A priori vs a posteriori - A&R Flashcards
INTRO - define
A posteriori - arguments from observation
A priori - arguments from reason
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
Some may argue a priori deductive arguments, such as the ontological argument posed by Anselm, are more persuasive as they are based on logic thus offering a clear and complete argument. All can understand logic, whereas not all will draw the same conclusions from empirical evidence
Section 1: theme
Some may argue a priori deductive arguments, such as the ontological argument posed by Anselm, are more persuasive as they are based on logic thus offering a clear and complete argument. All can understand logic, whereas not all will draw the same conclusions from empirical evidence
Section 1: AO1
ANSELM
A priori deductive argument based on reason. The fool says in his heart “There is no God” yet the fool contradicts himself as God is “something which nothing greater can be conceived” – the atheist understands this as much as the theist. Clear that God can be perceived in the mind of the fool, yet reality is greater than thought so God must exist in reality so can fit the definition. The fool says what he says as he has not understood his thought and in effect suggests that a) existence can be treated as a predicate b) God can be defined into existence
Section 1: AO2 FOR
ANSELM
A priori deductive argument based on reason - moves from premise (God’s existing nature) to explanation, working off Aristotelian logic which claims a contradiction is impossible clear and logical thus arguably better than a posteriori as everyone can understand logic, not everyone sees the world in the same ordered way
Anselm an island is contingent, and the ontological argument only works for necessary beings such as God.
Section 1: AO2 AGAINST
ANSELM
Gaunilo - possible to construct an argument with exactly the same internal logic that purports to prove the existence of a perfect island: one could imagine a perfect island thus it must exist as reality is more perfect than imagination - anything we imagine as perfect has to exist, a priori rests on flawed logic, falls through quickly, thereby discrediting the extent to which it can be argued that a prior must be the more persuasive
failed to respond to Gaunilo’s central contention that even if we cannot conceive of Gods nonexistence this still does not prove that God exists it only proves that we are unable to conceive of Gods non-existence
Strong point as the idea of the greatest possible being could be one of those unreal objects that just exist in our mind
Section 2: theme
Nonetheless, others may argue a posteriori inductive arguments such as the cosmological argument are more persuasive, as one can arrive at a conclusion from experience and evaluation, as opposed to an uncertain premise
Section 2: AO1
AQUINAS
In part I of his famous ‘Summa Theologica’ Aquinas gives his famous Five Ways for the existence of God, claiming we can only reach God through observation of this world (an Aristotelian notion of empiricism)
stronger than a priori perhaps, as the argument is inductive, and one can arrive at a conclusion from experience and evaluation, as opposed to an uncertain premise
teleological argument: fifth of his five ways, arguing everything in the world seems to have purpose, but cannot move from potentiality to actuality without a guiding force - arrow archer
God must exist
Section 2: AO2 FOR
AQUINAS
F R Tennant: suggests the universe exists for the sake of humankind, as if the initial conditions of the earth had been otherwise, we would not exist to observe these conditions
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
AQUINAS
Epicurean Hypothesis (Hume): given infinite time every particle in the universe would have been given time to combine, which would result in a stable environment able to sustain life
- perhaps a priori is better as it provides a more certain understanding of God as the GCB, teleological arguments at most, suggest God exists, failing to assert anything at all about his
J.S Mill – Not suited as problem of evil – Attenborough the god who put the whale in the sea also put the parasite in the starving child – ‘malevolent’
Section 3: theme
Yet ultimately it is most plausible to argue that neither can prove or disprove the existence of God - the validity of both arguments will rest on one’s understanding and belief in God, something based more heavily in faith than theoretical arguments.
Section 3: AO1
FAITH
The success however of both arguments rests on prior faith
One can respond to arguments against a posteriori claims (such as the evidential problem of evil) by arguing that the problem of evil and suffering is a case of category error, and the problem lies in our understanding, not God - unfalsifiable
Equally, one can see that a priori claims are unfalsifiable, as the argument rests on a pre-decided premise of God’s existence, which is reach through a leap of faith and not rational argument
Section 3: AO2 FOR
FAITH
Wittgenstein’s Language Games: Ultimately the existence or non-existence of God cannot be disproved, and the validity of both a priori and a posteriori arguments will be determined by one’s religious position - if one is playing the game of religion, the rules of this argument make sense, yet if one is playing the game of science, one will not be able to understand this argument
meaning IS conditioned by language/ the game.
A prior and a posteriori in this case both fail
Section 3: AO2 AGAINST
FAITH
Argument rests on fideism: Anthony Flew, using Popper’s principle of falsification, consequently argues God-talk is thus meaningless, and seems to “die a death of a thousand qualifications” this can arguably be seen by theist responses to the problem of evil, or Anselm’s response about God’s necessity, or Aquinas claim that God is ultimately unknown!
C S Evans, “an assertion, which does not rule out anything, but rather is compatible with any conceivable state of affairs, does not appear to assert anything either” –> both types of argument fail
