The Ontological Argument. An argument of two halves.

160
The Ontological Argument

Transcript of The Ontological Argument. An argument of two halves.

An argument of two halves ...

Learning Objectives

To know the two halves of Anselm’s ontological argument

To understand why he felt that it was impossible to NOT accept that God exists

What do we know so far?

TTWNGCBC Existence is a property It is greater to exist than not exist The greatest possible being must be great

in every possible wayAnd that includes existing

Who’s the greatest?

GOD ZOG

Love 10/10 7/10

Power 10/10 9/10

Knowledge 10/10 5/10

Existence 0/10 10/10

A word about Proslogion

Argument for the existence of God or a prayer to GodDevout exploration of faith

Doesn’t only offer argument for existenceAlso the attributes of God

TTWNGCBC

“Aliquid quo nihil maius possibit”

God is a being that cannot be improved upon. To think of a greater being means that being is God.

To sum up

If God exists in the mind only (in intellectu) alone then a greater being could exist in both the mind and reality (in re)

Proslogion 2

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1)

Contradiction of the atheist

The fool understands the claim that God exists

Does not believe that God exists

It all boils down to ...

Anyone who claims to understand what it means to say that God exists must have knowledge of God

Whatever is understood must exist in the understanding

The painter

In Proslogion 2 Anselm uses the following illustration The painter knows what he is going to paint

before he paints it It exists in his understanding When he paints it it then exists

in his understanding and in reality

Be careful

Anselm is NOT saying ‘because I think of God he must exist’

‘Anselm IS saying: ‘It is when I think of him I realise the necessity of God’s existence. Existence imposes itself on my thoughts – rather than my thoughts imposing existence of God’

Reductio ad absurdum

Argument Suppose God only exists in one’s

understanding Then God could be greater by existing in

reality This means that a greater God is possible

– one that exists in reality

Reductio as absurdum

This means that a greater God is possible – one that exists in reality

A contradiction of the definition of God? Therefore the opposite conclusion must be

true

Reductio as absurdum

Anselm has faith in the existence of God

Logic tells us that it would be absurd to think otherwise

2nd part of Anselm’s argument

Existence alone is not enough: that would make God like us

God’s existence is necessary

God’s necessary existence

Nothing greater than God can be conceived It is greater to exist as a necessary being than

a contingent being If God exists only as a contingent being then a

greater being can be imagined: a necessary being

This necessary being would be greater than God Therefore God must be a necessary being and

exist in reality

God’s necessary existence

God is a being with necessary existence

“What art thou, then, Lord God, than whom nothing greater can be conceived?

The difference between the fool and the believer

To recap

Existence is a perfection It is better to exist in re than in intellectu According to Anselm you CANNOT

truthfully say God doesn’t exist in realityA contradiction

God as understood hypothetically must have every possible perfection

To recap

An a priori argumentGod’s existence is tied up with the concept of

him Cannot have the concept of God without

being compelled to accept his existence Cannot deny his existence without having

the concept of himOne cannot be an atheist without

contradiction

To recap

The fool has thought what cannot be thoughtHis thinking is incoherent and self-

contradictoryHe only knows the word God, not God himself

That God exists is true by definition

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers

11th century Benedictine Monk Thesis: ‘In Behalf of the Fool’ Anselm’s argument fails because the

same kind of logic would force you to conclude that many things exist which certainly do not.

Anselm’s argument

1. God is that being than which no greater can be conceived.

2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

3. If God does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater being, that is one that does exist.

4. Therefore, God must indeed exist in reality.

5. Therefore, He exists.

Gaunilo’s argument

1. The Lost Island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.

2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

3. If the Lost Island does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.

4. Therefore, the Lost Island must indeed exist in reality.

Criticisms of Gaunilo

Look at the description of the islandThe more riches and delicacies it has the

better it is No maximum amount of these that an

island can have Therefore it will ALWAYS be possible to

imagine a greater island Therefore the concept of a ‘perfect’ island

is incoherent – there can be no such thing

Plantinga and Gaunilo

The concept of TTWNGCBC does not apply to an island in the same way as it applies to God

Anselm’s argument ONLY applies to GodA necessary beingThe greatest conceivableThe greatest possible

Rene Descartes

1596-1650 Set out his argument in his Meditations Pondered on the nature of existence Cogito ergo sum

Doubted he knew anythingThen realised that the ONLY thing he

could know was that he was thinkingConcluded I think, therefore I am

Rene Descartes’ argument

Because God is a supremely perfect being he possesses all perfections

This perfect state includes existence, which is a perfection in itself. Existence is a predicate of a perfect being

Therefore God exists

Objects and predicates

There are some things an object must have to be that object

Triangle must have three sides Bachelors must be unmarried And so God must have existence

It is inconceivable any other way!

Descartes clarification

1. The argument cannot be applied to objects affected by time and space.

2. It can only apply to something that is perfect

3. Only God can have absolute perfection – there cannot be two absolutes

Take THAT, Gaunilo!

Descartes on the existence of God To deny the existence of God is as absurd as

saying ‘the existing such and such does not exist’ (Mackie)

All other arguments to establish the existence of things – unicorns (Russell), Hobbits (Maltby(!)) – try to establish the necessary existence of contingent objects

Only an absolute perfect being can have the necessary existence

Analyse the reasoning of the ontological argument as presented by Anselm, and explain its purpose.

AO1 – 30 marks

“Gaunilo presents a convincing counter argument to Anselm”

To what extent do you agree with this claim

AO2 – 20 marks

Aquinas

No certainty that the human mind has the correct concept of GodHe is beyond human understandingOur mere ideas cannot prove his existenceExistence of God is not self-evident

Even if we do have an idea it is confused

Aquinas

God is beyond human understanding What type of argument is his cosmological

argument? What type of argument is the ontological

argument? A priori arguments to prove God fail

Because we cannot define God Know him through his work

Hume

Twofold objections1. Cannot take an idea in your mind, apply

logic to it, and reach a conclusion based on the external, observable universe.

2. Like Kant existence cannot be treated as a predicate

Objection 2

The description of a thing can contain every possible detailTo determine if something exists we must go

BEYOND the description A thing cannot be ‘defined into existence’

Assumed perfection cannot be proof ofexistence

PQRS

S = Semi-conclusionMake sure you’ve explained YOUR position in

the light of the careful analysis you’ve just done

Remember the independent thought requirementMake sure you refer to the specific question

that was asked

Analyse the reasoning of the OA PQRS

What did Anselm mean?Example of understanding a concept without

accepting existenceDoes anyone disagree with him?Would this logic and reasoning persuade an

atheist to convert?

Analyse the reasoning of the OA PQRS

What do you think? Careful of wording in an AO1 question

Is the reasoning logical?Does Anselm succeed in putting forward a

good argument?Remember to refer back to the question!

Starter

OBJECT KEY FEATURESnow

Fire

An even number

A bachelor

A duffle coat

A person

God

What is a predicate?

Something that adds to the property of a subject

Every complete sentence contains a subject and a predicate

John laughed Peter walks the dog The audience littered the floor with torn

wrappings and spilled popcorn

Why did Kant NOT think existence was a predicate? When we talk about something we

assume it exists. I have a coat. It is red I have a coat. It exists and it is red.

Existence is assumed Saying that the coat exists doesn’t tell us

anything additional about the coat.

So ...

... existence is nota predicateor a perfection (who said it was?)

If we were to describe our concept of God and then add ‘and he exists’ we would not have gained any extra knowledge or deepened our understanding of the concept of God

Really?

Yes! A God that exists might be more useful

than one that doesn’t exist But knowing that he exists doesn’t add to

the essence of GodWhich is what a predicate doesWhat are the predicates of God?

So where does that leave the ontological argument? Dead in the water, you could say! If existence is not a perfection or a

predicate:Ontological argument gives no reason for God

to exist.

What do you think?

Existence as a synthetic proposition God cannot be placed in a separate

category to everything elseWhat does Anselm say about this?

Gives a synthetic proposition the status of an analytical propositionAssertion is contained within the definition

All spinsters are unmarried A square is a four-sided figure with equal

sides

To sum up (Kant)

Existence is not a predicate Existence is not a perfection Existence does not add to our understanding

of an object Anselm tries to turn a synthetic proposition

into an analytical one

The meaning of ‘exist’ - Russell

If existence were a predicate youwould get the following syllogismMen exist in the worldSanta Claus is a manTherefore Santa Claus exists

Syllogism – deductive argument moving from the

general to the specific

Valid ... but ...

Russell’s example

‘Dragons do not exist’

‘A cow is a quadruped with udders etc’

The fact that a cow exists is an extension to the description, not part of the description

Of all the things that exist a dragon is not one of themWe have the idea of what the

word ‘dragons’ means

Intention and extension

Puts the ontological argument in different terms

Intention of a phraseThe description arrived at through labelling

and defining something TTWNGCBC

The totality of everything that can be conceived my the human mind about God

But does it have an extension (can I add to it)?

To sum up (Russell)

Existence cannot be a predicate Existence is not a property of things, but

the idea of things Russell supports Anselm’s claim that God

is the greatest thing we can think of Does not support Anselm’s belief that

this proves God’s existence

First and second order predicates Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) First order predicates

Apply direction to objects John’s horses are brown All cats are mammals

Provide information about the relation of two concepts

Whatever falls under the concept of a catis a mammal

First and second order predicates Second order predicates

Apply to first order predicates and notto the object itself

Mammals exist Cats exist

Not about any particular mammal or cat but about the concepts of mammals and cats

And God?

Existence is not a first-order predicateDoes not tell us about the nature of something

Existence is not a second-order predicateDoes not add to our understanding of the

concept Therefore existence cannot be used as

a predicate to prove the existence ofGod.

Elisabeth Anscombe

Proslogion is NOT an ontological argument

It never states that existence is a predicateWhere did this idea come from if it wasn’t from

Anselm? Where does this leave Mackie?

(Just because we can think of something doesn’t mean it exists)

Elisabeth Anscombe 2 translations of Proslogion1. ‘And surely, that than which no greater can be

conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.’

2. ‘And surely, that than which no greater can be conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it is only in the mind, what is greatercan be thought to be in reality as well.’

Implies existence is a predicate of greatness

Implies that something is better if it exists in the mind and reality

Norman Malcolm

Could not support Anselm’s first argumentNot valid as existence is not a characteristic

Supported Anselm’s second argumentConcept of God is concept of a being whose

existence is necessary It is not possible to think of a being that

necessarily exists, not existingTherefore, Malcolm argues, God must exist

Norman Malcolm

Argues that the only reason why a greatest-conceivable being wouldn’t exist would be because the concept named something whose existence was impossible.

Anselm is talking about an impossible God or a necessary being Therefore if God is possible then God exists

And so …

… we reach the end of the ontological argument

Next … the issues arising Does it have value for the non-believer? Does it successfully challenge belief in God? How successful is the argument as proof of God’s

existence Would the success or failure of this argument have

any significance for faith?

Not helpful to faith

It is possible to think of a non-existent God. – argument against OA

How does Gaunilo demonstrate this?A fool CAN have an understanding of God

even if he doesn’t exist – the lost island

Helpful to faith

Anselm – what is the purpose of his argument from HIS point of viewTo take people beyond the definition of the

word ‘God’ to knowledge of God, himself.

Does he succeed in doing this?

If he does then the OA IS helpful to faith

Anselm’s view

“Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe (intelligere ut credam), but rather I believe so that I can understand (credo ut intelligam). For I believe this too, that ‘unless I believe I shall not understand’”

Proslogion 1

The appeal of the OA

Anselm already believes in GodNot providing a logical argument to convince

people However it DOES appeal to logic and

reason

“I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back with it, along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed: “Great God in Boots! – the ontological argument is sound!”

Russell

The appeal of the OA

Russell: through logical reasoning it appears that a being with necessary existence MUST exist

So why is he against the argument?When considering the argument further we

realise that having the definition does not make God exist

Works

Doesn’t work

Has existing faith

Have no existing faith

Faith may be the only proof

Karl Barth (1886-1968) Denied the possibility of attaining any

knowledge of God through the use of reason

Fides Quaerens Intellectu (Faith Seeking Understanding)

Supports view that Anselm didn’t intend to prove the existence of God

Faith may be the only proof

TWNGCBC Not the start of an argumentA description by a believer of what is

understood about God within the limits of the human mind

If we had the mental capacity to understand God and prove his existence faith would not be necessary

Faith may be the only proof

Anselm’s 2nd argumentA statement of faith

Without God then humans and the world in which they live would not exist

Cannot apply these comments to Descartes version of the OADescartes WAS seeking to present an

argument using reason to prove the existence of God

Søren Kierkegaard

1813-1855 Misconceived and ridiculous to attempt to

use reason to determine existence of God “For the fool says in his heart that there is

no God, but he who says in his heart or to others: just wait a little and I shalldemonstrate it …What a superb theme for crazy comedy”

Could the OA weaken faith?

If your belief is based on belief rather than proven fact then could the OA be damaging to faith?God could be proven without a shadow of a

doubtFaith is redundantRe-evaluation of relationship between God

and humans

Anti-realism

A theory of truth The truth or falsity of a statement does not

depend on whether it corresponds to the objective reality it describes

It corresponds to the situation as a person understands it

Eh????

Anti-realism

A theory of truth The truth or falsity of a statement does not on

whether it corresponds to the objective reality it describes

It corresponds to the situation as a person understands it

Eh????

Anti-realism and God

Does God exist?Depends: do you understand there to be such

a being?Does NOT depend on whether there is or is

not an objectively existing omnipotent being Religious believers are totally justified in

saying that he exists

Anti-realism and God

Summing up anti-realism and the OATalk of God makes sense to those who

already believeTalk of God for non-believers makes no sense

Shows that God is not a thing to be verified empirically, but an idea that has value and meaning within a religious community

Iris Murdoch

OA may not objective proof for the existence of God

Does have great value for a believer Shows that it is rational to hold such

beliefs Teaches us to think about our own

meta-cognitionTeaches us to think about how we think

Iris Murdoch

The OA has anti-realist meaning Meaningful to the individual or group who

understand what the definition of God meansRugby players understand the off-side

Vardy claims that this is what Anselm intended it to be

To sum up

If the statement TTWNGCBC is said prayerfully to God by a religious believer:By definition God exists

Written by a believer as a prayerTherefore it is successful

However it cannot tell us whether this definition of God corresponds to any objective reality beyond the mind of the believer

Failure to strengthen faith

Does not appear to convert an atheist Dawkins

It has no significance for faithPicks up on points made by Douglas Gasking

Possible to believe in a being more powerful than one with necessary existence – which does not exist and yet created everything

Different concepts of TTWNGCBC

To conclude

Helps to establish what the monotheistic religions say about GodEstablishes that he is ‘omni’, transcendent,

and the summary of all perfection Shows that the relationship between God

and humans is more dependent on faith Aid to those who already have faith Anselm ‘faith seeking understanding’

THE END