Do we as humans have spiritual needs?

[OnceConvinced]

I have heard people say that religion fills spiritual needs. I've even heard people who are not religious say they are spiritual people.

But exactly what are spiritual needs?

Do we really have them?

[Overcomer]

Spiritual needs are addressed in the argument from desire. Philosopher Peter Kreeft puts it this way:

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Kreeft makes a distinction between innate/natural desires and artificial desires. We naturally desire food, love, friendships, knowledge, etc. But desires for a Lamborghini, a mansion, a Royals’ win of the World Series, to be like Superman, etc. are not innate in us. They are artificial and acquired.

While some of our artificial desires may not be realistic (we can't be like Superman, able to fly and jump over tall buildings, etc., and maybe the Royals won't win the World Series -- although I hope they do!), innate desires are always based in reality. In other words, we wouldn’t have an innate, natural desire for something if it did not exist and that desire could not be met.

C. S. Lewis summarizes it this way:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these 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. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. 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 “ (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope").

For a greater explanation, read the following article:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

Or if you prefer to listen, there’s this:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/23_desire.htm

Kreeft debated the argument with an atheist here:

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Sh ... believable

Peter S. Williams, another philosopher, has written extensively about it. As he puts it, “if God exists and has designed us for relationship with Himself one would expect people to find contentment only within such a relationship and to show signs of deprivation if such a relationship is lacking. That there is a deep need for God within the human heart was recognised by the biblical songwriter who wrote that “As a deer longs for streams of cool water, so I long for you, O God.� (Psalm 42:1, GNB.)

Williams debates the topic with an atheist here:

http://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exis ... experience

Even Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist, admitted that this world isn’t enough, that there had to be something more beyond it to fulfill him. That’s because, as philosopher/mathematician Blaise Pascal noted, we are all born with a God-shaped vacuum which cannot be filled by anything but God – although people certainly attempt to fill it with lots of other things.

As to why some people insist they do not feel any desire for God, that is explained in Romans 1 where Paul writes that God is evident in nature and in man’s conscience, but men have suppressed that knowledge because of sin.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 2 by Overcomer]

" Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. "

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these 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. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. 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 “

Is there any evidence for any of these claims? Any attempt at evidence?

[Divine Insight]

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Prove premise #2

[McCulloch]

Philosopher Peter Kreeft puts it this way:

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
…
Kreeft makes a distinction between innate/natural desires and artificial desires. We naturally desire food, love, friendships, knowledge, etc. But desires for a Lamborghini, a mansion, a Royals’ win of the World Series, to be like Superman, etc. are not innate in us. They are artificial and acquired.

…

C. S. Lewis summarizes it this way:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these 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. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. 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 “ (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope").

…

As to why some people insist they do not feel any desire for God, that is explained in Romans 1 where Paul writes that God is evident in nature and in man’s conscience, but men have suppressed that knowledge because of sin.

I am surprised that no one has pointed out the inherent circularity of this argument. Inherent desires must correspond to things that exist. We desire food, food exists, therefore our desire for food is inherent. We apparently have some vaguely defined spiritual desires, we presume that those desires are inherent and conclude that the spiritual realm must exist. Could it not be that the allegedly spiritual desires are, in fact, artificial?

[OnceConvinced]

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

That seems to be an opinion, perhaps by a person who has been unsuccessful at filling their intellectual and emotional needs... perhaps even their physical needs.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

I think you would have a hard time proving that there are any needs that can't be met in some natural way. In fact the things you are describing in your post here seem to be intellectual, physical and emotional needs.

. But desires for a Lamborghini, a mansion, a Royals’ win of the World Series, to be like Superman, etc. are not innate in us. They are artificial and acquired.

While some of our artificial desires may not be realistic (we can't be like Superman, able to fly and jump over tall buildings, etc., and maybe the Royals won't win the World Series -- although I hope they do!), innate desires are always based in reality. In other words, we wouldn’t have an innate, natural desire for something if it did not exist and that desire could not be met

These sound like fantasies/desires, which come from our brain. Not spiritual needs at all. These come from the brain.

Peter S. Williams, another philosopher, has written extensively about it. As he puts it, “if God exists and has designed us for relationship with Himself one would expect people to find contentment only within such a relationship and to show signs of deprivation if such a relationship is lacking. That there is a deep need for God within the human heart was recognised by the biblical songwriter who wrote that “As a deer longs for streams of cool water, so I long for you, O God.� (Psalm 42:1, GNB.)

This would seem to me to be mental or emotional needs. Relationships fill those needs and if one has good healthy human relationships with real humans, there is no need for any so-called relationship with any God. I have learnt this truth myself.

I for one do not feel I am lacking anything by not having a relationship with Jesus Christ and there are many like me. You may not believe that, but to us that is the reality of the situation. In fact, I can speak as a former Christian who used to believe he had a relationship with Jesus, was completely at peace and that my "spiritual needs" were filled with the love of Jesus. When I became an Ex-Christian, I didn't feel any different. I still don't. I still feel that same peace and that same so-called spiritual fulfillment, but yet now I don't have Jesus.

Even Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist, admitted that this world isn’t enough, that there had to be something more beyond it to fulfill him. That’s because, as philosopher/mathematician Blaise Pascal noted, we are all born with a God-shaped vacuum which cannot be filled by anything but God – although people certainly attempt to fill it with lots of other things.

Seems to me we are talking about emotional and intellectual needs here. Some people seem to be incapable of meeting their own needs. Having been in church leadership I came across many such people and even though they were given good advice (not necessarily from just me) they refused to accept that advice and continued along the same lines. One thing was for sure and that's that God wasn't doing anything for them, even though they genuinely believed in God and believed they had a relationship with him.

I still see it all the time people doing things and then wondering why they are in such a mess. Like abused wives who stay in abusive relationships or people who continue to drink alcohol even though they do stupid things after having a few. Hello! Some things are just so obvious and humans can be so dumb, so when someone tells me they have needs that only God can fulfill I have to question that, especially when so often these people are a mess emotionally and mentally.

There are many people in this world who feel that there is something missing from their life, but it seems these things can always be filled, it's just a matter of finding something to fill them. Maybe religious beliefs can act as a placebo, but that's all they are. A placebo.

As to why some people insist they do not feel any desire for God, that is explained in Romans 1 where Paul writes that God is evident in nature and in man’s conscience, but men have suppressed that knowledge because of sin.

That is simply Paul's opinions and quite clearly wrong. God is only evident in nature for certain people who look at things a certain way. A God would realize this if he is the one who created us.

[Divine Insight]

I am surprised that no one has pointed out the inherent circularity of this argument. Inherent desires must correspond to things that exist. We desire food, food exists, therefore our desire for food is inherent. We apparently have some vaguely defined spiritual desires, we presume that those desires are inherent and conclude that the spiritual realm must exist. Could it not be that the allegedly spiritual desires are, in fact, artificial?

To carry this line of thinking even further what about pure fantasy?

I love to fantasize. It can easily be said that I have a very profound desire for fantasy. I love fantasy movies and have difficulty finding really good ones.

So since I have such a profound desire for fantasy does that imply that fantasy must then be real?

[jerryxplu]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

honestly, many people define spiritual differently so it's hard to generalize it.

I think the whole spiritual thing is to seek comfort in a busy chaotic world.

To me this is similar to why some people may feel the need for religion. They wish or believe that there must be something more than what the eyes can see and hands can touch.

I am personally not a spiritual person so if I become one I will come back and edit this post.

[Divine Insight]

honestly, many people define spiritual differently so it's hard to generalize it.

I totally agree with this.

I have always felt a connection with nature. I used to think of that as being a "spiritual" feeling. But let's face it, a secularist would just call it being a naturalist, not a spiritualist.

I have a great love of life. Life as we know it is the experience of living in a physical world. Therefore my love life is a love of the physical world. I used to think of that as being "spiritual". After all, to love the creation is to love the creator.

Ironically many religious people feel just the opposite, they feel that we are supposed to love the creator and hate the creation. That really doesn't make any sense at all.

I also stand in awe of the cosmos. Not just the overwhelming vastness of it, but the beautiful of the math an physics behind it as well. I used to think of that as a spiritual feeling. But a lot of people have told me that it's really just that I'm a nerd who loves science and math.

Speaking of math and physics, I also love logic, and reason. I love the mind. Of everything I have ever experienced in this reality I think I'm far more in love with my mind than anything else. Not just the ability to understand and reason, but also the ability to imagine and to artistically create new ideas and concepts. Again, I have even thought of the mind as being spiritual. That even makes some sense if we want to trash physical reality as being "non-spiritual".

Actually in the end I've come to realize that all of these things combined are spirituality. And this is what ultimately led me to becoming a pantheistic spiritualistic.

Secularists have assured me that even this ultimate spirituality that embraces all known experiences, is just a figment of my material imagination.

So now I'm a panentheistic spiritual materialist who has a great imagination.

Works for me.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]


I think the whole spiritual thing is to seek comfort in a busy chaotic world.

Would that not be more of an emotional need? Or maybe even physical - ie being able to feel relaxed.