Arguments Based On Reason

Question 1

KEY AO1 you need to know for arguments based on reason

Answer 1

Details of The ontological argument including:
- Anselm
- Gaunilo’s criticisms
- Kant’s criticisms

Question 2

A priori definition

Answer 2

A priori = Reasoning that uses analytical deduction

Question 3

Ontology definition

Answer 3

Ontology = The study of being

Question 4

Who is Anselm and where can his ideas around the ontological argument be found??

Answer 4

French monk turned Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109) , in a prayer book addressed to God called Proslogion (chapters 2 and 3)

Question 5

Anselm’s first formulation:

Answer 5

1. The definition of God is that which nothing greater can be conceived
2. It’s greater to exist in reality than just in the mind
3. God must exist in mind and reality

Question 6

Anselm’s second formulation

Answer 6

1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived
2. God must have a necessary existence because to be contingent and rely on something else for existence is not as great

Question 7

what part of the Old Testament does Anselm reference to show his confusion towards people not believing in God’s existence

Answer 7

Psalm 14:1 - “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”

Question 8

Who is Gaunilo? And where does he show that understanding the definition of God does not necessarily mean God exists?

Answer 8

A monk who lived at the same time as Anselm; published his works in “On behalf of the Fool”

Question 9

Explain Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm

Answer 9

the perfect island
- if one imagines the greatest conceivable island; even though we are told it is more excellent to exist in reality than just in the mind - this island still does not exist.
- similarly we can’t imagine/define God into existence = internal analytic logic is false

Other:
- we can imagine our own non-existence: can’t this be true with god?
- we have plenty of unreal objects in our own mind and this is normal
- we believe something unreal someone tells us but this does not make it real (gossip)
- the analogy of the painter does not work as the initial idea is different to the final product
- we don’t necessarily have a common understanding of God - the greatest conceivable being might look different for different people
- you can never fully understand something through description alone

Question 10

What’s Anselm’s response to Gaunilo’s criticism?

Answer 10

God is a special case. The island is contingent, unlike God who is necessary. The perfect island does not make sense - it is indefinable. If I add one grain of sand - does it become imperfect? The fool does not truly understand God as otherwise he would not reject his existence. He might be able to verbalise God and portray an understanding but this does not mean he has truly grasped the concept of God similarly to a person talking about an art exhibition and its paintings - their words don’t mean they have actually understood its concepts.

Question 11

What are the two things sentences/propositions are made up of? Define them.

Answer 11

Subjects and predicates
Subject: what the sentence is about
Predicate: gives a description of the subject

Question 12

Define determining/defining predicate:

Answer 12

A description something has to have in order to be itself. It is essentially tautologous.

Question 13

Who is Aquinas and where can we find his opinion on the ontological argument?

Answer 13

13th century Italian monk, Summa Theologicae

Question 14

What’s Aquinas’ stance on the ontological argument?

Answer 14

Aquinas: we can’t prove why it is necessary for God to exist through a priori argument. Aquinas says there are two types of ways something can be self-evident: either in itself AND NOT to us or in itself AND to us. “A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject” eg man is an animal, because ‘animal’ is contained in the essence of ‘man’. However, if one did not know the essence this predicate/subject then this proposition would be self-evident in itself and not to the ignorant person. Anselm states that god it “that which nothing greater can be conceived” so therefore he must exist in real life; though this statement might be self-evident within itself as God is his own essence - since we don’t know the essence of God it is not self-evident to us and therefore must be demonstrated by things known to us in order for us to confirm its truth. Anselm’s argument only shows that people have a concept of God, not that this concept exists in real life.

Question 15

Who is Descartes and where can we find his opinion on the ontological argument?

Answer 15

Renew Descartes is a seventeenth century mathematician and philosopher, his stance on the OA can be found in his book meditations

Question 16

What is Descartes stance on the ontological argument?

Answer 16

Descartes set out to find an a priori way of proving God’s existence. He does not trust our senses as it is possible to doubt them - there could be an evil demon making us imagine a world. He thought the most certain piece of knowledge was “cogito, ergo sum”: I think, therefore I am. (Though he is mistaken as this is not a tautology as ‘existing’ is not a necessary part of the definition of ‘thinking’). Like Anselm, he assumes existence is intrinsic to the definition of God:
1. God is by definition perfect. An imperfect god would not be god. So if God is perfect he must contain all perfections including the perfection of existence. So God must exist.
2. Existence is a defining predicate of the concept of God in the same way 3 sides and 3 angels is necessary to the concept of a triangle.

Question 17

Who is Kant? Where does he criticise the general approach to the ontological argument?

Answer 17

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a German philosopher; he critiques the ontological argument in his book “Critique of Pure Reason”

Question 18

Kant’s objections to the ontological argument

Answer 18

1. It is not contradictory to reject a proposition/concept. Eg I can accept that a half woman/half fish is a mermaid but would not be contradicting myself if I said I did not believe in mermaids; I’d only be contradicting myself if I said I believed in mermaids but not in creatures that were half women/half fish. Similarly, supposing that existence is a defining predicate of the concept of God: I could say that I accept that if god exists then he would necessarily exist, and therefore to say that I do not believe in God or his necessary existence is not contradictory.
   A predicate is only a predicate if it has a subject, so if the subject is rejected in the first place then there is no case to answer.
2. Existence is not a predicate and therefore cannot be a defining predicate of god. A predicate adds a description to a concept eg “the cat is black”: “black” adds to our understanding of the cat. When I say “x exists” nothing is added to the concept of x only that there is a existence of an object in the real world that corresponds to the concept of x. Eg a hundred real and a hundred imaginary thalers: one’s understanding of the concept of thalers is still the same.

Question 19

Arguments based on reason - A priori and a posteriori arguments

Answer 19

> Argued that a priori arguments are more persuasive because they rely on deductive logic. If the premises are true they lead to certainty.
Can only lead to strong probability because they rely on sense experience. Might be more persuasive though as people can see the evidence for themselves.

Question 20

Arguments based on reason - Analytic and synthetic propositions

Answer 20

> An analytic proposition is true by definition and needs no experience or evidence to support it.
A synthetic proposition needs evidence and experience to support it.

Question 21

Bertrand Russel’s stance on the ontological argument

Answer 21

• existence is not a predicate. We can demonstrate that if the subject within a proposition does not exist then we cannot expect the normal rules of linguistic logic to apply
• eg “the present king of France is bald”: this statement is not true and even saying “the present king is not bald” is also not a true statement as there is no such thing as the king of France. Our use of words and the way we apply predicates such as bald and not bald is not enough to demonstrate that something exists. We cannot expect the normal rules of linguistic logic to apply when we start applying predicates to something whose existence is a matter of uncertainty
• hence “god exists” is an untrue statement given that there is no certainty that he exists and the predicate adds nothing to the understanding of the subject.