Discourse on Desire & Darwinism: an Apologetic

I was at home typing all this out about two months ago. As I was nearing the end, my foot hit the power strip the computer was connected to and I lost it all. It was structured so much better than this and explained everything so much clearer. So after a couple months of being bummed out over it, I am now re-typing this out. Or rather, attempting to. This can also be found on my personal blog, but because this speaks to a created psychological drive in humans, I found it appropriate to post it here, too. Enjoy.

Proposition 1: All humans seek happiness.
Regardless of culture, gender, time in history, or even religion, this desire is universal. Even the Buddhist who spends his life trying to remove the desire for happiness can never remove the desire to have no desire, thus showing the cyclical nature of that philosophy. Even the Ascetic receives happiness for his casting off of earthly things, no matter the biblical warrant, or lack thereof.

Proposition 2: Every action of every human being is to this end.
The motive behind every action of every human is to this end, even those who kill themselves. I would argue that the drive to reduce misery (even through suicide) is very akin to that drive for happiness.

Proposition 3: This drive is unique to humans.
No animal acts in a natural environment for the pure sake of the pursuit of happiness. Every action of every animal is for a definite cause of some biological interest. Every animal action has a real purpose with tangible results beyond some emotional response.

Proposition 4: This desire is never really fulfilled.
As has been duly noted by men greater than me, Thomas Jefferson noted that we can attain many things, but "happiness" we can only "pursue." He never says we can actually attain it. No one in history (except Jesus) could have said honestly they had actually fully satisfied one's inner desire for happiness. Sure, we experience it in great measures, but a desire such as hunger can be fully satisfied; the desire for happiness cannot.

Proposition 5: Darwinism has no answer to this.
Here's the meat of the discourse. Long story short: Darwinism implies no previous purposeful design within human beings apart from what has been gained generationally by the experiences of our ancestors. Their experiences have learned what enables us to survive, and thus adaptations to this end or passed down and show themselves in our present physical, cultural, and psychological features. If this is true, then no desire humans have could have ever developed prior to the ability to fulfill it. To use the example above: Humans didn't acquire this universal desire for food known as hunger, until (a) a lack or deficit was noticed, and (b) a way to fully satisfy it was found. I'm arguing that every desire or drive in humans testifies to the existence of a full satisfaction thereof somewhere in the world. If Proposition 4 is true, then, that means Darwinism's only answer to the desire for happiness is that the desire itself preceded the object of that desire, because a full satisfaction of it cannot be found on earth, so how were our ancestors to know they were without it? The idea that the existence of a desire precedes it's object is very intellectually dishonest, and thus Darwinism is inadequate in accounting for this universal human drive.

Conclusion: Only Christianity has the adequate, satisfactory answer to it.
Christianity teaches that we have been created with a desire for happiness that testifies to the existence of that happiness, namely God Himself. He is what our hearts were made for and thus our hearts are never fully satisfied until they rest in Him. Christianity also teaches that this world has fallen from its original glory and is in a process of redemption wherein one can experience a certain measure of that happiness in the here and now that is merely a shadow of the full satisfaction to come. This is the idea popularly known as "the Already but Not Yet." Christ's Kingdom has already been established in the world, but it's full consummation has not yet happened, thus certain degrees of eternal realities we can experience now in the form of spiritual gifts, worship, a change in nature and will, and an ever decreasing dominion of the power of sin in one's life. These are all things that our being was created to find its utmost delight in and thus when our soul does that, it is more itself than it ever could be.

After coming up with this a while ago, I was surprised, impressed with myself, and humbled all at once when I found out that C.S. Lewis had these exact thoughts over sixty years ago. I stumbled upon this quote I'd like to finish with to sum up my entire point in this here treatise. He said:

"If I find in myself desires which nothing in this earth can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world"

Amen, brother.

Please, send rebuttals, criticisms, or arguments over any of the above propositions my way. I feel like there are some things I haven't adequately addressed, but I can't seem to find the holes in the arguments. Please find them and tell me, as I eager to develop this properly.

--paul

The Theism Model of Relationship Development Dynamism: the Practicals

This post is supposed to build off of my last post, where I laid out my Theism Model for Relationship Development Dynamism and talked about the Invitation and Intimation Principles. Read that for the theory. This post is intended to use this theory and establish some practicals that can be used in everyday relationships, based on what principles they mostly use. I believe most people are pretty reasonable in these two drives, with most people leaning towards the invitation side of things. This means there are generally three different kinds of people: Balanced, Intimation Strong, and Invitation Strong. Some possible problems that may arise from different combinations of people are as follows:

Intimation Strong & Balanced - Most people get freaked out by someone getting so close to them so fast, and it ends up pushing them away. Even if that doesn’t happen, they can get a reputation for being pretty eccentric in their closeness to people that they’re really not that close to, realistically speaking. Sometimes these people will give random statements of encouragement, praise, or even blunt statements of rebuke; all of which are coming from a perceived level of closeness they have with the person they may not actually have. Most times these relationships stretch both parties and help them grow in healthy ways, but these are just some potential problems.

Invitation Strong & Intimation Strong – When these two extremes come together, strange tensions arise. The intimation person may say things about the invitation person that the latter finds offensive, because they haven’t allowed the former to hold that close of a place in their life. That’s what it’s all about with an Invitation strong person; they must call the shots and give the other person the place in their life to say certain things. The Intimation Strong person must be aware of the place they hold in the life of the other. These relationships can be one of the most fruitful of any combination, if these problems can be resolved. The Invitation person must become less sensitive to others, and the Intimation person must become more sensitive to others, and how comfortable they are with their pursuit of closeness.

Invitation Strong & Invitation Strong – These usually don’t happen. If they do, they look very boring and unexciting on the outside, but may hold a very close place in the hearts of those involved. You find this most often on the female platonic level; hardly ever on the romantic level, though I’ve seen it a few times. They look very weird on the outside.

Intimation Strong & Intimation Strong – Every relationship has some sort of boundaries inherent within it. These people have problems with proper boundaries of intimacy in most relationships. They usually end up playing off the other person who is generally the other extreme, or Balanced, meaning that the boundaries are set by the other person, not the Intimation Strong person. Potentially the most exciting, dynamic, and fruitful of all combinations, there are unique challenges they face if they are to get to that level of enough health to yield the most satisfaction. They need to be careful of boundaries, first and foremost. If one person crosses a boundary, a level of trust is broken that may not be able to be healed. This is why: If an Intimation Strong person for once has one of their boundaries crossed, that is generally a very foreign experience to them that pushes them far away. They are used to desiring closeness with someone more than the other person desires it with them; so when someone actually pushes harder than they ever have, it makes them feel claustrophobic and stifled.

I’ve learned recently that there is a definite level of health and excitement found in holding ones’ cards close to their chest, not revealing too much too soon. A certain level of “aloofness” or mystery is exciting and fosters a sense of mutual respect necessary for any real relationship to develop. Tension is good; vomiting all of one’s thoughts and emotions on the table before someone in an effort to seek intimacy is bad, and can have disastrous consequences (no, I am not speaking from personal experiences, haha). These relationships are usually the most “dynamic” to say the least, but can be the most satisfying and redeeming in one’s life. For Christians, these relationships are also the most “expressive.” What I mean is that every relationship puts forward a certain image of God. Some of these images are closer to reality than others. A benefit of double intimation Strong relationships is that they will scream out that image more than any other combination, thus people in those relationships must be very aware of the image of God they are putting forth.

Though it may sound like I am speaking primarily of romantic male-female relationships, I am not. I believe these principles can be applied to all relationships, including our relationship with God, as explained in the previous post. I think the most ready application of these principles is in male-female romantic relationships, but they need not be limited to them. Also, be fully aware that these primary drives and strengths of those drives in various people will change depending on the time in their life, environmental factors, and whether the relationship being cultivated is between two males, two females, or a male and female.

I hope these applications help in your everyday relationships.

--paul