The Ontological Argument. An argument of two halves.
Post on 29-Dec-2015
236 Views
Preview:
Transcript
The Ontological Argument
An argument of two halves
An argument of two halves ...
Learning Objectives
To know the two halves of Anselm’s ontological argument
To understand why he felt that it was impossible to NOT accept that God exists
What do we know so far?
TTWNGCBC Existence is a property It is greater to exist than not exist The greatest possible being must be great
in every possible wayAnd that includes existing
A word about Proslogion
Argument for the existence of God or a prayer to GodDevout exploration of faith
Doesn’t only offer argument for existenceAlso the attributes of God
TTWNGCBC
“Aliquid quo nihil maius possibit”
God is a being that cannot be improved upon. To think of a greater being means that being is God.
To sum up
If God exists in the mind only (in intellectu) alone then a greater being could exist in both the mind and reality (in re)
Proslogion 2
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1)
Contradiction of the atheist
The fool understands the claim that God exists
Does not believe that God exists
It all boils down to ...
Anyone who claims to understand what it means to say that God exists must have knowledge of God
Whatever is understood must exist in the understanding
The painter
In Proslogion 2 Anselm uses the following illustration The painter knows what he is going to paint
before he paints it It exists in his understanding When he paints it it then exists
in his understanding and in reality
Be careful
Anselm is NOT saying ‘because I think of God he must exist’
‘Anselm IS saying: ‘It is when I think of him I realise the necessity of God’s existence. Existence imposes itself on my thoughts – rather than my thoughts imposing existence of God’
Reductio ad absurdum
Argument Suppose God only exists in one’s
understanding Then God could be greater by existing in
reality This means that a greater God is possible
– one that exists in reality
Reductio as absurdum
This means that a greater God is possible – one that exists in reality
A contradiction of the definition of God? Therefore the opposite conclusion must be
true
Reductio as absurdum
Anselm has faith in the existence of God
Logic tells us that it would be absurd to think otherwise
2nd part of Anselm’s argument
Existence alone is not enough: that would make God like us
God’s existence is necessary
God’s necessary existence
Nothing greater than God can be conceived It is greater to exist as a necessary being than
a contingent being If God exists only as a contingent being then a
greater being can be imagined: a necessary being
This necessary being would be greater than God Therefore God must be a necessary being and
exist in reality
God’s necessary existence
God is a being with necessary existence
“What art thou, then, Lord God, than whom nothing greater can be conceived?
The difference between the fool and the believer
Gaunilo’s Lost Island
To recap
Existence is a perfection It is better to exist in re than in intellectu According to Anselm you CANNOT
truthfully say God doesn’t exist in realityA contradiction
God as understood hypothetically must have every possible perfection
To recap
An a priori argumentGod’s existence is tied up with the concept of
him Cannot have the concept of God without
being compelled to accept his existence Cannot deny his existence without having
the concept of himOne cannot be an atheist without
contradiction
To recap
The fool has thought what cannot be thoughtHis thinking is incoherent and self-
contradictoryHe only knows the word God, not God himself
That God exists is true by definition
What are these?
Do Hobbits exist?
So what do we know?
1. We all know what a Hobbit is.
2. Hobbits don’t exist.
3. Hobbits are a fictional species created in the 20th century by JRR Tolkien.
Can we apply Anselm’s logic to this?
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers
11th century Benedictine Monk Thesis: ‘In Behalf of the Fool’ Anselm’s argument fails because the
same kind of logic would force you to conclude that many things exist which certainly do not.
Anselm’s argument
1. God is that being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
3. If God does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater being, that is one that does exist.
4. Therefore, God must indeed exist in reality.
5. Therefore, He exists.
Gaunilo’s argument
1. The Lost Island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
3. If the Lost Island does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.
4. Therefore, the Lost Island must indeed exist in reality.
And the problem?
The Lost Island does not exist, even though the logical argument claims that it does.
So can we trust Anselm’s version?
Criticisms of Gaunilo
Look at the description of the islandThe more riches and delicacies it has the
better it is No maximum amount of these that an
island can have Therefore it will ALWAYS be possible to
imagine a greater island Therefore the concept of a ‘perfect’ island
is incoherent – there can be no such thing
Plantinga and Gaunilo
The concept of TTWNGCBC does not apply to an island in the same way as it applies to God
Anselm’s argument ONLY applies to GodA necessary beingThe greatest conceivableThe greatest possible
Returning to Hobbits
If we have a concept of Hobbits does that mean they have to exist?
Existence is not a characteristic of a Hobbit Hobbits are not TTWNGCBC It doesn’t matter if they don’t
exist because they aren’tconsidered to be the greatest
Misconceptions
RememberThought ≠ existenceExistence = thought
God exists because we can conceive him? Hobbits exist because we can conceive
them?
Homework
Q4-5 on the sheet
Descartes Argument
Rene Descartes
1596-1650 Set out his argument in his Meditations Pondered on the nature of existence Cogito ergo sum
Doubted he knew anythingThen realised that the ONLY thing he
could know was that he was thinkingConcluded I think, therefore I am
Rene Descartes
Defined God as a supremely perfect being
From here tried to prove God’sexistence ...
Rene Descartes’ argument
Because God is a supremely perfect being he possesses all perfections
This perfect state includes existence, which is a perfection in itself. Existence is a predicate of a perfect being
Therefore God exists
Objects and predicates
There are some things an object must have to be that object
Triangle must have three sides Bachelors must be unmarried And so God must have existence
It is inconceivable any other way!
What is his argument?
1. Whatever belongs to the essence of something cannot be denied of it
2. God’s essence includes existence; therefore
3. Existence must be affirmed by God
Descartes clarification
1. The argument cannot be applied to objects affected by time and space.
2. It can only apply to something that is perfect
3. Only God can have absolute perfection – there cannot be two absolutes
Take THAT, Gaunilo!
Descartes on the existence of God To deny the existence of God is as absurd as
saying ‘the existing such and such does not exist’ (Mackie)
All other arguments to establish the existence of things – unicorns (Russell), Hobbits (Maltby(!)) – try to establish the necessary existence of contingent objects
Only an absolute perfect being can have the necessary existence
Quick quiz
Which is correct
a) TTWNCBC
b) TTWNGCBC
c) TTWNGCBG
Quick quiz
The first of Anslem’s arguments is?
Quick quiz
The second of Anslem’s arguments is?
Quick quiz
What role do triangles play in Descartes’ version argument?
Quick quiz
Why did Anselm say that Gaunilo had failed to understand him?
Baseline assessment
Analyse the reasoning of the ontological argument as presented by Anselm, and explain its purpose.
AO1 – 30 marks
“Gaunilo presents a convincing counter argument to Anselm”
To what extent do you agree with this claim
AO2 – 20 marks
Objections - 1
Objections
There are three main objectionsThe definition of GodThe use of existence as a predicate of GodThe possibility of deriving existence from
claims of definition
Definitions of God
Define the God of classical theism
Okay, how do you know that you are right?
What else could God be like?
Aquinas
No certainty that the human mind has the correct concept of GodHe is beyond human understandingOur mere ideas cannot prove his existenceExistence of God is not self-evident
Even if we do have an idea it is confused
‘God is man’s beatitude’
Supreme blessedness or happinessWe naturally desire this happinessWhat we desire must be known to usDoesn’t mean we know God
To explain more ...
To know that SOMEONE is approaching Not the same as knowing that PETER is
approaching We know that man desires happiness But what is happiness?
Different for different people
Aquinas
God is beyond human understanding What type of argument is his cosmological
argument? What type of argument is the ontological
argument? A priori arguments to prove God fail
Because we cannot define God Know him through his work
Aquinas ‘the greatest’ ‘the most perfect being’
Are these meaningful? Are they quantifiable?
Greatness and perfection canalways be added to.Remind you of something?
Would Anselm ever agree?
What is Proslogion? Intellectual argument to prove the existence of
God?Prayer to aid faith?
Hume
Twofold objections1. Cannot take an idea in your mind, apply
logic to it, and reach a conclusion based on the external, observable universe.
2. Like Kant existence cannot be treated as a predicate
Objection 1
We base our lives around what we can observe rather than rationally prove.We know the sun rises: how do we know that?
We cannot prove anything a priori
So does Hume have a point?
Objection 2
The description of a thing can contain every possible detailTo determine if something exists we must go
BEYOND the description A thing cannot be ‘defined into existence’
Assumed perfection cannot be proof ofexistence
A2 essay demands
Scholarly opinion Differing views Independent thought
But how to actually go about doing it?
PQRS!
P = PointMake your point In a form that an inquisitive grandparent
would understand.ONE POINT AT A TIME
Deal with it before introducing another one - structure
PQRS
Q = Quotation Ideally from the original Ideally short and punchy Use a term / word / phrase that wouldn’t be
used by an amateur
PQRS
R = ResponseThe main bit of the paragraphShow evidence of diversity of views
‘Critics such as Hume have posited that ...’Create links with other parts of the course
Including from AS
PQRS
S = Semi-conclusionMake sure you’ve explained YOUR position in
the light of the careful analysis you’ve just done
Remember the independent thought requirementMake sure you refer to the specific question
that was asked
Analyse the reasoning of the OA PQRS
Anselm claims that the logic of his argument indicates that an atheist cannot be an atheist without contradicting themselves.
Analyse the reasoning of the OA PQRS
“the fool ... Understands what he hears ... although he does not understand it to exist”
Analyse the reasoning of the OA PQRS
What did Anselm mean?Example of understanding a concept without
accepting existenceDoes anyone disagree with him?Would this logic and reasoning persuade an
atheist to convert?
Analyse the reasoning of the OA PQRS
What do you think? Careful of wording in an AO1 question
Is the reasoning logical?Does Anselm succeed in putting forward a
good argument?Remember to refer back to the question!
Objections - 2
The use of existence as a predicate of God Key players
Kant
Russell
Kant’s objections
Mainly aimed at Descartes The argument claims that existence is a
perfectionThat existence adds something to the
essence of GodThat it is a predicate
What is a predicate?
Something that adds to the property of a subject
Every complete sentence contains a subject and a predicate
John laughed Peter walks the dog The audience littered the floor with torn
wrappings and spilled popcorn
Why did Kant NOT think existence was a predicate? When we talk about something we
assume it exists. I have a coat. It is red I have a coat. It exists and it is red.
Existence is assumed Saying that the coat exists doesn’t tell us
anything additional about the coat.
Kant’s main objection
A predicate should add to our understanding of an object/person
Existence does not add anything to the essence
of God
Sounds odd?
Can we really say that existence does not add anything to our understanding of an object?
Not a property that you can ascribe to a thing alongside other properties
So ...
... existence is nota predicateor a perfection (who said it was?)
If we were to describe our concept of God and then add ‘and he exists’ we would not have gained any extra knowledge or deepened our understanding of the concept of God
Really?
Yes! A God that exists might be more useful
than one that doesn’t exist But knowing that he exists doesn’t add to
the essence of GodWhich is what a predicate doesWhat are the predicates of God?
So where does that leave the ontological argument? Dead in the water, you could say! If existence is not a perfection or a
predicate:Ontological argument gives no reason for God
to exist.
What do you think?
Existence as a synthetic proposition What is a synthetic proposition?
Predicate is not contained in the statementMore work must be done
Jane is a spinster
Existence as a synthetic proposition God cannot be placed in a separate
category to everything elseWhat does Anselm say about this?
Gives a synthetic proposition the status of an analytical propositionAssertion is contained within the definition
All spinsters are unmarried A square is a four-sided figure with equal
sides
Existence as a synthetic proposition It is always possible to contradict
existence as a property of a thingTherefore they are synthetic propositions
To sum up (Kant)
Existence is not a predicate Existence is not a perfection Existence does not add to our understanding
of an object Anselm tries to turn a synthetic proposition
into an analytical one
The meaning of ‘exist’ - Russell
If existence were a predicate youwould get the following syllogismMen exist in the worldSanta Claus is a manTherefore Santa Claus exists
Syllogism – deductive argument moving from the
general to the specific
Valid ... but ...
Why is it wrong?
Men exist in the world
Santa Claus is a man
Therefore Santa Claus exists
Misuse of this word
Santa is fictional – belongs to a separate category to the men in the first proposition
So what IS existence
According to RussellNot a property of things, but the idea of those
things
Russell’s example
‘Dragons do not exist’
‘A cow is a quadruped with udders etc’
The fact that a cow exists is an extension to the description, not part of the description
Of all the things that exist a dragon is not one of themWe have the idea of what the
word ‘dragons’ means
Intention and extension
Puts the ontological argument in different terms
Intention of a phraseThe description arrived at through labelling
and defining something TTWNGCBC
The totality of everything that can be conceived my the human mind about God
But does it have an extension (can I add to it)?
Intention and extension
TTWNGCBCTotality of ideasBut no evidence to prove the existence
To sum up (Russell)
Existence cannot be a predicate Existence is not a property of things, but
the idea of things Russell supports Anselm’s claim that God
is the greatest thing we can think of Does not support Anselm’s belief that
this proves God’s existence
First and second order predicates Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) First order predicates
Apply direction to objects John’s horses are brown All cats are mammals
Provide information about the relation of two concepts
Whatever falls under the concept of a catis a mammal
First and second order predicates Second order predicates
Apply to first order predicates and notto the object itself
Mammals exist Cats exist
Not about any particular mammal or cat but about the concepts of mammals and cats
And God?
Existence is not a first-order predicateDoes not tell us about the nature of something
Existence is not a second-order predicateDoes not add to our understanding of the
concept Therefore existence cannot be used as
a predicate to prove the existence ofGod.
Objections - 3
Objections based on the possibility of deriving existence claims from definition
Key players
J.L. Mackie
Elisabeth Anscombe
Brian Davies
J.L. Mackie
Atheist is NOT contradicting himself Anselm is making a mistake by claiming
existence is a predicate of greatnessTTWNGCBC certainly suggests this In order to be maximally great the being must
exist in order to meet the terms of its definition
Mackie’s claim is that just because we can think of something doesn’t mean it exists
Elisabeth Anscombe
Proslogion is NOT an ontological argument
It never states that existence is a predicateWhere did this idea come from if it wasn’t from
Anselm? Where does this leave Mackie?
(Just because we can think of something doesn’t mean it exists)
Elisabeth Anscombe 2 translations of Proslogion1. ‘And surely, that than which no greater can be
conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.’
2. ‘And surely, that than which no greater can be conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it is only in the mind, what is greatercan be thought to be in reality as well.’
Implies existence is a predicate of greatness
Implies that something is better if it exists in the mind and reality
Brian Davies
Criticises the use of the word ‘is’ “A pixie is a little man with pointed ears.
Therefore, there actually exists a pixie” Does a pixie have to exist in order to have
pointed ears? How does this relate to Anselm’s
argument?
Brian Davies
Use of the word ‘is’1. Definition:
A queen is a female monarch
2. To explain that there actually is something:There is such a thing as a vampire
Says nothing about existence – says nothing about an existent queen
Does explain what a queen is
Also says nothing about existence
However it does implicitly suppose its existence
Brian Davies
Norman Malcolm argues for a God with necessary existence
His error, according to DaviesGoes from definition of God as a being with
necessary existenceTo explain that there IS a being with
necessary existence
Brian Davies
To sum up ...The ontological argument helps with a
definition of God – TTWNGCBC It doesn’t prove that the being with this
definition exists
Modern versions
Key players
Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)
Alvin Plantinga (1932-)
Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000)
Norman Malcolm
Disagrees with objections of Russell and Davies
Considers it a logical argument to prove existence of God
Norman Malcolm
Could not support Anselm’s first argumentNot valid as existence is not a characteristic
Supported Anselm’s second argumentConcept of God is concept of a being whose
existence is necessary It is not possible to think of a being that
necessarily exists, not existingTherefore, Malcolm argues, God must exist
Norman Malcolm
Argues that the only reason why a greatest-conceivable being wouldn’t exist would be because the concept named something whose existence was impossible.
Anselm is talking about an impossible God or a necessary being Therefore if God is possible then God exists
Alvin Plantinga
Developed the modal ontological argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
Possible worlds
Plantinga developed the philosophical notion of possible worlds
In each there will be many differencesThe possibilities are infinite
Maximal greatness & maximal existence There is a possible world, W, in which
there exists a being of ‘maximal greatness’ A being has maximal greatness only if it
exists in every possible world
So, is he talking about God?
Maximal greatness & maximal existence Just says that a maximally great being has
to be present in every possible world Has not defined what that being is
Does not say it is the God of classical theism
Maximal greatness & maximal existence Introduces the concept of maximal
excellenceMaximal greatness entails maximal
excellenceMaximal excellence entails omnipotence,
omniscience, and moral perfection
Maximal greatness & maximal existence Therefore …
There is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great
If maximally great, this being exists in our world
This being has maximal excellence, as this is entailed within maximal greatness
This means that there is an ‘omnis’and morally perfect being in our world
Therefore there IS a God
Maximal greatness & maximal existence So can we say for certain that God
exists? Davies would say ‘no’
Even if maximal excellence is possible it does not follow that such a being exists
God is possible but not actual
Plantinga and Gaunilo
Can you remember what Plantinga said in defence of Anselm? Islands are contingentGod is eternal Islands do not have ‘intrinsic maximum’
What does he have to say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ&noredirect=1
Charles Hartshorne
Whether existence is a property
Argues that one aspect of Anselm’s argument is ignored
Existence is used differently in his two arguments
Existence is not always a property butthat doesn’t mean it never is
Charles Hartshorne
God as a necessary beingExistence IS a property If he is necessary he is greater than
contingent beings If to have necessary existence means he
must always exist it is logically impossiblefor him not to exist
Therefore God exists
And so …
… we reach the end of the ontological argument
Next … the issues arising Does it have value for the non-believer? Does it successfully challenge belief in God? How successful is the argument as proof of God’s
existence Would the success or failure of this argument have
any significance for faith?
Relationship between faith and reason
Is the OA helpful?
Does it do anything other than helping to define God?TTWNGCBC
Does this definition convince atheists or agnostics of the existence of God?
What does belief in God depend on?
Starter – Faith versus Reason
Which of the statements are dependent on faith and which depend on reason
Not helpful to faith
It is possible to think of a non-existent God. – argument against OA
How does Gaunilo demonstrate this?A fool CAN have an understanding of God
even if he doesn’t exist – the lost island
Helpful to faith
Anselm – what is the purpose of his argument from HIS point of viewTo take people beyond the definition of the
word ‘God’ to knowledge of God, himself.
Does he succeed in doing this?
If he does then the OA IS helpful to faith
Faith, reason, and the OA
Write a definition of faith and a definition of reason
Does the OA raise valid reasons for believing in God?
Is faith grounded in reason or is reason governed by faith?
Anselm’s view
They aid each other in understanding GodReason alone can lead to errorMust be supported by faithGreater understanding can only be achieved
through faith
Anselm’s view
“Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe (intelligere ut credam), but rather I believe so that I can understand (credo ut intelligam). For I believe this too, that ‘unless I believe I shall not understand’”
Proslogion 1
Your view
Does a definition of God depend more on faith than understanding of the word? Why?
The appeal of the OA
Anselm already believes in GodNot providing a logical argument to convince
people However it DOES appeal to logic and
reason
“I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back with it, along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed: “Great God in Boots! – the ontological argument is sound!”
Russell
The appeal of the OA
Russell: through logical reasoning it appears that a being with necessary existence MUST exist
So why is he against the argument?When considering the argument further we
realise that having the definition does not make God exist
So when IS it helpful?
A valid argument that God’s existence is necessary If a triangle must have three sides, then God
must existHelps develop a believer’s understanding of
GodStrengthen their beliefFurther reason to praise God
Limited significance to believer
SuccessfulOnly provides an alternative way of confirming
faith Why only an ‘alternative
FailsDoes nothing to take away faith
Why not?
Agnostics and atheists
Theoretically God is possible (by definition) Having the concept does not make him a
reality for agnostics and atheists Some claim it only works for existing
believers and will not persuade non-believers that God exists
Agnostics and atheists
Why did Kant and Russell believe itis not a good argument?
Question validity of statements such as:“God must exist because he is a supremely
perfect being” OA is a misleading argument
The Enlightenment
Religious belief must be supported by reason for it to be viewed as rational
Could this be a reason for renewed interest in the OA from Kant/Hume onwards?
Fideism
Remember this? “exclusive or basic reliance upon faith
alone” A fideist is someone who “urges reliance
on faith rather than reason in matters philosophical and religious” - Plantinga
Faith may be the only proof
Karl Barth (1886-1968) Denied the possibility of attaining any
knowledge of God through the use of reason
Fides Quaerens Intellectu (Faith Seeking Understanding)
Supports view that Anselm didn’t intend to prove the existence of God
Faith may be the only proof
TWNGCBC Not the start of an argumentA description by a believer of what is
understood about God within the limits of the human mind
If we had the mental capacity to understand God and prove his existence faith would not be necessary
Faith may be the only proof
Anselm’s 2nd argumentA statement of faith
Without God then humans and the world in which they live would not exist
Cannot apply these comments to Descartes version of the OADescartes WAS seeking to present an
argument using reason to prove the existence of God
What would Descartes say?
Attempting to give a logical argument
Required proof of God to justify his rationalistic approach to knowledge and certainty
Søren Kierkegaard
1813-1855 Misconceived and ridiculous to attempt to
use reason to determine existence of God “For the fool says in his heart that there is
no God, but he who says in his heart or to others: just wait a little and I shalldemonstrate it …What a superb theme for crazy comedy”
Build an essay
“The ontological argument is a statement of faith and not reason”
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
The OA and faith
Two main concerns
1. Can the OA weaken faith?
2. The failure of the argument to strengthen faith.
Could the OA weaken faith?
If your belief is based on belief rather than proven fact then could the OA be damaging to faith?God could be proven without a shadow of a
doubtFaith is redundantRe-evaluation of relationship between God
and humans
Anti-realism
A theory of truth The truth or falsity of a statement does not
depend on whether it corresponds to the objective reality it describes
It corresponds to the situation as a person understands it
Eh????
Anti-realism
A theory of truth The truth or falsity of a statement does not on
whether it corresponds to the objective reality it describes
It corresponds to the situation as a person understands it
Eh????
Anti-realism and God
Does God exist?Depends: do you understand there to be such
a being?Does NOT depend on whether there is or is
not an objectively existing omnipotent being Religious believers are totally justified in
saying that he exists
Anti-realism and God
Summing up anti-realism and the OATalk of God makes sense to those who
already believeTalk of God for non-believers makes no sense
Shows that God is not a thing to be verified empirically, but an idea that has value and meaning within a religious community
Implication for the OA
IF you are religious:God must exist by definitionWhy?
Because they understand him to exist Merely to believe in God guarantees that God
exists
Iris Murdoch
OA may not objective proof for the existence of God
Does have great value for a believer Shows that it is rational to hold such
beliefs Teaches us to think about our own
meta-cognitionTeaches us to think about how we think
Iris Murdoch
The OA has anti-realist meaning Meaningful to the individual or group who
understand what the definition of God meansRugby players understand the off-side
Vardy claims that this is what Anselm intended it to be
To sum up
If the statement TTWNGCBC is said prayerfully to God by a religious believer:By definition God exists
Written by a believer as a prayerTherefore it is successful
However it cannot tell us whether this definition of God corresponds to any objective reality beyond the mind of the believer
Failure to strengthen faith
Does not appear to convert an atheist Dawkins
It has no significance for faithPicks up on points made by Douglas Gasking
Possible to believe in a being more powerful than one with necessary existence – which does not exist and yet created everything
Different concepts of TTWNGCBC
Failure to strengthen faith
DawkinsGasking doesn’t prove that God does not
exist In the same way, neither does Anselm prove
that he does
To conclude
Helps to establish what the monotheistic religions say about GodEstablishes that he is ‘omni’, transcendent,
and the summary of all perfection Shows that the relationship between God
and humans is more dependent on faith Aid to those who already have faith Anselm ‘faith seeking understanding’
top related