What the Atheist Can Know About God—Part IV

February 26th, 2014 Post by

wish upon a starThe following article is taken from Mr. Jim Pierce’s presentation at the Wyoming District’s Tell the Good News About Jesus Convocation held on January 31, 2014 through February 1, 2014. This is part four of his speech, “What the Atheist Can Know About God.” (Each article of this series may be found at this link.)

The Objection from Wish Fulfillment

We now come to the second objection raised by the strong atheist in their effort to show why it is not likely God exists and that is belief in God is mere wish fulfillment.

In his book God: A Critical Enquiry, Antony Flew cites Sigmund Freud who wrote in his The Future of an Illusion that the “’incontrovertible lack of authenticity [of] (sic) religious ideas’ inclined Freud to fix his ‘attention on [their] (sic) psychical origin’”(1). Freud believes that there is no “authenticity” to “religious ideas” other than their “psychical origin.” What does that mean? Freud goes on to suggest that “religious ideas,” such as the belief in God, are all “illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most insistent wish of mankind” (2). Freud further explains that the basis of belief in “religious ideas” is “an illusion when wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation…. The secret of their strength is the strength of these wishes” (3).

What Flew is arguing is that the existence of God is a figment of the human imagination. As humans we wish that there is a God, and so there is! That is, in our minds only.

The late atheist Christopher Hitchens takes the wish fulfillment objection to another level. Hitchens writes in his, The Portable Atheist, “Religion was our first attempt at philosophy… [which] cater to our inborn stupidity, and our willingness to be persuaded against all the evidence that we are indeed the center of the universe and everything is arranged with us in mind” (4).

Hitchens’ point is essentially the same as Flews’, but blunter.  According to Hitchens our wish fulfillment is really that we who believe in God do so out of our inborn stupidity. The strong desire to believe in God is really just some primitive ignorance kicking around in the human genome. Religion is bad philosophy speaking to our inbred ignorance!

Much more is at work in the quotations I provide from Flew and Hitchens. Aside from their obvious point that belief in God is a figment of our imaginations arising from a psychological need of some sort, what is implicit in their remarks is we need to invent God so as to make sense of the universe, and so we create a God fiction to derive order out of an otherwise chaotic world. We believe in God, because we desire structure. Sounds like a bad Dr. Phil show to me!

chaos-theory

The point of the wish fulfillment objection is not merely to be insulting. Instead, the strong atheist is arguing that the theist does not know through practical knowledge that there is a God of any sort. He is arguing that theists can’t look around ourselves and find God, since God is not a member of the physical universe of human experience. Instead, God is a fanciful idea we humans create in order to make sense of a cold, material, universe which if we scrape beyond the surface of immediate sensory experience, we find is highly chaotic and pervaded by randomness. This chaos we perceive has to be ordered for our survival and so what we did early on in human history was to create an ontological list with rankings and at the top of the list is the grandest of all beings, God. This we apparently did for a strong desire of comfort when confronted by a chaotic world.

At the end of the day, the strong atheist concludes that the human desire to make sense of it all, our strong wish that God exists and is in control, is an irrational belief which can’t provide justificatory grounds for knowledge. Theists are merely rubbing on a rabbit’s foot for cosmic luck!

Response to the Wish Fulfillment Objection

Perhaps you have already noticed what is common to all these objections to God’s existence by the strong atheist? What we are encountering is skepticism very similar to the empirical skepticism of David Hume. Remember the claim made earlier when discussing empirical skepticism? If one is going to make a claim that the world is caused by God, then we should expect to find God sized effects such that they plainly require a supernatural cause for their explanation. Instead, argues the strong atheist, we don’t find anything in the world that is extraordinary and what we do find is explainable by appeal to nature itself.

What the strong atheist wants the theist to believe is theism is an irrational belief having no demonstrable basis in reality. In other words, we have no knowledge of God at all.

I have several objections to the wish fulfillment view. Frankly, it is difficult to take this objection, and its accompanied explanations as to why we Christians are so “wishful” seriously. Using the atheist’s weak verification principle against him, I want to ask where the testable evidence is connecting the theist’s belief and justifications for such belief to mere wish fulfillment? Where are the case studies demonstrating this supposed fact? Neither Hitchens nor Flew produced these case studies.

Perhaps a more salient point in response to the wish fulfillment assertion is in asking the atheist why anyone would want to wish there existed a being telling them that they are in trouble with Him and they will be punished unless they repent? I think we have a better example of wish fulfillment with Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. In both cases we aren’t judged by a law telling us we are sinners in need of God’s grace and mercy.

contradictionselfUltimately what is wrong with the wish fulfillment objection is that it fails the strong atheist’s own criteria of what counts as a meaningful assertion. You will recall from earlier that the strong atheist wants us to believe that for any proposition to assert something meaningful, it must be verifiable at least in principle. However, it is certainly arguable that human desires or longings are private affairs; therefore, they aren’t verifiable by empirical means. For example, how do we go about demonstrating that I actually love my wife? Is longingly staring into her eyes sufficient evidence rising to the rigors of the scientific method? The problem is that while I can report that I love my wife, there is no way to empirically determine that I have such a mental state, other than through my own reporting of it to anyone willing to listen. Observing my behavior, such as holding her hand or longingly staring into her eyes, doesn’t by itself demonstrate the sort of love I do in fact have for her.

The point here is that the assertion by the Strong Atheist, ala Freud, regards private mental states which are not verifiable.  The objection from wish fulfillment doesn’t survive the atheist’s own requirement that all statements must be verifiable in order to be meaningful. Ultimately, their claim collapses under the weight of their own principle of skepticism.

In the next installment of this series I discuss the strong atheist’s third objection: the Problem of Evil.

_______________________________________________

1)      Flew, Antony. (1988) God: A Critical Enquiry, p. 5, Open Court Publishing)

2)      Ibid.

3)      Ibid.

4)      Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist, p. xvii. Da Capo Press.






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. February 26th, 2014 at 12:08 | #1

    The “wish fulfillment” tactic actually sounds like the atheist’s own method projected upon the theist. Because when you ask atheists how they would respond if they were to be proven wrong about God, they usually don’t respond with joy or relief.

  2. William
    February 26th, 2014 at 12:23 | #2

    Mr Pierce I believe you are in the NW District as I am. If so, how can I contact you?

  3. February 26th, 2014 at 13:16 | #3

    @William #2

    William,

    Go ahead and send Pr. Rossow a message from the following link

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?page_id=7517

    And refer to this note. Give him your email address and ask him to forward it to me.

    Alternately, friend me on Facebook and we can chat there.

  4. David Preus
    February 27th, 2014 at 09:57 | #4

    Jim, this series has been very enlightening. Thank you! I look forward to the next installment.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.