Chapter 3 - Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God (and Its Criticisms)

8/20/2019 Chapter 3 - Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God (and Its Criticisms)

1/23

OCR AS Philosophy and Ethics 1 Ancient Greek influences

This unit looks at four of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. The

Cosmological, Teleological and Moral Arguments seek to justify belief through things that

we can experience. The Ontological Argument suggests that God’s existence can be

demonstrated by reason alone.

The specific topics covered are:

• the Ontological Argument of Anselm and Descartes

• the criticisms of the Ontological Argument by Gaunilo and Kant

• the Cosmological Argument of Aquinas and Copleston

• the criticisms of the Cosmological Argument given by Hume and Russell• the Teleological Argument of Aquinas and Paley

• criticisms of the Teleological Argument given by Hume, Mill and Darwin

• the Moral Argument of Kant and criticism of Freud.

The following teacher notes link directly to the OCR specification, the OCR SOW and the

AS Philosophy and Ethics student book to provide complete support throughout the delivery

of the specification.

Links to the CD-ROM resources are provided throughout and worksheets to support the

activities follow these teacher notes as well as further exam support in the extended Exam

Caf é.

Introduction

A general discussion regarding whether students do or

do not believe in God and the reasons they may have

for their beliefs might be a good way into the topic.

What arguments are they aware of? This discussion

may or may not be appropriate depending on what has

been done at GCSE. Some students may be reluctant to

give their views to the whole class. More impersonal

questions such as ‘why do you think some people

do/don’t believe in God?’ may be a good way to draw

them into discussion without divulging their personal

views. This is a useful strategy for a number of topics

where the issue may be sensitive. The four sub-topics

in this unit can be taught in any order. One approach

may be to teach the topics alongside the challenges to

religious belief given in unit 4. The problem of evil

would follow the Teleological Argument. The issues

surrounding religion and science could follow either

the Teleological or Cosmological Argument.

The Teleological Argument

(lesson plan page 53, student book pages 52–53

!tarter

A kinaesthetic way into this topic is the jigsaw activity

given in the scheme of work and lesson plan 1. This

gives a crude illustration of the difference betweenintelligent action and chance. This could then lead on

to discussion of the key question: is a complex thing

like the universe more likely to be the product of

design or chance? Alternatively, ask students to bring

in examples of things that nature or humans have

designed, something that has beauty and so on (see

lesson plan 1).

The corresponding lesson plan activity has potential to

lead to interesting discussions. It is worth trying to draw

out what the key differences are between the objects and

why some things can be argued to be the work of God.

Key points may include the idea that things designed by

46

UNIT OVERVIEW


2/23


God show evidence of intelligence, they are beautifuland/or they are not caused by human beings.

"e#elopment and resources

Once students are clear on the Teleological Argument

in simple form (the opening paragraph on page 52 of

the student book is very useful in this respect), the

arguments of Aquinas and Paley can be considered.

The texts are available on the CD-ROM (‘Aquinas’

Five Ways’ and ‘William Paley extracts’), while pages

52–53 of the student book provide an accessibleintroduction to these thinkers and the activities

encourage students to summarise the ideas of these

philosophers in plain English – these activities can be

used to check understanding.

Aquinas

Aquinas’ argument is based on the order and regularity

that is observed within the universe. In addition to the

analogy of the arrow on page 52 of the student book,

another illustration that works quite well is the idea ofa garden. If you look at a garden and see that it is neat,

plants grow in rows and the grass is tidy, the order and

regularity of the garden suggests a gardener. Aquinas is

saying a similar thing about the universe.

Paley

Paley’s argument is slightly different and is based on

the notion that the way objects are put together enables

them to fulfil a purpose. He gives two examples of this,

the watch and the human eye, both of which are

detailed in the student book with accompanying

activities.

"ifferentiation

The student book material on pages 52–53 is accessible

to all students. There are original (and fuller) extracts

from Aquinas and Paley available on the CD-ROM

which will be of interest to higher ability students or

those who want to do further reading. It is well worth

students looking at the original text as Paley gives

several scenarios, such as the watch being broken, and

argues that there would still be evidence of design.

This may be useful as students in examinations oftengive the impression that they have only a vague

knowledge of Paley.

$lenar%&e'tension

The student book activities encourage students to write

out Aquinas’ and Paley’s arguments in plain English,

and this is a good opportunity to check their

understanding is correct.

ume)s criticisms of the

Teleological Argument

(student book pages 5*–55

!tarter

Explain to students that the easiest way for them to

understand Hume is through his empiricism: he only

believes what his senses tell him, hence he is sceptical

about all supernatural statements. Students could read

the introductory text on page 54 of the student book

and respond to the quotation from ‘Dialogues

Concerning Natural Religion’.


The student book (pages 54–55) goes into some detail

regarding Hume’s criticism of the Teleological

Argument and the weaknesses he sees in it. The

accompanying activities are designed to draw out

students’ understanding. The ‘For debate’ and

‘cabbage’ activities should prove engaging to all

abilities. This is further complemented by worksheet

3.1, which summarises Hume’s criticisms and asks

students to evaluate them. The final activity on page 55

of the student book consolidates this by asking students

to rank Hume’s criticisms. The second criticism on

worksheet 3.1 tends to be enjoyed by students as Hume

sarcastically draws out the conclusions of the design

analogies. Original extracts from the Dialogues are

also available on the CD-ROM for distribution as you

see fit. The CD-ROM also includes an additional

PowerPoint file outlining Hume’s key ideas, and the

task at the end of this file can be completed in

47


3/23

conjunction with the extracts from the Dialogues.

"ifferentiation

Students could either complete worksheet 3.1 as it is or

they could rank the criticisms if this is found to be

easier. Question 4 will provide some stretch and

challenge and could be left until after Mill and Darwin

have been studied. The textual extracts from the

Dialogues (available on the CD-ROM) are also well

worth looking at and may be distributed to the class or

to more able students as you see fit.

$lenar%

Hume believed that comparing the world to a man-

made machine was an invalid analogy. The world is

more like something organic (a vegetable even!). A

fun plenary could involve going round the group and

each student contributing a sentence to the statement:

‘The world is like a machine/ a plant because ...’. A

prize could be awarded for the most original

justification of a view.

+ill and "arin

(student book pages 5-–5.

!tarter

It is likely that some or all students will already have

some awareness of Darwin and his theories. Ask

students what they know, or think they know, about

Darwinian thought and its implications for religious

belief.


The text on pages 56–57 of the student book gives a

good summary of Darwinian theory. It is important that

students are able to explain how Darwin’s ideas affect

the argument from design and not just state his theory

of evolution. One way of enabling students to

consolidate work on Darwin is by producing a

PowerPoint® explaining his ideas on evolution and,

most importantly in this subject, how it affects this

argument.

The second activity on page 56 of the student bookserves a similar function in that it asks students to

bullet point Darwin’s case against the Teleological

Argument. The ‘For debate’ activity on page 57 is also

effective in getting students to consider how Darwinian

theory might actually strengthen the Teleological

Argument. As well as on page 57 of the student book,

there are extracts from Mill’s original writings,

together with a more detailed set of notes explaining

his ideas, on the CD-ROM. Mill agrees with Hume

about the imperfections within the world. This leadshim to conclude that there is a designer but not in the

traditional Christian sense. The designer could not be

both all powerful and all good. There is potential here

to make links with the problem of evil or to remind

students of Mill when they come to do this topic later.

"ifferentiation

The ‘Anthropic Principle’ worksheet, available on the

CD-ROM, is in addition to the limits of the

specification and is a ‘stretch and challenge’ sheet thatengages with the arguments of the 20th century

following on from Darwin. It is worth stressing to

students that even if Darwin is completely accurate on

evolution, this need not rule out the involvement of

God. Depending on time, there are some possible

research avenues and the potential for excellent

debates. The general rule of giving a little more time if

students are enthused may apply here.

$lenar%

A possible 5–10 minute plenary could involve the

teacher making a series of statements such as ‘human

beings are so complex, they have to be designed by

God’; ‘If Darwin is right, there can be no God’.

Students move on one side of the room if they agree

with the statement, the other if they don’t. Students

who are unsure could be allowed to remain in the

middle. If you have a little more time, you may wish to

invite students to present arguments to persuade others

to move.

48


4/23


A/uinas) 0osmologicalArgument criticisms of it

(student book pages *–*

!tarter

A kinaesthetic opening to this argument is the domino

rally task outlined in the scheme of work. Ask students

what causes each item to fall. It is worth labouring the

point until the start of the chain is reached. Students

will usually say that the person pushing the firstdomino or book caused the event. Ask what caused the

person to be there. Then what caused their parents to

be there and so on. It is quite easy to trace this back to

the start of the universe. Is there a first cause where the

chain of events starts? For religious believers the

answer is yes, the start of this chain is God.


It is worth making sure that students are clear on how

Cosmological Arguments differ from TeleologicalArguments before getting too far into this topic. The

Cosmological Argument is an argument about origins

and asks what caused the universe to exist and what

does its existence depend upon. The Teleological

Argument examines the quality of the universe and

asks how it appears to be so well designed.

Aquinas

Ways one, two and three of Aquinas’ Five Ways are all

Cosmological Arguments and are illustrated on page

49 of the student book (students can research the fourth

and fifth Ways as a stretch and challenge activity).

Aquinas’ first and second Ways are straightforward to

grasp and can be read easily. The original texts are

available on the CD-ROM for more in-depth study.

Aquinas’ third Way from contingency is a trickier

concept and requires more careful handling. Worksheet

3.2 is a light-hearted ‘way’ into this. If students can

understand that there are two types of existence, the

contingent and the necessary, they should grasp the

argument. Essentially, Aquinas argues that the

explanation of the universe, both in terms of its origins

and its continued existence, cannot be a contingentthing: so either nothing did it or a necessary being was

responsible – that necessary being is God.

Hume’s criticisms

Hume’s criticisms of Aquinas are presented on page

48–49 of the student book. The learning is further

consolidated by worksheet 3.3, which presents a

jumbled list of Hume’s criticisms for students to sort

and match against a simple Cosmological Argument.

Hume challenges all three points of the argument,including our seemingly common sense belief in the

principle of cause and effect.

49


5/23

"ifferentiationThe tasks on worksheet 3.3 may prove too challenging

for some students. Kinaesthetic learners may be able to

access this by role-playing the conversation in small

groups prior to writing.

$lenar%&e'tension

As a plenary or extension activity students could

discuss Hume’s views on causation: that we cannot be

certain of cause and effect; it may just be that we

associate two things by habit. One way to illustrate thisis to drop a ruler to the floor and ask what caused it to

fall. ‘The teacher did’ is the common sense view.

Hume, as an empiricist, would ask ‘what do you see?’.

The answer is two events: releasing the ruler then the

ruler falling. Hume argues that it is our mind that

assumes cause and effect. A similar example, but not

one suitable for carrying out in the classroom, is

provided in the student book to consolidate this point.

0opleston and 4ussell(student book pages 5–51

!tarter

Quickly recap, through class Q&A, the key principles

of the Cosmological Argument to check students are

familiar before tackling Copleston and Russell’s

encounter.


Students should read through pages 50–51 of the

student book, which include important extracts and key

points from the debate. The accompanying activities

consolidate the learning and enable you to check

understanding.

The transcript of the debate is available on the CD-

ROM, together with an audio file reconstruction of

some of the key sections.

More able students should be able to access some

extracts of the debate. Students could summarise the

views of the thinkers by imagining that they are

presenting a highlights programme (or as the studentbook puts it: ‘Philosophy Match of the Day’). Key

questions to reflect upon: who ‘won’ the debate? What

do you think and why? Is Russell answering or

avoiding the question in saying that the universe is just

a brute fact?

"ifferentiation

Some students will find the extracts of the debate

difficult to access. It may be worth sticking to the

student book pages 50–51 for these students. The keypoint to convey is that Copleston believes that all things,

including the universe, require an explanation. Russell

rejects this line of reasoning and does not consider the

origin of the universe to be a worthwhile question.

$lenar%

Students could summarise this topic by producing a

spider diagram showing the key ideas of each thinker

on this argument. Alternatively the idea for a strip

cartoon activity (page 51 of the student book) would

work well as a plenary and/or homework activity.

The +oral Argument from 6ant

and challenges from 7reud

(student book pages -–-3

!tarter

The topic could be introduced via a ‘right or wrong’

quiz where the teacher gives several actions and askswhether they are right or wrong. Focus on the areas

where all students agree that an action is wrong (e.g.

cannibalism, rape or setting fire to cats). What is it that

makes these actions wrong? Is it wrong? Are there

absolute values? Where do these values come from?

Alternatively the conversation between teacher and

student over the badly marked essay (worksheet 3.5)

could be the basis of discussion. The ‘For debate’

activity on page 60 of the student book could also be

used as a starter activity. Explain that MoralArguments suggest there are absolute values and these

cannot be explained without God.

50


6/23



Kant’s Moral Argument

Use the student book (pages 60–61) to outline Kant’s

argument and draw out the difference between

hypothetical and categorical imperatives. (It may also

be appropriate to review Kant’s ethics if this topic has

already been taught.) Students should be able to work

through worksheet 3.4 using differentiated resources,

including the student book. It is worth pointing out two

things that Kant does not do that often end upappearing on examination papers.

Firstly, note that Kant does not claim to prove God’s

existence. Rather he claims that if there is to be such a

thing as absolute morality, then freedom, immortality

and God’s existence have to be postulated. Hence the

Moral Argument is not a proof. Kant himself said that

God’s existence could never be proved: ‘I demolish

knowledge to make room for faith.’

Secondly, Kant’s Moral Argument is not a Divine

Command ethic. Although morality may suggest the

existence of God, it is not the case that God commands

things to be right or wrong. We are able to arrive at this

knowledge using our reason.

Freud

It may be possible to draw on the knowledge of

psychology students to give a general introduction to

Freud. His ideas appear in a very accessible form on

pages 62–63 of the textbook. There is an audio file that

gives an imaginary interview with Freud, as well as a

detailed PowerPoint®, on the CD-ROM with an

additional task at the end. The CD-ROM also includes

some original extracts from Freud. Together, these will

enable students to complete worksheet 3.5.

"ifferentiation

There is a great deal of material on worksheet 3.5 and

teachers will need to decide what is appropriate for

their groups and how the work should be organised.

Paired work or splitting the tasks between the groups

may be a means of differentiation.

The stretch and challenge activities on worksheet 3.5may be omitted, depending on time. However,

Dawkins’ high profile in the media may also give

students an interest in his view that morality is

something that evolves: those who ‘behave well’

towards others are more likely to pass on their genes.

51


7/23

$lenar%Discuss possible strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s

argument (weaknesses do not need to be limited to

Freudian criticisms). The ‘For debate’ activity on page

63 of the student book invites students to debate

whether ‘just because we know how we ought to

behave doesn’t mean there is a God.’ This could be a

good basis for discussion.

The 8ntological Argument and

criticisms of it(student book pages *2–*.

This is often felt by students to be the hardest topic on

the AS. Accordingly there are a number of worksheets in

this pack that aim at clarifying the key thinkers’ ideas.

!tarter

Review the difference between a priori and a

posteriori by issuing a set of statements. Which are

proved by logic? Which by experience? The

Ontological Argument is unusual. It claims that one

can know that God has to exist purely by logic in the

same way that 2 added to 2 has to be 4. Prior to

introducing them to the argument, I dramatically and

seriously inform my students that when they see this

argument, they will realise that God has to exist and

they will become regular visitors to their local church

or mosque.


Anselm and Gaunilo

It may be worth splitting Anselm’s arguments and

returning to the second argument after consideration of

Gaunilo’s objection. Although students must be made

aware that Anselm’s second argument is not written in

response to Gaunilo. One way of making students think

is to introduce Anselm’s argument in the last 5–10

minutes of a lesson. Invite students to think about the

argument and comment in the next lesson. Goodstudents often anticipate the objection of Gaunilo,

which is outlined on page 43 of the student book.

Page 42 of the student book includes an illustration ofAnselm’s first argument, while worksheet 3.6 provides

Anselm’s first argument in his own words. Students

could research and find the second version in his own

words, but the language is quite difficult in places.

Drawing (worksheet 3.7) or describing (student book

page 43) the perfect island can open up other elements

of discussion. All our islands are different. Do we have

different concepts of God? Which would be proved if

the argument worked? Worksheet 3.7 enables

clarification of Gaunilo’s views. He writes on behalf of

the fool in response to Anselm, who had quoted Psalm

14: ‘the fool says in his heart, there is no God.’

Anselm’s second argument (see pages 44–45 of the

student book) could be used to counter this as he

suggests that his argument can only work for a

necessary being. Students may consider this to be a

‘cop out’. It is worth pointing out that Gaunilo does

actually believe in God and is essentially adopting a

devil’s advocate role. Some students in examinationsthink that Gaunilo proves that perfect islands must

exist. Obviously he does not; he is using this argument

as an analogy to show the flaws in Anselm’s thinking.

Descartes

The information on page 45 of the student book gives a

good introduction to Descartes’ theory that existence is

a necessary part of the meaning of God. The activity on

composing analytic and synthetic sentences will prove

useful both in understanding Descartes and in

understanding Kant’s objections (worksheet 3.9).

Worksheet 3.8 enables students to further explore and

evaluate Descartes’ claim that God has to exist. It

follows the structure of Descartes’ argument in chapter 5

of his Meditations. Descartes starts by explaining certain

things that are necessary to triangles and mountains.

This enables him to define what the word necessary

means (it cannot not be true). He then goes on to apply

this to God. Descartes anticipates possible objections to

his argument and suggests that it can only apply to God.

Kant

52


8/23


(See worksheet 3.9.) Students need to understand thatthe statement ‘God has necessary existence’ is analytic

and can say nothing about whether God might exist. It

merely defines the concept. It will be useful to refer

students to page 46 of the student book to help them

understand this point: in particular Kant’s quotation

about the triangle.

The activities within worksheet 3.9 should enable you

to check whether the students have grasped the ideas of

this tricky thinker.

"ifferentiation

After working through the three possible arguments

against Descartes, most students should be ready to

tackle an examination style question. The Exam Caf é

in the textbook shows some answers of varying quality

to questions on the Ontological Argument. These

answers may give guidance to weaker students to draft

a reasonable answer to a question. More able students

should see these answers as a challenge: they can be

bettered!

More able students may wish to consider whether there

is any place for the Ontological Argument today by

researching modern versions such as those of Malcolm

and Plantinga.

$lenar%&consolidationStudents could produce a revision booklet giving the

key points of each thinker and strengths and

weaknesses. The Exam Caf é in this PDR contains

some blank templates that could be used to structure

students’ thoughts.

9'am 0af:

The Exam Caf é in the student book and in this PDR

reinforces the skills needed to succeed at this course.

The student book (page 64) gives the ‘seven deadly

sins’ committed in exams on these topics. It is well

worth getting students to look at these or some will

most likely repeat some of the errors. The revision

checklists can be used by students to get a feel for how

they are doing on each topic. There are sample answers

on an Ontological Argument part a) in the student

book. Material on the part b) is found in this PDR. As

always students may learn a lot from looking at these

answers and discussing what makes them good or not

so good as the case may be.

53


9/23

3 Traditional arguments for the e'istence of God OCR AS Philosophy and Ethics

;esson $lan< The Teleological Argument

0hapter 3< ;esson plan

Heinemann recognises that the teaching of this qualification will vary greatly from school to school and from

teacher to teacher With that in mind! this lesson "lan is offered as a "ossi#le a""roach #ut will #e su#$ect to

modifications #y the individual teacher %esson length is assumed to #e one hour

;earning ob=ecti#es for the lesson

O#$ective & 'tudents to understand the #asic "remise #ehind Teleological (rguments

O#$ective ) 'tudents to #e a#le to e*"lain +aley,s analogy in a clear and straightforward way

4ecap of pre#ious e'perience and prior knoledge

• Review of arguments for -od .o they #elieve in -od or not/ What reasons might "eo"le have for #elieving

in -od/ What reasons might other "eo"le have for not #elieving in -od/ The nature of this discussion will

de"end on students, e*"erience at -0'E 'ome may have a good 1nowledge of this already If good

discussion develo"s it may #e worth giving this e*tra time

0ontent

Time 0ontent

15 minutes Warm2u" activity reviewing the arguments for and against -od 3descri#ed a#ove4'tudents to summarise the discussion #y writing u" arguments "resented as a ta#le

1 minutes 'tudent activity5 $igsaws 'tudents are issued with sim"le $igsaws 3u" to )6786 "ieces4E*"lain that this is a rare chance to do an e*"eriment in R' 'ome grou"s attem"t tosolve the $igsaws #lindfolded 3or #y throwing "ieces u" in the air94 whereas others use their intelligence and sight It can #e treated as a race

1 minutes Review and discussion of activity Is it "ossi#le for the $igsaw to #e solved #lind orrandomly/ (re com"le* "u::les more li1ely to #e solved #y intelligence or chance/ Is acom"le* thing such as the universe more li1ely to #e designed or the "roduct of chance/Is the $igsaw a fair analogy/This discussion may #e worth giving more time to if students "articularly warm to itTeacher to write a sim"le Teleological (rgument on the #oard5 ;(ll com"le* things requireintelligence to #ring them a#out! the universe is a com"le* thing! therefore the universerequired intelligence to #ring it a#out,

15 minutes 'tudent activity5 issue a summary or e*tract of +aley,s watch analogy 'tudents read andsummarise his argument .o they acce"t his claims that the analogy still wor1s if we don,t1now what the o#$ect is! or if the watch is #ro1en/ Is it fair to com"are the universe to awatch/ 'tudents write down initial res"onses

0onsolidation

Time 0ontent

5 minutes Teacher to chec1 what has #een learned


10/23

OCR AS Philosophy and Ethics 3 Traditional arguments for the e'istence of God

3?10riticisms of the TeleologicalArgument b% "a#id ume

Hume (1711–76) criticised the design argument in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779). His arguments are based on his empiricism. This empiricism logically leads, for Hume, to

naturalism and scepticism. He argued that design is something that we perceive and assume. Even if

the world appears to be designed, this may just be due to our interpretation of the data that our

senses provide.

Summary of Hume’s criticisms

1. Humans do not have sufficient knowledge of the origins of the world to assume that there is only

one designer. As humans we only have experience of the things that we design and create. These

may not be an adequate analogy. We know that houses require a designer because we haveexperience of many houses being built. We only have experience of this universe. He argued that

it was impossible to draw conclusions about the whole from a small part. Also the universe is not

like a vast machine. It is more like a living thing such as a vegetable or inert animal, something

that grows of its own accord rather than something made by hand.

2. Even if design analogies were valid it would not necessarily follow that the designer was the

God of theism. Hume suggests that we might have the work of several lesser gods or an

‘apprentice’ god who went on to create bigger and better worlds or ‘the production of old age

and dotage in some superannuated deity.’ He speculates that there may be other worlds that are

not as good as this one, made whilst this God was practising.

3. Hume felt that people who believe in God project human beliefs onto a non-human world. He

argued that to discuss design in human terms is not an acceptable analogy on the grounds that

God by definition transcends understanding. If we use a human analogy it is more usual for a

machine to be the product of many hands rather than one designer.

4. Hume also used the ideas of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (the Epicurean Thesis). Epicurus

puts forward the possibility of infinite time. In infinite time there is a huge but finite number of

particles freely moving about. In infinite time, they go through every possible combination. If

any one combination happens to represent a stable order, it must occur. The very nature of a

stable order is that it must fit together well – it would have the appearance of design. It could be

in such a place that we find ourselves. Thus, apparent design could happen at random – there is

no necessity to infer a designer.

1. Find out what empiricism means. Why does it logically lead to scepticism and naturalism?

2. Explain why Hume thinks that the uniqueness of the universe prevents us from reaching

conclusions about its origin. Is his conclusion correct?

3. What are Hume’s conclusions about the designer, if there is one?

4. Why does he reach these conclusions? Assess whether his conclusion is correct.

5. Imagine that Hume was able to discuss the Teleological Argument with the other thinkers that

you have studied during this topic. Write a dialogue summarising their discussions. You are

allowed to use humour but not at the expense of content.

5* > $earson 9ducation ;td 2


11/23


3?2A/uinas) argument from contingenc%(third @a%

1. What is meant by contingent? Give an example of a contingent truth.

2. What is meant by necessary? Give an example of a necessary truth.

Aquinas argues that:

> There are things which are contingent; they may or may not exist. They do not have to exist.

> ontingent things are !inite. They come into existence and then "ass o#t o! existence.

> $t is im"ossi%&e !or contingent things to have a&ways existed; there m#st have %een a time whenno contingent things existed.

> '#t things that %egin to exist on&y do so when ca#sed %y something that a&ready exists.

> The "revio#s two "oints &ead to the concsion that nothing exists now( %#t this is a%s#rd.)o there m#st %e in existence something that is necessary.

> This %eing derives its necessity !rom itse&!( it does not de"end on anything e&se and isres"onsi%&e !or a&& things. This is the conce"t that "eo"&e re!er to as *od.

3. Write a dialogue similar to that between Stu and Lou with the aim of explaining the rest of thisargument.

> $earson 9ducation ;td 2 55

Stu: Things don’t have to be the way they are, it could be different.

Lou: You appear to be considering the idea of contingency, colleague. For instance, I currently exist

but I don’t have to. Had my parents not met I would not exist at all. This prompts philosophers to

suggest that all things in this world are contingent.

Stu: So although I have never had a girlfriend, it doesn’t have to be this way?

Lou: Technically yes, but bad example, my friend.

Stu: Great! I’m going to find my maths teacher. She has marked my homework incorrectly.

Lou: How come?

Stu: I worked out that triangles have 4 sides. She said it was wrong! Now I have philosophical

evidence that it doesn’t have to be wrong.

Lou: Your maths and your love life are equally embarrassing, colleague. It is a necessary truth that

triangles have 3 sides. It is a statement that cannot be false. Still, at least you’re only contingently

stupid!


12/23


3?3ume)s criticisms of the 0osmologicalArgument

A simple Cosmological Argument would say: all events have a cause→ there must be a firstcause→ that first cause is God.

Hume’s criticisms of this argument

> +e cannot esta%&ish !or certain the "rinci"&e o! ca#se and e!!ect. ,#me arg#es that we see event- !o&&owed %y event '. This does not "rove that - ca#ses '.

> rom an e!!ect( we cannot in!er a ca#se greater than that re/#ired to "rod#ce the e!!ect. +e

o%serve a wor&d that is im"er!ect and &imited !inite. There!ore it might %e more &ogica& to say

that the ca#se is a&so !inite !inite ca#ses are &ie&y to "rod#ce !inite e!!ects. $n !act( why not say

that the wor&d is ca#sed %y ma&e and !ema&e *ods who are %orn and who die

> id $ show yo# the "artic#&ar ca#ses o! each individ#a& in a co&&ection o! twenty "artic&es o!

matter( $ sho#&d thin it very #nreasona%&e( sho#&d yo# a!terwards as me( what was the ca#se o!

the who&e twenty. This is s#!!icient&y ex"&ained in ex"&aining the ca#se o! the "arts. This is the

a&&acy o! om"osition. ,#mes "oint is that i! we now a%o#t ca#ses within the #niverse( we

do not a&so need to ex"&ain the #niverse as a who&e. #sse&& a&so maes this "oint it is one thing

to say that every h#man %eing has a mother( %#t we cannot move !rom this to say that there is a

mother !or the who&e h#man race.

> o statement a%o#t existence can %e &ogica&&y necessary. -ny %eing c&aimed to exist may or maynot exist. This is %ased on ,#mes !or. To say that a statement is necessary means that its

o""osite wo#&d %e a &ogica& contradiction. :et it is "ossi%&e to say that *od does not exist( it is

not &ie saying that triang&es have !o#r sides.

> +hy may not the materia& #niverse %e the necessari&y existent 'eing... +e dare not a!!irm that

we now a&& the /#a&ities o! matter. ,#me arg#es that one o! the "ro"erties o! matter might %e

that it has to exist and cannot "ass o#t o! existence !or a&& we now. )o the #niverse itse&! may

%e necessary.

> -n in!inite series o! ca#ses is "ossi%&e. oes the chain o! ca#ses have to end somewhere $! the#niverse were eterna&( it wo#&d %e a%s#rd to ta& o! it having a ca#se.

1. Rewrite Hume’s criticisms in your own words, placing them in three separate groups according

to which premise of our simple argument they are attacking.

2. Which of his arguments are successful and why? Try to draft a response to Hume’s arguments

that would be made by a theist.

4. Write 1–2 paragraphs on your views on whether Aquinas’ or Hume’s arguments are stronger.

5- > $earson 9ducation ;td 2


13/23


3?* The +oral ArgumentUse the student book together with your class notes to work through these tasks.

1. Sentences a) to j) are either true or false. Copy or correct them accordingly.

a) Kant believed that the Moral Argument proves the existence of God.

b) He believed that morality is a rational thing which gives everyone an obligation as to what is

right and wrong.

c) His principle of universal law was a categorical imperative.

d) A categorical imperative is a principle that you follow in order to achieve something.

e) A categorical imperative logically has to be obeyed.

f) For morality to exist we have to assume freedom, God and immortality.

g) Kant believed that the aim of morality is to obey God’s commands.

h) To say that we ‘ought’ to do something implies that we can.

i) The Summum Bonum is possible, but not in this life.

j) This highest good requires the existence of God and a ten-year period after our deaths.

2. Explain carefully why freedom is necessary for there to be any morality. Kant argues that ‘ought

implies can’. What does he mean?

3. What is the Summum Bonum and why does Kant suggest that this requires an unlimited time?

4. Why does Kant believe that the notion of Summum Bonum implies the existence of God?

5. Kant has come up with an explanation of why we have morality. What other explanations mightthere be? How would these affect his argument?

6. Make a table of the strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s argument. Aim to cover 3–4 of each.

Exam practice

Look at the OCR specification for the Moral Argument, together with past examination questions.

Working in pairs, try to devise two possible exam questions. Draft bullet-pointed answers to your

questions.

> $earson 9ducation ;td 2 5.


14/23


3?5 0riticisms of the +oral ArgumentCriticism 1: Freud

One possible line of attack against Moral Arguments generally is to find an alternative explanation

of morality. This is precisely what Sigmund Freud attempted to achieve. Freud’s view of religion is

influenced by Feuerbach’s theory that God is wish fulfilment. Religion is a ‘universal obsessional

neurosis, an illusion that we construct psychologically. Our mind is made up of Id, Ego and Super-

ego. The Super-ego is the source of our morality.’

1. Using the student book and the resources on the CD-ROM, produce some detailed notes on

Freud’s criticism of the Moral Argument by elaborating on the themes that are in bold.

Criticism 2: Moral Relativism

Perhaps more common is the approach that says there is no absolute morality by arguing from the

fact of moral and cultural relativism. The following conversation, between a teacher who has just

given a U to a student who has written an excellent essay arguing that there is no such thing as

morality, may bring this approach into question.

Who do you think is right in the above argument? Must the student accept that there are actualmoral values in order to win the argument?

Other criticisms

2. Stretch and challenge: in pairs, research one of the areas below and present it to the class.

> arxs view that o#r %e&ie!s a%o#t mora&ity are ca#sed %y society.

> awins %io&ogica& ex"&anation o! mora&ity.

> -yers view that mora& $earson 9ducation ;td 2

Student: Excuse me, Sir, but this mark seems a little harsh. In fact, I notice that you gave an A

to Charlotte’s essay, which was quite similar, so mine should have got a similar mark.

Teacher: That would require the assumption that I was marking fairly.

Student: You seem to be picking on me, this is the third U this year. It’s unfair!

Teacher: You’re right, I am being most unfair.

Student: So, you admit you are behaving wrongly towards me. This is appalling!

Teacher: Ironic! I seem to remember you arguing that there was no such thing as right and wrong.

Yet your outrage at my discrimination against you suggests that you do, in practice,

think that some things are right or wrong.


15/23


3?- Anselm)s 8ntological ArgumentRead the extract below from Proslogion chapter 2 and answer the questions that follow.

‘ And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no

such kind of thing, for “the fool said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly

that same fool, having heard what I just said, “something greater than which cannot be thought,”

understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it

exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person’s thought and quite another for the

person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that

picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has

painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is

compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because

he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that

greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought

it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than

which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be

thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is

obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly

exists both in thought and in reality.’

1. Write Anselm’s definition of God in your own words.

2. What does Anselm think that even the fool has to admit?

3. Why does he think ‘that greater than which cannot be understood’ can’t just exist in the mind?

4. Why does God have to exist, according to Anselm?

5. What does it mean to call this an a priori argument?

Now read this modern paraphrase of Anselm’s second argument from Proslogion 3:

‘Come to think of it, God so exists that He cannot be thought not to exist. Given that God can’t

logically be thought not to exist, He is greater than all things that do exist but can be thought of as

not existing. In fact if God could be thought of as not existing then he is not “that than which no

greater can be thought.” And the definition would be contradictory. God has to exist and cannot be

thought of as not existing. By definition it is not possible for Him not to be.’

6. Does this help to improve the argument? Give a reason for your answer.

> $earson 9ducation ;td 2 5


16/23


3?. Gaunilo)s criticism of AnselmIt’s not very often that you are given permission to daydream in class. Spend a few minutes drawingyour perfect holiday island. When you return from your dreaming, the argument on this page may

give you some pleasant news!

1. Explain Gaunilo’s objection in your own words (2–3 sentences).

2. Gaunilo doesn’t really believe in the island’s existence. He is using a device known as reductio

ad absurdum.

Find out what reductio ad absurdum means and explain how Gaunilo’s argument is a good exampleof it.

3. Why does Gaunilo entitle his response ‘On behalf of the Fool?’

4. Anselm thought that he could counter Gaunilo’s objection and had possibly already done so in

his second argument. How could Anselm respond?

5. Who has the stronger argument, Anselm or Gaunilo? Give a reason for your answer.

- > $earson 9ducation ;td 2

Gaunilo’s reply to Anselm

‘For example, they say there is in the ocean somewhere an island which, due to the difficulty (or

rather the impossibility) of finding what does not actually exist, is called “the lost island.” And they

say that this island has all manner of riches and delights, even more of them than the Isles of the

Blest, and having no owner or inhabitant it is superior in the abundance of its riches to all other

lands which are inhabited by men.

‘If someone should tell me that such is the case, I will find it easy to understand what he says, since

there is nothing difficult about it. But suppose he then adds, as if he were stating a logical

consequence, “Well then, you can no longer doubt that this island more excellent than all other

lands really exists somewhere, since you do not doubt that it is in your mind; and since it is more

excellent to exist not only in the mind but in reality as well, this island must necessarily exist,

because if it didn’t, any other island really existing would be more excellent than it, and thus that

island now thought of by you as more excellent will not be such.”

‘If, I say, someone tries to convince me through this argument that the island really exists and thereshould be no more doubt about it, I will either think he is joking or I will have a hard time deciding

who is the bigger fool, me if I believe him or him if he thinks he has proved its existence.’


17/23


3? "escartes) 8ntological ArgumentRené Descartes’ version of the Ontological Argument is in some ways clearer than that of Anselm.

Stage 1: Explain what ‘necessary’ means

Descartes argues that we cannot (logically) conceive of a triangle without it having three angles; nor

can we think of a mountain without a valley. These ideas are necessary to the definition of the

words. In the same way there are certain ideas that are necessary to the definition of God.

Stage 2: Give your argument

Descartes’ argument can be simplified as follows:

> *od %y de!inition is a s#"reme&y "er!ect %eing.

> - s#"reme&y "er!ect %eing has a&& "er!ections.

> >xistence is one o! these "er!ections.

> There!ore *od has existence( he exists.

Therefore, according to Descartes, we cannot think of God without conceiving of him as existing.

We may not ever think of God but if we do, we will work out by logic and reason that he has to

exist. It is necessary. Descartes admits that we may be slightly stunned by this and think that he has

tricked us but he is adamant that he hasn’t.

Stage 3: Why this argument absolutely works!

Descartes attempted to guard against the sort of attack that Gaunilo developed against Anselm. He

says that:

> The arg#ment can on&y wor !or a "er!ect and necessary %eing it cannot( there!ore( %e a""&ied

to something &ie a &ost is&and.

> ot everyone has to thin o! *od( %#t i! they do thin o! *od then *od cannot %e tho#ght not to

exist.

> *od a&one is the %eing whose essence= entai&s *ods existence. There cannot %e two or more

s#ch %eings.

* Essence means the characteristics or properties of a thing.

> $earson 9ducation ;td 2 -1


18/23


3?"escartes) ontological argument(continued

Look at the following arguments. Summarise them in your own words and consider how

effective they are as criticisms by responding to the questions below.

a) Aquinas had previously rejected precisely the point that Descartes wants to make. Descartes

says we can know God’s essence and therefore we can say that God must exist. Aquinas

does not think that God's essence is knowable to us.

1. Do you think this is true and, if so, how would this affect Descartes?

b) A philosopher named Gassendi criticised Descartes in a similar way to Gaunilo’s criticism of

Anselm. Gassendi suggests that if Pegasus is by definition a perfect horse then Pegasus mustexist. Descartes disagreed by arguing that triangles, mountains and God are real ideas

whereas Pegasus and the Perfect Island are made up.

2. Has Descartes successfully avoided the Gaunilo-Gassendi type argument or is his argument

circular in presuming what can and cannot exist? What do you think?

c) Maybe Descartes is right: it is impossible to have a triangle without it having three angles,

just as it is impossible to have a spinster who is not female: the predicates* follow from the

subjects. However, all this tells us is something about the idea of a triangle and not about

whether there are any triangles. I could say that ‘It is necessary for a unicorn to have a horn’and this may indeed be true, but this does not prove there are any unicorns.

d) Russell argued that only propositions can be necessary. Statements regarding existence must

always be contingent. A being may or may not exist. A bachelor has to be an unmarried man

(but this merely defines the concept, it does not tell you whether bachelors actually exist).

3. What do you think?

4. Is Russell correct or would God be a ‘special case’?

* Look up the meaning of the word ‘predicate’. It will be useful when we go on to study Kant’s objection.

-2 > $earson 9ducation ;td 2


19/23


3?6ant)s criticism of the 8ntologicalArgument

Kant’s argument part 1: Two types of statements

In certain phrases meanings are implied by the choice of certain words. For example, bicycle

implies two wheels. We do not need to say ‘a two-wheeled bicycle’. If we do say this, we add

nothing new to our understanding. A bicycle logically has two wheels. Kant calls this an ‘analytic

statement ’: one in which we learn nothing new about the world.

Kant distinguishes these from ‘synthetic statements’, which tell us something about the real world.

Examples of synthetic statements would be: ‘It is raining outside’, or ‘The car is blue’. These

statements can be verified or falsified by experience.

1. Check that you understand the difference between analytic and synthetic statements. Give an

example of an analytic and a synthetic statement for each of the following:

a) A bachelor. b) A triangle. c) A black box.

When we say that God is a necessary being, we are making an analytic statement. Necessary

existence is part of our concept/idea of God, but tells us nothing about whether God actually

exists. We end up saying no more than, ‘If God exists, then his existence is necessary’. So Kant

argues that the Ontological Argument is based on a mistake. So what is the mistake?

Kant’s argument part 2: Existence is not a predicate

2. Look at the subject and predicates below. What do you think is unusual about the last one?

(subject) (predicate) (verb + object)

The boy kicks the ball/dances madly for 28 hours without stopping/exists.

Kant said existence is not a predicate. It is not a property that a concept either has or does not

have. In adding existence to a concept we do not describe the idea any further. So Kant presents

the Ontological Argument with a possibly fatal challenge. If God’s necessary existence is an

analytic statement, then it is a definition and tells us nothing about whether he actually exists. If

it is a synthetic claim, then there is nothing necessary about God’s existence as only analytic

statements would have logical necessity. All statements about existence are synthetic.

3. What do you think? Write a paragraph giving your views on whether Kant’s criticism defeats

the Ontological Argument.

> $earson 9ducation ;td 2 -3


20/23

3+ore arguments

for God

Get the result!

Matt’s answer:

-* 9'am 0af: > $earson 9ducation ;td 2

Anselm’s Ontological Argument is meant to

prove the existence of God. Anselm thought

that if you had an idea of God in your mind,

then God would have to exist in reality in order

to be the greatest conceivable being. Descartes

would agree with Anselm that God’s existence is

a logical necessity. So God has to exist. Gaunilo

disagreed with Anselm. Gaunilo argued that we

might have an idea of the perfect island, this

doesn’t mean it has to exist. So Gaunilo would

argue that God’s existence is not logically

Exam question

(b) Evaluate the claim that God’s existence is not a logical necessity. (10 marks).

Another argument against the Ontological

Argument is from ant. ant argued that

existence is not a predicate. !his shows that

Anselm’s argument is false. !herefore this

shows that the Ontological Argument does not

prove the existence of God.

Some philosophers thin" that the Ontological

Argument can wor" because God is very

different from all other things in the universe so

it might be that God has to exist but # don’t

thin" that this is the case.

The e'aminer sa%s<

There is not a lot here a#out

;necessity, ?att seems to #e

answering this as a general

;(ssess the Ontological

(rgument, question The first

two sentences leave the

e*aminer to ma1e the

connection How does @ant

show that (nselm is wrong/ (

counterargument is given ;I

don,t thin1, is an assertion if itis not #ac1ed u" with an

argument

The e'aminer sa%s<

?att is answering this question

#ut is doing so indirectly He

seems to #e e*"laining the

arguments of the thin1ers This

shows he understands the

Ontological (rgument #ut he

should remem#er that this is an

(6) question He should #e

considering and discussing the

argument rather than $ust hinting

at it Aor instance! saying that.escartes would agree isn,t

really an argument If he could

un"ac1 some of these ideas in a

little more detail! this would turn

a reasona#le answer into a

good one He also

misre"resents (nselm,s

argument that! if you understand

the conce"t of -od! you realise

he must e*ist ?att seems to #e

imagining -od into e*istence


21/23

3+ore arguments

for God

Zahid’s answer:

> $earson 9ducation ;td 2 9'am 0af: -5

ant would also agree that the existence of God

is not a logical necessity. $point% &e argued that

existence is not a predicate. ant explained that

to say that something has existence does not

add anything to the concept. !o say that God is

all powerful would add information to the

concept of God. &owever existence does not add

anything to the concept or idea of God. #t is part

of the sub'ect. $explanation% !his responded to

the argument of Descartes who had previously

stated that existence was a property necessary

to the concept of God. $Other point of view%

#t seems that ant is (uite correct to argue that

matters concerning existence are synthetic and

could only be verified by sense experience.

)oncepts and ideas tell us nothing about what

actually exists. As in *aths, to say that a

pentagon has + sides does not mean that there

are any pentagons existing anywhere within the

world. $conclusion and example%

The e'aminer sa%s<

I have annotated "arts of

Bahid,s answer that are

"articularly good ?y "oints are

in Csquare #rac1etsD

These are the second and third

"aragra"hs of Bahid,s answer

The first "aragra"h of his

answer loo1ed at -aunilo,s

argument Why not try writing

it/

Matt: ‘I know now that I need

to read the question more

carefully and not just launch

into my pre-prepared list of

strengths and weaknesses of

the topic.’

Zahid: ‘I am pleased with my

mark. I used the Exam af! as

well as guidance from my

teacher to impro"e my

technique on part #$ question.’

The e'aminer sa%s<

I have annotated "arts of

Bahid,s answer that are

"articularly good ?y "oints are

in Csquare #rac1etsD

These are the second and third

"aragra"hs of Bahid,s answer

The first "aragra"h of his

answer loo1ed at -aunilo,sargument Why not try writing it/


22/23

3+ore arguments

for God

Once you have filled out this diagram, why not create similar charts to help you revise the other topics you

have studied?

-- 9'am 0af: > $earson 9ducation ;td 2

8ntological

Arguments

Anselm)s first #ersion

Anselm)s second #ersion

"escartes) #ersion

+odern #ersions (e'tension


23/23

3+ore arguments

for God

Once you have filled out this diagram, why not create similar charts to help you revise the other topics you

have studied?

0hallenges to the

8ntological Argument

Gaunilo)s challenge

6ant)s challenge

8ther challenges

+% #ie on the argument

and h%???

Chapter 3 - Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God (and Its Criticisms)

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 3 - Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God (and Its Criticisms)