing to think. The question is whether the Qur’an really is the word of God.

Gavin: And one of the things you raise is that the Muslim view of Jesus, even the Qur’anic view of Jesus, raises more questions than it answers. What are some of the questions that get generated by the Islamic view of Jesus which are not adequately answered from within Islam?

Richard: There are things like, “Why have a Messiah?”, then why should Jesus be called “The Word of God?”, and “The Spirit of God”. That doesn’t seem to be a requirement for any other prophet- why then this one? And there is no explanation given. Another one is the virgin birth. God can do anything of course, but why was Jesus virgin-born, when no other person since Adam was born without a human father. In Christianity, we need a “new Adam” (it’s part of the theology, we were expecting a ‘new Adam’), but Islam has no space for that, so why a virgin birth? Mohammad wasn’t born of a virgin. Then why is it Jesus who comes back to judge on the ‘last day’? Why not Muhammad? And it is really hard to overestimate just how significant ‘the last day’ is in the Qur’an. Muslims literally live their life under the awe or fear of the coming judgement. It’s one of the three main things in the Qur’an, and it is just so striking that Jesus is the one we meet there, not Muhammad. Now God can do what He wants, but for me that raises questions. Why Jesus? I would have expected Muhammad to have had the higher honour.

Gavin: Then you suggest that some people want to develop a kind of blended view of Jesus, drawing on the Christian and Muslim traditions – and mushing them together – something that you resist quite firmly. One of the striking things at the very end of the book is that you say that we need to hold onto, and respect the differences. So why is that? You even push back on the idea that this might be a route to more peaceful relations between Christians and Muslims…

Richard: The first thing I want to say – and say this really strongly is that I am all on board with the longing behind that. The idea that there has been too much conflict between Muslims and Christians over the years is true. There has been too much antagonism, at times even fighting – and we need to do whatever it takes to be able to at the very, very least co-exist. Then we need to learn how to not just coexist, but far more than that, actually flourish and have meaningful, close friendships and be able to live together, So I love that longing.

What I question is the need for us to have a common understanding of Jesus to make that happen. It seems to me that it is a poorer model for harmony that says ’I’m only going to tolerate you – or be friends with you, if we can agree on all these things together.’ Or, ‘I can only be friends with you if I agree with you’ which sounds almost totalitarian! Only accepting people who agree with you doesn’t seem to me to be genuine tolerance or genuine friendship. The real challenge, (and what is really fruitful) is learning to live well with people you disagree with! That’s what we all need to do.

Also, Islam accepts nearly everything about the ‘Christian Jesus’, except what Christians would say are the two most important things, which are his divinity and his redeeming death on the cross for us. So for Muslims to say ‘let’s just agree on the things we have in common’, Muslims don’t have to compromise anything – we’re just getting the ‘Muslim Jesus’. So the Muslim saying to the Christian, ‘we can only be friends if you let go of the most important things you hold about Jesus’, is not a good recipe for friendship. If I were to say to you, ‘We can be friends – but only if you let go of your most cherished beliefs’,  that doesn’t seem to work.

What we really here need is a commitment to love each other through disagreement.

Gavin: And that’s not just around Christian-Muslim relations, that’s a problem across society in today’s world – this idea that you can love people if they agree with you, and if they don’t agree with you they hate you… actually learning to love people you disagree with is a different language than people often speak today

Richard: Absolutely, which means that what we end up with is that whoever shouts the loudest wins, and you have to agree with them. And that is totalitarian, it’s not tolerant, or loving or capable of building society.

Gavin: So learning to love people, engage with them and have genuine community not predicated on the basis of mashing up what you actually believe…

Richard: Yes – and here’s a good example. In my family, we have Communists, Catholics, Protestants, Atheists. Does that mean I can’t get on with them? Of course not! We have a familial bond which holds us. So we need to find a bond in society, which doesn’t depend on us believing the same things about God. It comes down to a commitment to build society, and to care for each other though disagreement.

By the way in the book, the book was written in response to a particular Muslim journalist called Mustafa Akyol, who suggested that devotion to Jesus is a good thing for Muslims and Christians – which will lead to that heart of wanting to be generous to one another. So I at least agree with that. So I am happy for a Muslim to follow the Muslim Jesus because he was peaceful, loving, God-focused, humble, non-materialistic, a servant… and if that helps Muslims to embrace peace that’s brilliant. But I also think that if Christians properly follow ‘their Jesus’, the Jesus who came to bring peace, who was the Prince of Peace, then Muslims shouldn’t say to Christians, ‘stop believing in your Jesus, because that will lead to conflict’. if Christians believe in ‘their Jesus’ and that Jesus fills them with the Holy Spirit who can empower them to be a peacemaker, then surely that’s a way to build society as well.

Gavin: So you wrote in response to Akyol. But tell us why you wrote it, who you wrote it for, what you hope to achieve through?

Richard: Well, this might not sound very romantic, but I wrote it for SPCK (the publisher) who asked me to! But there were a couple of reasons why I said ‘yes’ to them!

I can’t think of another book about Jesus, written for Muslims. There may be some in Arabic that I’m not aware of, but certainly not in English – so there is a real gap here. I thought that was a problem, and one I could address. The other thing is that if there is one thing I want Muslims and Christians to talk about well, to understand each other about, to listen well and have a productive conversation about: it’s Jesus! Christians and Muslims have apologetic arguments about all sorts of things, and there’s a place for all that; but if Muslims want to talk about Jesus – that’s great, because that’s who I want to talk about. If I can create a book which facilitates that kind of conversation, and does it in a way that “gets” the Muslim mindset, as well as the Christian one, then that’s the goal. I just want to Christians and Muslims to talk profitably about Jesus.

Gavin: That’s fascinating, I enjoyed the book – and learnt so much. So it’s been great to speak to you in person. Thankyou!

Richard: Great to speak to you!

Dr. Richard Shumack is a philosopher of religion specialising in Muslim and Christian belief. He is the Director of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity (CPX) in Sydney, Australia.

Jesus Through Muslim Eyes by Richard Shumack is available here.

 

PEP Talk Podcast With Michael Harvey

by Solas

Everyone is afraid of evangelism. But guess what? Almost everyone in the Bible expressed fear when God called them. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the role of fear in evangelism. For a bit of a re-think, and information on great practical initiatives like the Weekend of Invitation, we welcome Michael Harvey to the podcast.

With Michael Harvey – PEP Talk

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

Michael Harvey is married to Eike and they have three adult children Ben, Kirsty and Lydia. In 2004 Back to Church Sunday was birthed and Michael started to work with churches throughout the UK and eventually throughout the English speaking world and to his surprise started to notice a healing component in mission. He has spoken to thousands of church leaders and congregational members in his seminars and has to date seen hundreds of thousands of Christians mobilised to invite, resulting in 1 million+ accepted invitations. He launched the first National Weekend of Invitation in June 2018. He is author of the books Unlocking the Growth, Creating a Culture of Invitation and his latest book is Invitation to Heal. As an itinerant speaker and has a ministry across 18 countries and 5 continents. He is a member of the College of Evangelists.

About PEP Talk

The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.

Support the Podcast

A Beginner’s Guide to the Argument from Consciousness

by Editor

Chili Rating: ? ? ? ?

It’s Monday morning. I am in a local coffee shop, queueing for a flat white. Music is playing in the background, and I can just about hear it over the hum of the conversations. A child is having a tantrum in the corner. But it’s okay, the smell of coffee reaches my nostrils. The Monday morning trip to the coffee shop is an experience of sights, sounds, smells and sensations all rolled into one. It is an instance of consciousness.

What exactly is human consciousness? Consciousness is hard to define. Consciousness is the reason for the first-person perspective and the inner narrative in your head. Consciousness is why you integrate everything at the coffee shop into a single experience: the aroma, the screaming, the music. As philosophy Professor Thomas Nagel puts it, to be conscious is for there to be something “that it is like to be us”. (1)

In philosophical terms, qualia refer to “what something is like”. Let’s return to the coffee shop again. There is nothing quite like the smell of a rich Guatemalan blend. But if someone asked you to describe the smell of coffee, how would you respond? It is an experience that cannot be reduced any further. If you want to know what coffee smells like, you need to smell it! Life is full of qualia, such as seeing the colour blue, hearing a musical note or tasting watermelon. Qualia are central to consciousness.

Consciousness is the brain?

If you ask philosophers “What is the nature of consciousness?” a range of very different answers will come back. There is no agreed theory. However, one view in particular receives a regular hearing: the view that brain science can access and entirely explain (or will one day explain) qualia. This view is sometimes referred to as “reductive physicalism”. Conscious states are reducible (hence “reductive”) to the physical workings of the brain (hence “physicalism”). In other words, consciousness is the brain.

But is it true that scientific methods can access and explain qualia? A scientist can find out what’s in someone’s brain by measuring chemicals and electrical activity and recording MRIs. But can they measure what’s in their mind in quite the same way? To find out what’s in someone’s mind we need to ask the person to share their inner world with us. Scientists may help us understand certain aspects and states of consciousness, but they cannot get inside someone’s head and recreate their actual experience. They may make 3rd-person observations but cannot access the first-person conscious experience itself.

The “hard” problem

David Chalmers, Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University, describes the quest to account for qualia as the “hard” problem of consciousness. How do you get from brain cells firing to “what it is like to be you’? Or, as Baronness Susan Greenfield, Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford, recently asked,

How does the water of boring old brain cells and sludgy stuff translate into the wine of phenomenological subjective experience? [2}

Many would argue that the water of brain processes alone, are insufficient to explain the “wine” of the Guatemalan blend. Or, returning to the coffee shop one more time, knowledge of the chemical structure of caffeine or its impact on brain physiology is of little help in describing the smell of coffee. On this basis, we can conclude that conscious processes cannot be synonymous with brain processes. The two may well work closely together, but they are not identical. Therefore, reductive physicalist approaches to consciousness must be false. We are not just machines, we are more than machines. So what alternative explanations are there?

Does the brain generate consciousness?

Some take the view that the brain generates mind and consciousness. When a number of different parts come together over time, a new thing comes into being. This view can be broadly referred to as non-reductive physicalism (NRP). The mind is generated by the physical brain (hence “physicalism”), but is not reducible to its foundational components (hence “non-reductive”).

Consider the case of a university. A university as an institution is made up of several different departments, each with its own subject area and expertise, and yet is more than the sum of its departments. A university also has an alumni network, an international reputation, a donor base, and develops ideas that shape culture. The institution is formed by its component parts but is far greater than all of them combined.

This view seeks to make sense of the close connection between mind and brain that is clearly demonstrated in neuroscience and clinical medicine, but it still doesn’t solve the hard problem. How exactly does consciousness emerge from a physical system? Max Tegmark, writing in the New Scientist book The Universe Next Door, is among a number of philosophers who explain the transition in terms of complexity. When groups of atoms are arranged in new ways, new properties emerge. [3] Higher and higher levels of complexity lead to more and more sophisticated abilities. But others argue that physical systems alone, however complex they may be, are insufficient to get us across the chasm.

Christians who are non-reductive physicalists take the view that the brain has given rise to the conscious mind but as the creative handiwork of a conscious being—God. In this view, the bridge to human consciousness is not traversed by greater and greater levels of brain complexity, but by humanity entering into a relationship with their Maker.[85]

Is consciousness beyond the brain?

Another alternative view begins by asking, what if conscious experience is a fundamental building block of life? If true, then we need to begin here and explain everything else in relation to consciousness, rather than the other way around. This view, reignited by Rene Descartes (1596-1650), holds that conscious states are independent of neurons and brain chemistry. In fact, there are two distinct, but interactive substances at play: a physical brain and a non-physical mind that is conscious. This view, known as substance dualism, argues that consciousness is beyond the brain.

The question of how a non-physical mind could exert changes in a physical brain poses concerns for many. If mind and brain are distinct, how do we explain the clear interaction between them? Proponents argue for holistic dualisms in which conscious states exist beyond the brain but are also causally connected to the brain. Holistic dualists accept the discoveries of neuroscience but claim they are not the whole story.

Dualists also argue that the non-physical can impact the physical in life. Consider, for example, the effect of bullying on appetite and sleep, or how good news puts a spring in our step and causes tears of elation. Words are non-physical but have a physical effect. Neurologists also speak of disorders for which there is no traceable physical cause. According to the World Health Organization, psychosomatic illness may affect as many as 20% of patients worldwide. Seemingly, the non-physical impacts the physical in daily life. So why not a non-physical mind interacting with a physical brain?

An open system?

A decision about the nature of consciousness cannot ultimately be reached on the basis of science. It really comes down to worldview. What if we entertain the possibility that God exists? How would this help us with the “hard” problem?

The first sentence of the Bible says,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1 v 1

If God exists, then consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos because the mind of God has always existed and has given rise to everything else. If God exists, then the system is not closed, and there is hope for solving the hard problem.

These early chapters of the Bible also poetically and creatively describe the formation of human beings,

The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2 v 7

These verses are not necessarily at odds with scientific descriptions of the processes by which homo sapiens came to exist. But they imply that physical descriptions alone are not enough to describe the human person. The Hebrew word for “breath of life” is neshama or ruach, and means “God’s breath” or “God’s Spirit”. According to these verses, a person is far more than matter. Far more than a machine. They have been breathed into by God, and have been given a capacity to think about themselves and beyond themselves to other people and to God himself.

In other words, consciousness exists because God exists. We are conscious because God is conscious. God is a thinking, feeling, conscious being who is also relational and wants to extend consciousness beyond himself to people. Why? So that He can be not simply observed, but also known and experienced.

Sharon Dirckx is a Senior Tutor at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (OCCA). Originally from a scientific background, she has a PhD in brain imaging from the University of Cambridge and has held research positions in the UK and USA. Sharon speaks and lectures in the UK, Europe and North America on science, theology, ‘mind and soul’ and the problem of evil. She has spoken at the Veritas Forum at the University of Oxford and appeared on several BBC programmes, including Songs of Praise, Radio 2 Good Morning Sunday and Radio 4 Beyond Belief. She is also the author of the award-winning book on suffering, entitled Why?: Looking at God, evil and personal suffering (2013). Her latest book, Am I just my brain? (2019) examines questions of human identity from the perspectives of neuroscience, philosophy and theology.

Further Reading:

• Joel Green and Stuart Palmer, In Search of the Soul: Four views of the mind-body problem (IVP Academic, 2005).  A helpful book that presents and critiques four views of
the mind-body problem & references many other helpful books.

• JP Moreland and Scott Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (IVP, 2000). A careful and thorough treatment of the case for body-soul dualism from the perspective of a Christian.

• Malcolm Jeeves and Warren S. Brown, Neuroscience, Psychology and Religion: Illusions, Delusions and Realities about Human Nature (Templeton Press, 2009). A discussion of current views about mind and brain interwoven with Christian perspectives on human nature.

Notes:
1: Thomas Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, in The Philosophical Review, 1974, 83(4):440.
2: S. Greenfield, “The Neuroscience of Consciousness”, University of Melbourne, 27th November 2012.
3: F. Swain, The Universe Next Door: A Journey Through 55 Parallel Worlds and Possible Futures (John Murray, 2017), p 166.

Why Do Any Lives Matter?

by Solas

Why do any human lives have value? How can we find a basis for a person’s worth, significance, and dignity—a basis that transcends their class, gender, race, or creed? In this timely Short Answers video, Dr. Andy Bannister shows how atheism offers no basis whatsoever for explaining why human life matters or why racism is wrong. By contrast, at the heart of the Christian faith lies one of the most profound statements about human value to be found in any religion—a statement that gives an incredible foundation for human rights and dignity.

Share

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more Short Answers videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support

Short Answers is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

Consumed by Hate – Redeemed by Love: In Conversation with Tom Tarrants

by Editor

Tom Tarrants has had an extraordinary life. Shot by the FBI while trying to commit a racist hate crime, Tarrants  completely rethought his views in prison and has spent decades working for racial reconciliation. The turning point for him was his discovery of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which changed both his mind and his heart. Gareth Black spoke to Tom for Solas:

Thomas Tarrants’ autobiography, “Consumed by Hate, Redeemed by Love” is available here.

The National Club Prayer Breakfast | Thursday 6 August 2020

by Andy Bannister

Responding to the Intellectual, Apologetic, and Missional Challenges of Islam

Here you will find links to the various resources we mentioned during the talk (and some bonus ones). I hope you find these useful!

First, get your free copy of the ebook, Islam In Context, via this link.

Next, check out Qur’an Gateway, the digital critical tool for digging into the Qur’an via this link.

We also mentioned these two books — I’ve linked to both of them for you:

For more information about the Solas Centre for Public Christianity that Andy Bannister leads, visit www.solas-cpc.org. In particular, do check out our SHORT/ANSWERS video series. Over a million people have now watched, downloaded, or shared one of these videos with friends. They’re a great, free evangelistic resource.

If you’d like to help support Solas’s work of evangelism and evangelism training across the UK, you can do for as little as £3 a month and we’ll send you a choice of one of several great books as a gift.

PEP Talk Podcast With Karen Swallow Prior

by Solas 1 Comment

From classical literature to throw-away tweets, communication and language are part of how we reflect the image of a God who is revealed by his Word. This time on PEP Talk, Andy and Kristi speak with US academic and author Karen Swallow Prior, exploring the touchpoints we have with the entire human race in the great books and stories of our culture. How can we make use of these when sharing the gospel?

With Karen Swallow Prior – PEP Talk

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

Karen Swallow Prior, Ph. D., is Research Professor of English and Christianity and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. She is the author of Booked: Literature in the Soul of Me (T. S. Poetry Press, 2012), Fierce Convictions: The Extraordinary Life of Hannah More—Poet, Reformer, Abolitionist (Thomas Nelson, 2014), and On Reading Well: Finding the Good Life through Great Literature (Brazos 2018). She is co-editor of Cultural Engagement: A Crash Course in Contemporary Issues (Zondervan 2019) and has contributed to numerous other books. Her writing has appeared at Christianity Today, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, First Things, Vox, Relevant, Think Christian, The Gospel Coalition, Religion News Service, Books and Culture and other places. She is a founding member of The Pelican Project, a Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum, a Senior Fellow at the International Alliance for Christian Education, and a member of the Faith Advisory Council of the Humane Society of the United States. She and her husband live on a 100-year old homestead in central Virginia with sundry horses, dogs, and chickens. And lots of books.  

About PEP Talk

The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.

Support the Podcast