The Ontological Argument Flashcards
What type of argument was it?
Deductive (coming to a conclusion using available facts) A priori (from knowledge, established without proof)
Which texts did Anselm write?
Proslogian and monologian
Who was the first advocate of the ontological argument?
Anselm d’Aosta 1033-1109
What is God according to Anselm?
‘That than which nothing greater can be conceived’
The greatest conceivable thing, if you can think of anything that is greater then it is only the second greatest thing
‘The impius fool says in his heart, there is no God’ if the fool says there is no God then he is a fool because if you say there is no god you are engaging in the understanding of the word God which means you are accepting his existence. Therefore the fool contradicts himself: understands what he hears, and what he hears is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to exist’.
What is the difference between an object in ones understanding and to understand that an object exists?
Unicorns exist in our understanding but people understand that unicorns don’t exist. If we have the concept of the greatest conceivable being in our mind, ‘in intellectu’, then that being must also exist ‘in re’ (in reality). ‘Redcutio and absurdum’ is a type of argument and it reduces itself to absurdity if you follow it through, you can’t have a God that’s exceeded by something else.
What was Gaunilo’s criticism and Anselm’s response to it?
Gaunilo, a monk and contemporary of Anselm, who wrote, ‘On Behalf of the Fool’. He ignored Anselm’s Proslogian 3 in his criticism. He used the example of the perfect island which existed in his mind then it ought to exist in reality, if following Anselm’s argument.
Anselm responds by saying; ‘is it greater to have contingent existence or necessary existence’. Contingent existence is existence which can be conceived as not existing. Necessary existence is existence which cannot be conceived not to exist, the second type is superior and therefore God must have it because it is the greatest conceivable thing. He therefore said that Gaunilo could not use the example of the island because it is a contingent thing, it could always be improved and it requires other things in order to exist.
Give an overview of God in Anselm’s ontological argument
The only thing that it the greatest conceivable thing, existing in your mind, existing in reality and has necessary existence, is God. Nothing else has all these qualities, perfect in every form. God cannot not exist.
Existence is part of the nature of things, we all have contingent existence, god has necessary existence of nature. God is the greatest thing and there is nothing that can be better.
Plantinga’s argument- explain
Tries to prove god by the concept of maximal greatness
He suggests the ideas of possible worlds (other states of being where other choices and possibilities might have arisen). He then says in a possible world, there exists a being with maximal greatness. One could only have maximal greatness if you existed in all worlds, otherwise it wouldn’t be maximal greatness. This means for every world we can envisage there must be a being of maximal greatness. This proves that being appears in all worlds but doesn’t prove the god of classical theism.
So he introduces the concept of maximal excellence. Maximal greatness includes maximal excellence and therefore omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection.
Brief outline of Plantinga’s argument
There is a possible world with a maximal great being
If maximal, it must also be in our world, if maximal it must have maximal excellence. Therefore god exists and is omnipotent/omniscient and morally perfect.
Brian Davies criticises him, saying that it only proves the possibility of God not the actuality.
Explain Norman Malcolm’s theory
Malcolm rejected that existence was a predicate.
Malcolm accepted that if God is the most perfect being that perfect being has necessary existence. This greatest being cannot come into existence otherwise it would be contingent. If he doesn’t already exists, his existence is impossible, this greatest being must already be here.
If the greatest being exists it must have necessary existence, so if not in existence, it would need to come into existence. If he does exist nothing can cause him to exist so if god exists his existence is necessary not just probable.
Gods existence is either impossible or necessary, there is no middle ground for Malcolm.
It is only impossible if the idea of such a being is self contradictory or logically absurd- he rejects this as the logic is sound, therefor god exists
What is the relationship between faith and reason?
Some scholars think reason is an obstacle to faith e.g. Sorry Kiergaard.
The definition of faith in the Bible (NT Hebrews 11.1) ‘faith is to be sure what we hope for and certain of what we do not know’.
Some see faith as therefore the opposite of reason because faith is an innate knowing. Anselm believed reason could help to understand God’s nature. Start with faith then demonstrate reason- ‘faith seeking understanding’.
Reason and faith can be linked together but faith comes first. This means Anselm’s argument is not for non-believers. Faith is based on belief and is a volitional state, a love for God and a free will response not something you ought to do.
Anselm tends to assume faith in his reader as it is like a prayer.
Aquinas agreed with Anselm in that he believed reason could only take you so far. Revelation is needed for a full understanding of God.
Martin Luther argued faith was a free will act, so reliance on reason undermines faith.
Is faith enough or is reason needed for evidence?
The correspondence theory of truth means everything you believe must be rooted in something in reality.
The coherence theory of truth is what you believe must be coherent with your sense of the world and how your community of believers see it.
The reason in Anselm’s argument may attract non-believers more.
‘The ontological argument has no value for the non-believer’ ideas of essay plan
-has no value because it does not prove the existence of God and they do not have faith. Similarly, believers don’t need it because they already have faith.
-Anselm wrote it as using reason to prove faith for believers as it was written as a meditative prayer
-non-believers have no adequate understanding of God and are looking for a being which they don’t understand so the argument will not meet their needs.
-it only proves the possibility of God, not his actual being in reality
-definitions of God vary too much today and the argument depends on a definition rather than evidence
BUT
-the ontological argument is deductive so if the premises are true, the conclusions must follow and therefore holds out the hope of a universal proof
-it is an a priori argument so has no premises from experiences so cannot be empirically refuted
-Bertrand Russell said ‘the ontological argument is sound!’ And therefore non beliebers often like to follow reason and put value on logic over faith so can use the ontological argument
Descartes’ ontological argument-explain
Rene Descartes 1596-1650 was a devout Roman Catholic philosopher but also a sceptic.
He considered the idea that we may all be dreaming, therefore doubting the existence of everything including himself.
Descartes then realised that ‘I think therefore I am’
He believed sense data to be very confusing in the argument.
He then jumped to saying that because God was in his mind then God needed to exist as well so he had an intuition for God. He could not make a concept of the perfect being as only the perfect being would out this idea into his head. God therefore has great power so is the supreme being and therefore has all possible perfection. He stressed the perfection of all his qualities and this must also include the perfect quality of his existence.
He then considered essential qualities of things such as a triangle must have three sides in order to be triangle. God is the same as he must be the supreme being to be God and must have the essential quality of existence in order to have supreme status.
Because God has existence, he must also be real. It would be a contradictory idea to suggest a supreme being of absolute perfection beyond all else would not have existence.
Criticisms of Descartes’ argument
Kant- existence is not a predicate. Your understanding is not bettered by knowing that it exists. Saying something exists makes no difference unless you then experience that thing in time and space e.g. you can say a horse exists but a unicorn doesn’t because you can experience the horse in time and space not because the unicorn doesn’t have the property of existence. He also believed that God was an infinite being beyond the understanding if finite humans.
Bertrand Russell- existence could not be a property, but an idea or concept. Saying something exists in only an extension to, not part of the description. Exist is not part of the essence of something it is an ideas which can be attached to it. Existence of anything is an existential issue and cannot be logically necessary.
Kant- criticised Descartes’ necessary beings theory. You can say that a triangle has three sides and you can understand therefore what a triangle is but this does not prove that the triangle also exists. If you remove the subject then it is default that the predicates will no longer exist too. It is the same with God, a triangle would have three sides if it existed, so God did exist he would have necessary existence. However, this does not prove that God exists in the first place. Davies shares this view.
Aquinas- we do not all share the same understanding of God. God is a priori so beyond our understanding as human beings. There is a lack of certainty as to what God truly is because we have different definitions of him, even if we feel we have an inborn concept of God. Aquinas therefore said that if we start with a confused, uncertain, incorrect concept of God, you cannot then use it prove that this being exists.
Anselm on faith
- believed you need both faith and reason to understand god, just reason would lead to error, your reason needed to guide faith to deepen understanding. ‘Nor do I seek to understand so that I believe but rather I believe so that I can understand
- vardy thinks proslogian is a prayer and Anselm wanted to understand the god he believed in
- Anselm didn’t want a blind faith, but one which engages with ideas
- when Anselm talks about faith he means ‘an active love’ for god which seeks deeper knowledge
- Anselm talks about belief in rather than belief that. Belief that implies you accept the statement but that you also have personal commitment to it. E.g, nicene creed- ‘I believe in the father almighty’
- Anselm’s aim is to understand god and to take people beyond the definition of the word to a deeper understanding
- begin with faith in order to engage with the definition of god before you use reason
