Ontological Argument Flashcards
Who was Anselm of Canterbury?
He was an 11th Century monk, theologian and Archbishop.
How is the Ontological Argument written?
- His argument is written as a prayer. Anselm is a committed theist whose argument is anchored in the theistic language game.
- Ontos = nature/being/essence
- It is a DEDUCTIVE argument
- “I believe in order to understand” - The argument is based on the claim that God’s existence can be deduced from his definition- once God is correctly defined, there can be no doubt that he exists.
What are three claims the Ontological Argument makes?
- The proposition “God exists” is a priori/deductive - it can be known to be true without reference to sense experience, just by thinking about God’s nature.
- In the propostion “God exists”, the subject “God” contains the predicate “exists”…so God must exist!
- God’s existence is a necessary truth, not a contingent one.
What is Anselm’s argument in response to?
- The fool says in his heart “there is no God”. (Psalms 14:1) - Anselm’s argument is his response to this “fool”.
- Anselm’s definition of God: “God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”.
Summary of Anselm’s Ontological Argument:
- Premises 1: God is the greatest conceivable being (that than which nothing greater can be conceived).
Premises 2: This is a definition which even a fool understands in his mind, even though he does not understand it to exist in reality.
- Premises 3: There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing that this idea exists in reality.
Premises 4: For example, a painter has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint, but when he has painted it, that idea now exists in his mind and in reality.
Premises 5: It is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality, than to exist only in the mind.
Premises 6: If God existed only in the mind, I could think of something greater namely a God who existed in reality also.
Conclusion: Therefore, in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must exist both in the mind and in the reality.
Who was Gaunilo?
- Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (Benedictine Monk, 11th Century)
- Author of “in Defence of the Fool”.
- The Perfect Lost Island: Gaunilo’s applies Anslem’s argument to the example of a “perfect lost island”.
- Gaunilo’s criticism uses a parody of Anslem’s argument. He gave an Ontological Argument for the existence of a “perfect lost island”. He says to imagine an “island than which no greater island can be conceived” and uses Anslem’s structure to illustrate its flaws.
Summarise Gaunilo’s criticism of the Ontological Argument?
- Premises 1: It is possible to conceive the most perfect (lost) island.
- Premises 2: It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the most perfect (lost) island must exist in reality.
What does “Reductio ad. Absurdum” mean?
Translates to: reduce to absurdity.
Explain Reductio ad. Absurdum as a criticism to Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- Gaunilo suggest that Anslem’s argument could be used to prove the existence of an endless list of “perfect” objects- perfect cricket balls, trees, etc.
- The real fool is anybody who argued something into existence in this way!
- We can show a posteriori that this perfect island does not exist, so Anslem’s a priori argument does not work! Anselm’s response: God is a special case!
Explain Anselm’s defence to Gaunilo’s criticism:
Contingency vs Necessity:
- Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticism in the second version of his Ontological Argument. He writes: “God cannot be conceived not to exist- God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived- That which can be conceived is not to exist, is not God.”
- ISLANDS ARE CONTINGENT. GOD IS NECESSARY.
- Anselm argues that you cannot compare God to an island (or anything else). GOD IS A SPECIAL CASE. So you can use the argument for anything but God. This is because islands are contingent, meaning they cannot exist necessarily.
- Necessary existence is only predicate of God, and not of things.
Explain Rene Descartes’ support of the Ontological Argument
- Descartes was a rationalist (1596-1650)
- God is defined as “The supremely perfect being”.
- He must therefore possess all the perfect predicates of omnipotence, ominsicence, omnibenevolence…
- He must also possess existence.
How is Descartes’ support a strength of the Ontological Argument?
- Descartes was a mathmatician, scientist and philosopher of the Enlightment.
- He asserted it was “quite evident” that God must exist by definition.
- He used the examples of a triangle and mountains/valleys to illustrate his point.
- This support from a key Enlightment philosopher is a strength of Anselm’s original Ontological Argument.
What is a key strength of Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- It has certainty as a deductive argument- if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.
- Whilst inductive arguments are only probabilistic, deductive arguments give absolute certainty.
- The argument does not rely on observation/empiricism, which is criticised by Plato: “the body is a source of endless trouble for us” - we cannot trust our senses or observations, they deceive us. Knowledge gained in this way is unreliable.
- The Ontological Argument is a deductive argument- if it succeeds, it is absolute proof of the existence of God.
Kant criticises the Ontological Argument by stating: “Existence is not predicate.”
Explain this criticism:
- Kant objects to Descartes version of the Ontological Argument. He argues that existence is not a real predicate.
- This is because to say “God exists” adds nothing to our understanding of his essence.
- There’s no real difference between our concept of God and our concept of a God that exists. Real predicates give us new knowledge of a subject. To say “…he exists” does not add anything.
- Kant uses the example of having 100 Thalers (large silver coins)- predicates that add to our understanding include that they are round, metallic, gold, and have an image of the King. To simply add “they exists” adds nothing. It is not a real predicate.
- Logic alone is insufficient- we need to sense experience in order to truly understand something that exists.
Kant criticises the Ontological Argument by stating: “Only if there is a God will God exist necessarily- Anselm’s proposition doesn’t prove God’s existence.”
Explain this criticism:
- The Ontological Argument fails because it omits the word “if”
- It should read: “If there is a God, then God will exist necessarily”.
- The statement “God exists necessarily” may be logically true, because that is how Anselm defines God, but it does not follow that there really is a God.
- You cannot define God into existence.
