Arguments based on reason Flashcards
What is the ontological argument?
o The ontological argument is an ‘a priori’ definition of God, which is deductive. According to the ontological argument, almost everything (with the exception of God) which exists does so in a Contingent way; it depends upon other factors.
o The aim of the ontological argument is to argue analytically that God exists necessarily and therefore show that is illogical that God doesn’t exist.
Who is Anselm?
The creator of Ontology, Anselm (1033-1109), was an Archbishop of Canterbury who gave his argument in two different forms. His book was the ‘Proslogion’ (1077-8).
What does Anselm argue? (ontological argument)
o In his first form of the argument, he defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived (TTWNGCBC).
o Anselm argued that if we have an idea of a god who is perfect in every way, where nothing could possibly be greater, than this god must exist in reality. This is because a god who we made in our heads that we imagined to be great but didn’t actually exist, would be inferior to a real God. This is because God is the highest sum of all perfections, where nothing can surpass God in any way.
o Supporters of Anselm use analogies to make their point. E.g. thinking of having a billion pounds isn’t as good as actually having a billion pounds.
o So in Anselm’s understanding of God, no one could seriously argue that a non-existent god would surpass an existent God in greatness.
What is Anselm’s first form of the ontological argument?
Anselm’s first form of the ontological argument follows the line of argument that:
‘TTWNGCBC. A real, existent being would be greater than an imaginary being. Therefore, the concept of God is surpassed by an actual, existent God’.
What is Anselm’s second form of the ontological argument?
- In the second form of his argument, Anselm argued that it was impossible for God not to exist. As God is ‘TTWNGCBC’.
o Contingent beings are inferior to necessary beings (which are eternal and depend on nothing else for their existence, and of which the only example is God).
‘Because God is unsurpassable in every way, God must have a necessary existence. Therefore God exists- necessarily’.
o For Anselm, the existence of God isn’t something which needs to be demonstrated by referring to evidence. It’s something which we can know simply by considering the concept of ‘God’, and working out what this means.
What is an analytic propositions?
An analytic proposition is one which is true by definition. E.g. ‘bachelors are unmarried’. There is nothing we need to do to test this proposition as it can be arrived through deduction.
What is an synthetic propositions?
A synthetic proposition is one which adds something to our understanding beyond the definition of the word, and we need more than just education to know if it’s true (we need experience basically). E.g. ‘the corner-shop sells newspapers’, to find that out we would have to ask someone or go to the shop to answer the question.
Which kind of proposition does Anselm think ‘God exists’ is?
- -Anselm argues ‘God exists’ is an analytic a priori statement.
- -Anselm made reference to Psalm 53:1 where a ‘fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’’. He found it difficult to understand how anyone could have the concept of God as ‘TTWNGCBC’ without also realising that God must exist. As soon as someone understands what God is, then God’s existence is surely obvious.
Explain Guanilo’s criticism of Anselm
o Gaunilo was a French Monk and contemporary of Anselm. In his book ‘In Behalf of the Fool) (1078), Gaunilo says Anselm’s logic is flawed if we replace the idea of God with the idea of an Island. He explained that we could imagine the most excellent lost Island; we understand the implications of the phrase ‘the most excellent Island’ and this notion exists as a concept in our understanding.
o If such an island exists in our minds than this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. If our islands is truly the most excellent, it can’t have the inferiority that comes from it being a concept only- it must, therefore, exist in reality. But, there’s no such island in reality, we can’t bring something into existence just by defining it as excellent.
What was Anselm’s response to Guanilo’s criticisms?
Anselm’s response was that the island has contingence existence while God doesn’t. The argument works only when applied to God due to his uniqueness in the way He exists- which was part of the whole point of the ontological argument.
What were Aquinas’ criticisms towards Anselm?
o He believes that the existence of God could be demonstrated through a posteriori arguments only. His point was that God can’t be regarded as self-evident.
o He said if we take such a statement as ‘truth does not exist’, then we can see it is a nonsensical statement, as no one can accept the truth of ‘truth does not exist’ unless truth actually does exist after all. It’s impossible to have a mental concept of the non-experience of truth because it’s a contradiction in terms. It’s not, however, impossible to have a have a mental concept of there not being a God, as it’s possible for someone to do this, including Anselm’s fool who says in his heart ‘There is no God’. If we can imagine a state of godlessness, then it’s not contradictory, despite Anselm’s claims.
o Aquinas also questioned whether everyone would accept Anselm’s definition of God as ‘TTWNGCBC’. Aquinas believed that although we can approach an understanding and awareness of God, God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind. Anselm was certain we knew what “God” means, but Aquinas wasn’t sure if this was true. For Aquinas, humans are too weak minded to understand God and we have to accept that God is mysterious and beyond our comprehension.
o For Aquinas the ontological argument doesn’t work as it assumes we share an understanding of God, which he didn’t think was true, and, he thought, it only goes as far as to show that the concept only exist in people’s mind.
Explain Descartes version of the ontological argument
o In his book, Meditations, Descartes explained there are some concepts which are innate from birth and which are universally shared by all of humanity.
o We understand God to be the supremely perfect being, with every perfections as his attributes. By ‘perfections’, Descartes meant the traditional attributes of God such as the Omni-words.
o He used the allegory of a triangle and an allegory of a mountain to prove his point. Descartes claimed that existence is part of the essence (core) of God, just as 3 angles= 180 degrees are part of the essence of a triangle, and a valley is part of the essence of a mountain.
o He recognised that these allegories have their limitations. While we might not be able to think of a mountain without also thinking of a valley, this doesn’t mean that the mountain and valley combination in our imaginations actually exists in the real world.
o God, however, in Descartes view, is different, as his nature involves not angels or valleys but perfections- and for Descartes, existence is a perfection.
o As God has all the perfections, and existence is a perfection, God therefore exists. Also he goes on to say that because God is perfect, God must’ve always have existed and will always continue to exist for eternity.
Explain Kant’s view of ontological argument
o Kant’s major criticism of Descartes’ argument was that ‘existence is not a predicate’, meaning it’s not a characteristics or an attribute of something.
o Kant argued existence isn’t the same as a predicate, it doesn’t tell us anything about the object that would help us to identify it in any way. So this concept, with all its characteristics has been ‘actualised’ or ‘exemplified’.
o Kant says when we think of God, whether it’s as Anselm’s TTWHNGCBT or Descartes’ sum of all the perfections, we are thinking of a concept.
o We can predicate of a triangle that it has three sides that = 180 degree, but we would have to investigate to find out whether the triangle we are picturing in our minds have been actualised.
o We can predicate a unicorn that’s like a horse with a horn on its head but adding ‘exists’ to our description will not make any difference to whether or not the concept ‘unicorn’ is actualised so that we could go find one.
o This argument, however, may not impress sceptics who respond saying this makes the ontological agreement circular: we have to accept that God exists automatically, in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.
Explain Bertrand Russell’s view on the ontological argument
o He criticised the ontological argument by asking us to think of the statement ‘The present King of France is bald’. This statement isn’t true. But does it mean, therefore, that the statement ‘The present King of France is bald’ is a true statement?
o It doesn’t because there’s no present king of France. Our words and the way we apply predicates such as bald or not bald, isn’t enough to demonstrate that something exists, and when we start applying predicates to something whose existence is a matter of uncertainty, we can’t expect the normal rules of logic to apply.
Which is the more persuasive kind of argument for the existence of God: a priori or a posteriori?
- -A priori ontological arguments for the existence of God can be persuasive; if their premises are true and the reasoning seems legitimate, then they lead us to certain truth.
- -Math uses a priori reasoning, and when done accurately following logical reasoning, it arrives at conclusions which are certain.
- -A posteriori arguments, however, can only lead to probabilities. We can offer hypothetical reasoning which best fits the evidence presented to our senses, but there is always the chance that we might come across some new example or piece of evidence which forces us to revisit our conclusions and perhaps modify them. E.g. hundreds of years ago, it was believed the Earth was flat, but now we know otherwise.
- -Perhaps then, a priori arguments are more persuasive. But conceptual reasoning doesn’t appeal to everyone as people often want more than just logical steps, before they will be prepared to commit themselves to the truth of such as important claim as ‘God exists’; they want to see evidence for themselves, using their own senses, rather than rely on the conceptual reasoning of philosophers.
