Lecture 18: God and Reason

LECTURE 18: GOD AND REASON

TODAY’S LECTURE

In today’s lecture we will:In today’s lecture we will:

1.1.Recap our investigation into Natural TheologyRecap our investigation into Natural Theology

2.2.Outline and evaluate three versions of the Outline and evaluate three versions of the ontological ontological argument for argument for God’s existenceGod’s existence

a)a) St. AnselmSt. Anselmb)b) DescartesDescartesc)c) MalcolmMalcolm

3.3.Discuss some of the traditional criticisms against the ontological Discuss some of the traditional criticisms against the ontological argumentargument

4.4.Examine the moral argument for God’s existenceExamine the moral argument for God’s existence

5.5.Conclude our rational investigation into God’s existenceConclude our rational investigation into God’s existence

TOPIC RECAP

RECAP

Natural TheologyNatural Theology

Does God exist?Does God exist?

So far we have investigated the claim in accordance with Natural So far we have investigated the claim in accordance with Natural TheologyTheology

Natural TheologyRevealed Theology

Knowledge of God through special revelation

Knowledge of God through the natural intellect

RationalismRationalism

““The view that affirms The view that affirms reasonreason, with its , with its interest in interest in evidenceevidence, , examinationexamination, ,

and and evaluationevaluation, as authoritative in all , as authoritative in all matters of belief and conduct”matters of belief and conduct”

((Miller, Ed L. Questions that Matter, 2009. p.10))

The BibleThe BibleMystical ExperienceMystical ExperienceThe ChurchThe ChurchMosesMosesThe Holy SpiritThe Holy Spirit

RECAP

Arguments considered so farArguments considered so far

The cosmological and teleological arguments both rely on the concept The cosmological and teleological arguments both rely on the concept of causalityof causality

Cosmological argumentCosmological argumentIf every event has a cause there must be a first causeIf every event has a cause there must be a first cause

Teleological argumentTeleological argumentIf there is complexity/purpose there must be an intelligent causeIf there is complexity/purpose there must be an intelligent cause

Both arguments begin with an Both arguments begin with an a posteriori a posteriori observationobservation

Logic, deduction, and a process of elimination are used to find the only Logic, deduction, and a process of elimination are used to find the only possible explanation for this observationpossible explanation for this observation

In both arguments God is used as a transcendent (outside of time and In both arguments God is used as a transcendent (outside of time and space) first causespace) first cause

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Anselm’s’ version of the ontological argumentAnselm’s’ version of the ontological argument

Textbook pp. 280-281Textbook pp. 280-281

How does Anselm define God?How does Anselm define God?

What does the example of the painter show?What does the example of the painter show?

Why must God exist?Why must God exist?

What is the relationship between the understanding and What is the relationship between the understanding and existence?existence?

What is wrong with the idea that God does not exist?What is wrong with the idea that God does not exist?Can we think of anything greater than God?Can we think of anything greater than God?


Anselm’s’ version of the ontological argumentAnselm’s’ version of the ontological argument

1.1. It is possible to conceive of a being “than which nothing greater can It is possible to conceive of a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived.”be conceived.”

2.2. If that being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists If that being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists only in the mind, then it is not the greatest being that can be only in the mind, then it is not the greatest being that can be conceived.conceived.

3.3. Therefore the possibility of conceiving a being than which nothing Therefore the possibility of conceiving a being than which nothing greater can be conceived entails the logical necessity of the real greater can be conceived entails the logical necessity of the real existence of such a being.existence of such a being.

4.4. This being than which nothing greater can be conceived it the being This being than which nothing greater can be conceived it the being we call God. we call God.


Descartes’ version of the ontological argumentDescartes’ version of the ontological argument

1.1.God, by definition, is that being which is absolutely perfectGod, by definition, is that being which is absolutely perfect

2.2.It is more perfect to exist than not to existIt is more perfect to exist than not to exist

3.3.Therefore, to conceive of God it is necessarily to conceive of him as Therefore, to conceive of God it is necessarily to conceive of him as existingexisting

4.4.Therefore, to say “God does not exist” is to contradict oneselfTherefore, to say “God does not exist” is to contradict oneself

5.5.Therefore, the sentence “God exists” is necessarily trueTherefore, the sentence “God exists” is necessarily true


Malcom’s version of the ontological argumentMalcom’s version of the ontological argument

1.1.God, is an unlimited beingGod, is an unlimited being

2.2.The existence of an unlimited being is either impossible or necessary.The existence of an unlimited being is either impossible or necessary.

3.3.The concept of an unlimited being is not self-contradictory, so such a The concept of an unlimited being is not self-contradictory, so such a being is not impossible.being is not impossible.

4.4.Therefore, such a being is necessary.Therefore, such a being is necessary.


The method of the ontological argumentThe method of the ontological argument

All argue that God must exist because he is perfectAll argue that God must exist because he is perfect

Ontological argument = Argument of existenceOntological argument = Argument of existence

All versions attempt to argue for God’s existence by using reason aloneAll versions attempt to argue for God’s existence by using reason alone

o They make no use of observationThey make no use of observationo Each begins by defining GodEach begins by defining Godo All versions proceed by ‘unpacking’ this definition of GodAll versions proceed by ‘unpacking’ this definition of Godo All versions argue that a necessary part of this definition is that All versions argue that a necessary part of this definition is that

God existsGod existso They argue that God must exist They argue that God must exist a prioria priori


a priori a priori argumentsarguments

Bachelor

Mammal

God

John is a bachelorAll bachelors are unmarried men

Therefore John is an unmarried man

Ella is a mammalAll mammals are warm blooded

Therefore John is an unmarried man

God is an XAll X’s must exist

Therefore God must exist

CRITICISMS OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

CRITICISMS

Criticisms of the ontological argument:Criticisms of the ontological argument:

Is it always more perfect to exist than not to exist?Is it always more perfect to exist than not to exist?

Is it better for the following to exist or not exist right here and now?Is it better for the following to exist or not exist right here and now?

A swarm of angry beesA swarm of angry bees

A million dollarsA million dollars

A ton of horse muckA ton of horse muck

A big buffet for everyone includingour favourite foodsA big buffet for everyone includingour favourite foods

CRITICISMS


‘‘Perfect’ PredicatesPerfect’ Predicates

Which of the following exists?Which of the following exists?

ExcaliburExcaliburHarry PotterHarry PotterUnicornsUnicornsFire-Breathing DragonsFire-Breathing DragonsDragonsDragons

And the following:And the following:

An absolutely perfect SwordAn absolutely perfect SwordAn absolutely perfect UnicornsAn absolutely perfect UnicornsAn absolutely perfect PizzaAn absolutely perfect PizzaAn absolutely perfect Desert IslandAn absolutely perfect Desert IslandAn absolutely perfect Ice-CreamAn absolutely perfect Ice-Cream

Just because we can add the predicate “perfect” doesn’t mean it must exist!

CRITICISMS


Existence is not a predicateExistence is not a predicate

SubjectSubject PredicatePredicate

My cakeMy cake is pinkis pinkhas a bunny on ithas a bunny on ithas lemon icinghas lemon icinghas a vanilla fillinghas a vanilla filling

ExistsExists

These predicates add to or change the subject

Claiming that a subject exists or not

does not alter or add anything to it

SUMMARY


What is the point of Natural Theology?What is the point of Natural Theology?

Few thinkers claim that we can know everything about what God isFew thinkers claim that we can know everything about what God is

Rational arguments, such as the ontological, cosmological, teleological Rational arguments, such as the ontological, cosmological, teleological arguments are attempting to see how far human reason can take us arguments are attempting to see how far human reason can take us towards knowledge of Godtowards knowledge of God

Few thinkers claim that rational arguments can replace religious beliefFew thinkers claim that rational arguments can replace religious belief

Advocates of natural theology see such arguments as worthwhile Advocates of natural theology see such arguments as worthwhile attempts at exploring the limits of human reasonattempts at exploring the limits of human reason

Rational arguments for God exists are then primarily an intellectual Rational arguments for God exists are then primarily an intellectual experimentexperiment

Next Lecture: We will investigate arguments claiming that using human reason alone is an inadequate or insufficient way to gain knowledge of God’s existence

Lecture 18: God and Reason

Documents

Transcript of Lecture 18: God and Reason