1.3 - arguments from observation Flashcards
1
Q
natural theology
A
the name given to attempts to demonstrate the existence of God and to demonstrate the nature of God through the powers of human reason.
2
Q
revealed theology
A
a reflection on the content of what is believed to have been shown to humanity by God.
3
Q
‘For since the creation of… being understood..’
A
‘For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.’ - Paul in Romans, 1:19-20, NIV
4
Q
‘In the Beginning…’
A
‘In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.’ - Genesis 1:1
5
Q
are the teleological and cosmological arguments a-posteriori or a-priori? why?
A
The teleological and cosmological arguments are a-posteriori because they use observation to come to conclusions rather than having innate, pre-existing knowledge.
Teleological - observing the world’s complexity.
Cosmological - observing cause and effect.
6
Q
‘[The teleological argument] always deserves to be…’
A
‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most accordant with the common reason of mankind.’ - Kant
7
Q
teleological argument
A
a-posteriori argument, Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley
1. the world has order, purpose, benefit, regularity, and suitability for life
2. this shows evidence of design
3. such design implies a designer
4. the designed of the world is God
8
Q
problems with the teleological argument
A
- inductive leap to God
- chance is a sufficient explanation - Brute Fact
- not enough evidence
- problem of evil
- chaos (cancer)
9
Q
St Thomas Aquinas
A
- teleological argument (design argument)
- five ways to prove God’s existence - 13th century
- the 5th way is most significant (nature has purpose, arrow-archer analogy)
10
Q
five ways to prove God’s existence (13th century) - 5th way
A
- Aquinas said that nature seems to have an order and purpose to it.
- We know, he suggested, that nothing inanimate is purposeful without the aid of a ‘guiding hand’ (eg. an archer shooting an arrow).
- non-rational beings work towards a goal so must be guided by an intelligent being - as the arrow is guided by the archer - and this being is God.
‘We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end […] whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer… and this we call God.’ - Thomas Aquinas, Fifth Way
11
Q
‘We see that things which… Hence it is plain that they… unless it be directed…’
A
‘We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end […] Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer… and this we call God.’ - Thomas Aquinas, Fifth Way
12
Q
argument from evolution
A
- Life adapts to suit its environment through natural selection.
- This gives the appearance of design as life perfectly adapted to survive through change.
- Therefore, Aquinas is mistaken to conclude nature cannot ‘direct’ itself towards an end (not God but survival).
- Organisms aren’t moving towards one end, they are moving in all directions and the ones that do move towards the end, survive. (billions arrows fired)
13
Q
richard dawkins’ view on Aquinas’ fifth way
A
Richard Dawkins attempts to undermine the teleological view of the world by comparing this way of thinking to the thinking of a puddle being surprised at how remarkable it is that a perfectly sized hole in the ground was waiting for it to exist.
14
Q
what does it mean to say the design argument is inductive
A
- it seeks to persuade rather than prove
- inductive leap
15
Q
design qua purpose
A
one type of design argument that:
- argues FROM examples in nature that show purpose
- teleological
- uses analogy eg. Paley
16
Q
design qua regularity
A
one type of design argument that:
- argues by looking at the way the universe as a whole has purpose
- ‘providential arguments’
- use probability eg. the anthropic argument (goldilocks enigma)
17
Q
who was William Paley?
A
- Christian apologist so wrote to defend Christianity
- natural theology (1802)
- watchmaker theory
- design argument
18
Q
William Paley’s analogy
A
- coming across a rock on a heath - they would naturally conclude that the rock had probably always lain there and did not have a designer.
- but if it was a watch, they would conclude - he argued - that someone must have made the watch
- he distinguished between simple and complex things with a number of criteria, the watch is complex so must have a designer
- compared the watch to the human eye
- because of the principle that like effects have like causes, we should conclude that since the human eye fulfils the same criteria (IE they share similar effects) we should assume they have a similar cause
- so both the watch and the eye have been designed
19
Q
how did Paley distinguish between simple and complex things
A
- made of specific materials
- it has several parts
- works for a purpose
- produces a regular motion
- if any of the parts were different in a significant way, the object would not fit its purpose
20
Q
‘Every manifestation of…’
A
‘Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature… For this reason that when we come to inspect the watch we perceive that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose.’ - Paley, Natural Theology, 1802
21
Q
‘The hinges in the wings… We have no reason to…’
A
‘The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution of care by multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We have no reason to fear, therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked, or neglected.’ - William Paley
22
Q
the anthropic principle
A
The idea that the universe seems particularly suited to bring about and support human life. This is a modern version of the Design Argument, building on Richard Swinburne’s concept of regularity. This is linked to cosmic fine-tuning.
- Tennant (1930): RUM
23
Q
‘As we identify the many…’
A
‘As we identify the many accidents of physics that have worked together to our benefit, it seems as if the Universe [knew] we were coming’ - Dyson
24
Q
‘Nature is meaningless…’
A
‘Nature is meaningless and valueless without God behind it and Man in front.’ - Philosophical Theology by FR Tennant (1930)
25
Goldilocks principle
- Paul Davies
- any small chance would have made life impossible eg. the big bang.
- The Big Bang could, logically, have been smaller or bigger (either in matter or explosion) but for stars to form, the initial strength of the Big Bang had to be precise to one part in 1060.
- That's as precise as hitting a one inch target at the other side of the observable universe.
- for life to form makes it even more improbable.
- The fact that everything is perfectly adjusted so life can exist seems a staggering coincidence.
- Science can't tell us why the Big Bang was exactly the way it was.
26
RUM points
- Tennant:
R - rationality
U - unlikely
M - man
27
rationality (RUM - Tennant)
- life and the world is all about being rational, to Tennant it is rational that God is the designer and creator
- However, this is debatable, others have claimed they have also used logic and their conclusion is that there is NOT a God
28
unlikely (RUM - tennant)
- it just seems too unlikely that the world has come about by chance: it is 1:100000000000124 that the Big Bang could have occurred and even more so that we end up how we are
- so it all came about by design
- However, chance could still be an explanation for this
29
man (RUM - tennant)
- according to Tennant, brute laws of nature would not alone have shaped man into what he is today: consciousness, self awareness, ethics, morality and the fact we act in ways against our basic nature, religion, love, self-sacrifice, aesthetic sense, awe
- this suggests it is more than just scientific survival of the most ruthless and fittest model and implies divine assistance
- However, it is rather arrogant to claim that all creation is only for man and his benefit. There mat well be a greater cause we haven't yet discovered
30
Micheal Behe
a biochemist, is one of the many scientists/thinkers struck by the 'irreducible complexity' of the systems and organs of living creatures
31
irreducible complexity definition
a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning’.
32
Behe's example of irreducible complexity
tail in a bacterium
- he argues that evolution couldn’t produce such an organization of parts:
= evolution works by making small changes, accidentally, and one at a time
= until all the pieces are in place together, the tail wouldn’t work. It’s all or nothing. But evolution is bit by bit.
- like Paley, Behe argues that irreducible complexity is direct evidence of design. If a system won’t work at all until all its parts are in place, then this suggests someone planned and organized the parts.
33
rejections of Behe's argument
1. it assumes that each part in a system has always been that part in that system. But this isn’t true in evolution, parts often had a different purpose but evolved into being part of that new specific system
2. features that are initially minor improvements can become essential. Take lungs – very complex and without which we wouldn’t survive. But they started out as relatively unimportant air bladders in fish
34
design argument evaluation - 3 key positives
+ supported by revealed theology so coheres with a traditional, theistic view of the world – even Dawkins acknowledged that current understandings don’t fully explain the universe: ‘one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises' - Dawkins, The God Delusion
= However, he also argued that 'the temptation to attribute the appearance of design to an actual design is a false one' - Dawkins, The God Delusion
+ confirms the purpose of the world, fulfils human need for explanation.
+ rooted in universally accepted observations like that the world is complex, the more we learn the more this is supported
'With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of design?' - Socrates
35
'The analogy of animals to...'
'The analogy of animals to complex machines seems to me correct, and its conclusion justified' - Swinburne
36
'With such signs of...'
'With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of design?' - Socrates
37
'one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has...'
'one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises' - Dawkins, The God Delusion
38
design argument evaluation - negatives
- evolution and the idea that we are fine-tuned for the universe not the other way round (puddle - dawkins)
- 'the temptation to attribute the appearance of design to an actual design is a false one' - Dawkins, The God Delusion
= Swinburne - 'I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains')
- anthropomorphism (guilty of making the designer to be more or less a human figure), Hume's ship builder argument
- the scales argument (detailed separately)
- inductive leap to God, swans example - not enough evidence
= we don't have to understand all parts of a watch to believe there is a designer
- chance is a sufficient explanation - Brute Fact, order can come from chaos (Epicurus)
- multi-verse theory
- problem of evil and chaos (cancer)
- 'Nature has no vision, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.' - Richard Dawkins
= the problem of evil can be answered by saying that just because something goes wrong doesn't mean that there is no designer or that God is imperfect
- poor analogy argument - large vegetable would be a better comparison
39
David Hume's criticisms of the design argument
note that Hume was writing BEFORE paley
- the scales argument
- the inductive leap to God argument
- the ship builder argument
- no experience of world-making
- the poor analogy argument
- order arising from matter not mind
40
the scales argument
- Hume (writing before Paley)
- criticism of the design argument
- when we see a set of scales with a certain weight lifted on one side and suppose the heavier side - the cause - is out of view, we can't assume the heavier weight is infinitely heavy: this would be an inductive leap. Likewise when we observe a finite universe we cannot reasonably conclude an infinite god to be the cause
41
the inductive leap to God argument
- Hume (writing before Paley)
- criticism of the design argument
- fails to prove the god it intends to; even if you accept that there is evidence of design in the world, you do not need to accept that this is the all-powerful and loving Christian God. Hume gives a giant spider as an alternative
42
the ship builder argument
- Hume (writing before Paley)
- criticism of the design argument
- when it comes to complex things that humans create, such as ships, we recognise that many separate individuals are involved in their creation, not one single person. So it would be more sensible to conclude the world as a whole has or requires many designers
- doesn't support a Christian God
43
no experience of world-making argument
- Hume (writing before Paley)
- criticism of the design argument
- we lack the experience required to make any sound judgement about the creation of the universe. If we had observed many universes being made many times, we would have more confidence in explaining the process. However, with only partial understanding of one universe, we are not in the position to suggest how it has been brought about. Like a peasant thinking he can run a kingdom because he can look after a home
44
the poor analogy argument
- Hume (writing before Paley)
- criticism of the design argument
- the design argument relies on comparing the natural world to human made objects such as watches to reach the conclusion that the world has been designed or made. However, it can be argued that this is a bad comparison. Hume suggests a better model/analogy for the natural world would be something like a vegetable - this does not require an intelligent being to explain it
45
order arising from matter not mind argument
- Hume (writing before Paley)
- criticism of the design argument
- a mind or intelligence is not required to explain order in the universe. He supposes that order could arise from matter itself. This is comparable to some modern scientific understandings or evolution from natural selection that see patterns and order arising without the need for a guiding intelligence
46
'from observing the growth of...'
'from observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?' - Philo
47
richard dawkins on the design argument
- as a biologist, Dawkins criticises the design argument for confusing intelligence with the process of natural selection that is responsible for the order and complexity of the natural world
- he also points out the problem of evil as an issue for those who want to believe an omnibenevolent God is responsible for the world, "so loving that he willingly created over 4000 different genetic diseases."
48
Kant: 'the mind imposes order on experience'
The mind imposes order on experience. It is therefore a creation of the human mind, and not a feature of the natural world. Consider the example of constellations in the sky. Are they really there as part of the world? Would they exist without us? Or are they just examples of the way we find patterns and order in a chaotic world? If we take this conclusion we can no longer say that the order and regularity of the world needs explaining. It is just a feature of our minds reflected back at us.
49
'the mind imposes...'
'the mind imposes order on experience' - Kant
50
the PAPA points
P - probability
- most likely scenario that God, being loving, would create a universe such as this which we inhabit
- However, this is too convenient, of course we would say this
A - aesthetic
- not only is the world created by God but it is also beautiful, could somewhere so beautiful be chance
- however, some may not even deem the world beautiful
P - providential
- everything that is necessary for survival appears to be contained in the universe, which functions without us doing anything
- Swinburne - This is all owing to a 'deeper cause than order'
- However, it can be argued that not all people are provided for, evolution
A - anthropic
- all has come about to support and provide for human life
- Tennant
- However, how can we say this has all come about for man, evolution
51
Aquinas' cosmological argument
- the five ways
1. the unmoved mover
2. the uncaused causer
3. contingency
52
Aquinas' first way
The Unmoved Mover
- focuses on the issue of motion
- in order to be affected into change there must be a cause with the potential to bring about the change
- we know this from experience eg. needing fire to make something that has the potential to be hot, actually hot
- there are then two options based on this, either:
1. the chain of causes is endless and amounts to an infinite regress
2. there is a first cause, an uncaused cause that has the potential to create all motion in the universe - according to Aquinas, this must be God
- Aquinas rejects the concept of an infinite regress as illogical as there could be no definitive start to motion and no reason for things
- 'it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God' - Aquinas, Summa Theologica
53
'it is necessary to arrive...'
'it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God' - Aquinas, Summa Theologica
54
summary of the unmoved mover argument
1. all things are in motion, and for something to move it must have been moved by something else
2. this creates a chain of movement which can be traced back to either an infinite regress or first cause
3. we can't have an infinite regress of movement (illogical)
4. the first cause is God
55
Aquinas' second way
2. The Uncaused Causer
- very similar to the first form except it is 'effect' and 'cause' and links to Aristotle's EFFICIENT CAUSE (what brings something about?)
- in our experience 'there is no case known [...] in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself', he supposes this to be impossible
- he claims that 'to take away a cause is to take away the effect' (eg. you put out a fire, you stop it making things hot)
- the chain of causes for why things happen indicates the need for a first, uncaused causer (ruling out infinite regress again) which is God
- the Big Bang Theory could also be brought in to show that there is a definitive beginning to the universe, an efficient cause that requires an explanation
56
'there is no case...'
'there is no case known [...] in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself' - Aquinas
57
'to take away the...'
'to take away a cause is to take away the effect'
58
Aquinas' third way
3. Contingency - the idea that things in our world are not self-sustaining but depend on other things for their continued existence
- Eg. eco-systems
- Aquinas claimed that everything in our experience that exists is contingent and a fundamental truth of all contingent things is that there must have been a time previously where they did not exist
- 'if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence' - Aquinas
- if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence because something that doesn't exist only begins to exist by something already existing
- unless there is a first cause that exists necessarily rather than contingently
- that which exists necessarily must be God
59
'if everything is possible not...'
'if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence' - Aquinas
60
radio debate on Aquinas' cosmological argument
Copleston (for Aquinas') vs Russell (against Aquinas')
61
Copleston-Russell debate
Freddie Copleston:
the universe is not its own reason for existing -> requires an external cause -> a necessary being ('A being that must and cannot not exist') -> God
Bertrand Russell:
- fallacy of composition: cannot move from the part to the whole in all cases (each thing in the universe is contingent -> the universe is contingent)
- why not allow an infinite regress?
- why need a reason for the universe at all? - 'the universe is just there and that's all'
62
'A being that...'
'A being that must and cannot not exist' - Copleston
63
'the universe is just...'
'the universe is just there and that's all' - Russell
64
Islamic cosmological argument
Kalam Argument:
- the Islamic form of the Cosmological argument, goes back to Al'Kindi (c.870 CE):
Premise 1: Whatever comes into being must have a cause
Premise 2: The universe came into being
Conclusion: The universe must have a cause
- infinite regress is rejected and the cause of the universe (God) is believed to be infinite, external, and personal
65
who came up with the principle of sufficient reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)
A German philosopher and mathematician, incredibly influential in both fields. One particularly influential idea was his radical view that the universe is better understood in terms of relationships of space and time than in terms of absolute facts and rules.
66
Liebniz' principle of sufficient reason
- states that everything which exists must have a reason or cause for its existence.
- According to this principle:
> if something exists, there must be a reason why that thing exists
> if a statement is true, there must be a reason why that statement is true
> if something happens, there must be reason why that thing happens
- Even if the universe had always existed, there doesn't appear to be anything within it to say WHY it exists
- so one can conclude there is sufficient reason to believe in a great cause outside the universe. Liebniz suggests this is God.
- He uses the existence of a geometry book to demonstrate this
67
Liebniz' cosmological argument example
(Principle of Sufficient Reason)
- geometry book:
We can see how a previous geometry that was copied from can be the cause of a later geometry book. However, this does not lead us to a sufficient explanation. What is required is stating the cause/author of the books that began the series. The books themselves do not contain sufficient reason for their existence.
68
Swinburne on the cosmological argument
Swinburne suggests that it is the most sensible suggestion to postulate God as the first cause:
'If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so - even if we cannot explain the existence of that simple being.' - Swinburne, Is there a God? (1996)
69
key evaluation of the cosmological argument
- we never directly observe causation, only an association of events
= a-posteriori arguments use experience to find the most probable explanation (they can never be certain and cannot overcome extreme scepticism)
- the logic of the argument is self-contradictory: how can God by the exception to the rule that everything needs/requires a cause?
= God is not an event and does not begin to exist, the argument never states 'everything needs a cause' only events that begin to exist
- we should accept the possibility of an infinite regress of causes
= 'The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality' - Williams
= infinites create paradoxes such as Hilbert's hotel, if you saw a chain of carriages moving you would assume there was an engine
- Ockam's razor: supposing the universe needs no external new cause outside itself is simpler
= the best explanation is one that does not leave further questions, a simple answer is therefore God
= 'Theism is simpler than polytheism' - Swinburne
- the concept of brute fact: why assume we need to find a cause?
'it were better never to look beyond the present material world' - Hume
'The universe is just there and that's all there is to say.' - Russell
= refusing to consider the need for an explanation goes against reason and intuition
- it is an inductive leap that the first cause is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God - arguably our experience of the world suggests the opposite
= the god of theism may not be proved by the argument but it remains the best explanation
70
'The infinite is...'
'The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality' - Williams
71
'Theism is...'
'Theism is simpler than polytheism' - Swinburne
72
'it were better never to...'
'it were better never to look beyond the present material world' - Hume
73
'The universe is just...'
'The universe is just there and that's all there is to say.' - Russell
74
the ontological argument
- actually refers to a group of unrelated arguments
- ontology - study of being or existence
- based on reason rather than evidence or experience (so provide certainty rather than probability concerning God's existence)
- considers the logical implications of the definition of God
- deductive rather than inductive
- analytic rather than synthetic because it analyses the concepts involved instead of attempting to synthesize the concepts without experience of the world to determine their truth
- a-priori rather than a-posteriori
75
St Anselm's ontological argument
- the most famous form of the ontological argument, Anselm offers a reductio ad absurdum argument
1. He defines God as 'something than which nothing greater can be conceived' - a definition that anyone (supposedly) could agree with
2. even a person who denies the existence of a God 'understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his intellect' - so God exists in the intellect
3. if nothing greater can be conceived than God, God must exist in reality because something that exists in reality would be greater than something which exists only in the intellect
4. because it is possible to think of something that's existence cannot be denied (cannot be thought not to exist), and because God is the greatest thing that can be conceived, and it is greater to be unable to be thought not to exist than to be able to be thought not to exist, God must have an existence that cannot be denied.
76
what is a reductio ad absurdum argument?
an argument whose aim is to that a proposition is true because its denials entails a contradiction or absurdity
77
the two translations for Anselm's argument that god exists
1. 'And for sure, that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot exist only in the intellect. For if it is only in the intellect it can be thought to be in reality as well, which is greater.'
2. 'And for sure that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot exist only in the intellect. For if it is only in the intellect, what is greater can be thought to be in reality as well.
78
Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm's argument
(monk Gaunilo of Marmoutier wrote to Anselm to accuse him effectively of absurdity)
- He devised the analogy of a 'perfect island' which he argues we can conceive of and - therefore, by Anselm's logic - expect such an Island to exist because should it exist only in the intellect it would be surpassed in greatness by a perfect Island that exists in reality and in the mind
- However, Anselm defends his argument by saying that Ganilo's analogy is invalid - God cannot be compared to an Island because they exist in entirely different ways and also goes on to rephrase his argument in what has become known as the second formulation of the Ontological argument
79
how does Anselm defend his argument from Gaunilo
- says that Gaunilo's analogy is invalid - God cannot be compared to an Island because they exist in entirely different ways:
> islands are subjectively perfect as well as contingent
> most of the qualities of a perfect island have no intrinsic maximum' 'So the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent or incoherent idea'
> God however is objective and necessary
- Anselm also goes on to rephrase his argument in what has become known as the second formulation of the Ontological argument:
> 'For no one who truly understands that which God is, can think that God does not exist'
> 'For God is that than which nothing greater can be thought. Whoever truly understands this, understands that he is of such a kind of existence that he cannot be thought not to exist.' - Proslogion 4
80
how does Plantinga point out the invalidity of Gaunilo's argument?
'The qualities that make for greatness in islands - number of palm trees, amount and quality of coconuts, for example - most of these qualities have no intrinsic maximum' 'So the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent or incoherent idea' - Plantinga
81
the second formulation of the categorical imperative
- 'For no one who truly understands that which God is, can think that God does not exist'
- 'For God is that than which nothing greater can be thought. Whoever truly understands this, understands that he is of such a kind of existence that he cannot be thought not to exist.' - Proslogion 4
82
problems with the second formulation of the categorical imperative
- while this version avoid the weakness of having to depend on existence as a 'great-making' property, it leads to its own weakness in virtue of the fact that it is simply asserting the point
- Others have suggested that this formulation does not just assert necessary existence but rather draws it as a logical implication of the other attributes of God
83
Aquinas' problems with the Ontological Argument
1. God's existence cannot be seen as self-evident. The statement 'truth does not exist' seems self-contradictory, the ontological argument attempts to claim that 'God does not exist' is equally self-evidently contradictory however many atheists would say that they can accept 'God does not exist'
2. It is not apparent that 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' is how God should be thought of. Further, there is the issue of transcendence and the concept that God should remain beyond human comprehension. The Bible frequently reminds us of our epistemic distance between ourselves and God.
84
Descartes' ontological argument
Descartes' argument comes in the fifth of his Meditations on First Philosophy.
1. He says that by the word 'God' we mean 'a supremely perfect being' (an innate understanding/idea of God) and believes that this allows us to conclude that God exists
2. He argues that existence is 'a certain perfection' and if God is by definition something 'supremely perfect' then it follows that God, by definition, has the perfection of existence and that to deny this would be to CONTRADICT oneself.
3. He uses the example of a mountain that cannot be separated from the idea of a valley and claims that it is just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is, a supremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lacking a perfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley
85
problems with Descartes' Ontological Argument
- perfection is vague - for example the reverse doesn't seem to work:
1. there is a least perfect thing
2. the least perfect thing that does not exist it less perfect than one that does
3. the devil does not exist
- it is not obvious that this being is God
- is existence a property?
86
Kant's first major criticism - rejecting the existence of God is not self-contradiction
Rejecting the existence of God is not self-contradiction or absurdity because if you reject the subject and predicate (rather than just the predicate), there is nothing left to be contradicted. In affect, Kant is arguing that 'God does not exist' COULD be true even if it is false.
- just because God WOULD have the perfection of existence does not mean He actually exists to have that perfection
87
problems with Kant's first criticism (rejecting the existence of God is not self-contradiction)
- does Anselm really propose to define God into existence and (therefore) does Kant's criticism applies?
- Early in Proslogion 2, Anselm introduces a premise asserting existence ('Something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the intellect') and his question is really whether we can reasonably suppose that something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists only in the intellect.
88
the second of Kant's major criticisms - existence cannot be treated as a property
ALL EXISTENTIAL PROPOSITIONS ARE SYNTHETIC (we can know that such propositions are true or false only by experience), so no existential proposition is analytic (which is exactly what the Ontological Argument has been trying to claim).
Kant argues that existence cannot be treated as a predicate/property - a thing cannot posses existence in the way one possesses size or colour. Existence tells us whether there is a thing that has those properties not that a thing has existence on top of its other properties.
- Kant uses the example of a number of 'thalers': 'A hundred real thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers.': The fact of existence does nothing to chance the essence or nature of the money. If we apply this logic to the Ontological Argument, it can no longer be claimed that an existing God is better than an imaginary God.
- 'Now if I take the subject (God) with all of its predicates and say: God is... I add no new predicate to the conception of God... thus the real contains no more than the possible.' - Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
89
Kant's triangle logic
1. if you hold a real triangle in your hands, then to reject its triangularity would indeed be a contradiction
2. but if instead of getting a hold of a real triangle you simply imagine one in your mind, then that triangle has no reality outside your imagination
3. when you stop thinking about that triangle, it ceases to exist - you can "reject it"
4. in the same way, if I imagine to myself that God exists, what is in my head has no more substance than an imaginary triangle
5. therefore I am quite entitled to reject both God and his predicates, be they omnipotence, perfection, and so on
90
'Now if I take the subject (God) with...'
'Now if I take the subject (God) with all of its predicates and say: God is... I add no new predicate to the conception of God... thus the real contains no more than the possible.' - Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
91
problems with Kant's second criticism - existence cannot be treated as a property
- while normal contingent existence is not a predicate or a perfection the same cannot be said of necessary existence. To exist necessarily is an idea that can be belong to God only. This distinguishes it from normal ways of existing and renders Kant's analogies useless.
92
Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument - possible worlds
- he asks us to consider the concept of possible worlds, which is another way of considering whether something is possible or logically impossible. His argument hinges on the idea of 'maximal greatness' and considers it possible for 'maximal greatness' to be instantiated (made so that it is necessary or not logically impossible). Therefore:
1. There is a possible world (W) in which maximal greatness in instantiated
2. A being has maximal greatness in a given world only if it has maximal excellence in every world.
3. A being has maximal excellence in a world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in that world.
93
Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument - reasoning to prove God
Now if 1 (there is a possible world with a being of maximal greatness) is true, then it would have been impossible that there be no such being (in other words there has to be such a being):
- There is a possible world where there is a being who is maximally great.
- In that case, in any possible world this being has maximal excellence.
- And it follows from this that, in our world, there is a being who has maximal excellence
- which is to say that there is actually a God whose existence follows from his essence and who can thus be thought to exist in reality
If it is impossible that there be no such being, then there actually exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
94
problems with Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument
- while the logic is sound, Plantinga accepts that one who does not accept the existence of God will not accept the truth of the first premise)
- there may be valid reasons to reject the possibility of maximal greatness and hence a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect:
A morally perfect being would create meaningfully free beings (us) and an omniscient being would know the future actions of its creations, however, knowing the future destroys the sense in which we have meaningful freedom. If this is true then maximal greatness is logically impossible to be instantiated, God is impossible because his attributes imply contradiction
95
analytic
true by definition eg. roses are flowers
96
synthetic
a proposition where the predicate is attached to the subject but not contained within it eg. 'roses are red' rather than 'roses are flowers'
97
predicate
what is said about a subject eg. 'are red'
98
a-priori
independent of experience
99
empirical
based on experience
100
deductive argument
one that draws a conclusion from premises on the grounds that to deny the conclusion would contradict the premises
101
inductive argument
an argument which makes predications about causes on the basis of effects that can be seen
102
tautology
saying the same thing twice, analytic eg. 'eggs are eggs'
103
what does the ontological argument claim (basically)
that the proposition 'God exists' is analytic - the existence of god can be deduced from the concept of god
104
the timeline of the ontological argument
- formulated by St. Anselm in the 11th century
- rejected by Aquinas in the 13th
- reformulated by Descartes in the 17th
- assassinated by Kant in the 18th
- resurrected in the 10th by Malcolm and Plantinga
105
what are cartesian perfections
'Cartesian' is coined from Descartes' name and the 'perfections' refer to the attribute that Descartes argued God must have eg. omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, necessary existence, etc.
106
Norman Malcolm's argument
- an attempt to save the Ontological argument from Kant's criticism
- follows the idea that even if existence is not a predicate, necessary existence might be
1. if God came into existence now, he would be contingent, and therefore would not be God
2. therefore if God does not exist now, his existence is impossible
3. therefore God's existence is either impossible or necessary
4. God's existence can be impossible only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd
5. it is not self-contradictory or logically absurd, therefore God exists necessarily
6. so in the same way, God is necessarily omnipotent and necessarily omniscient
Malcolm is trying to claim, then, that there is at least one analytic truth - ie. that God exists necessarily.
107
Malcolm's two interesting statements in regard to his argument
The first:
- If you want to grasp the reality of the conclusion he makes, think of Euelid's deduction of the existence of an infinity of prime numbers. Once you understand the sequence of numbers through 1,3,5,7,11,13... and so on, no question remains about the truth of Euelid's deduction. Apply that understanding to the notion of God's necessary existence, says Malcolm, and you will understand what Anselm means: once you grasp that concept, no question remains as to whether God exists or not.
- note it is the INFINITY of Euelid's sequence that Malcolm holds it a truth which can be grasped like the 'truth' of the ontological argument
The second:
- Malcolm then concedes that the argument would not convince atheists: only the believer who grasps it. The concept of an eternal and necessary being is really a language game which makes perfect sense to believers. Thus the ontological argument has 'anti-real' force, meaning that it is perfectly true within the believing community.
108
Malcolm adopts an anti-realist stance (problems with his argument)
Malcolm adopts an anti-realist stance which argues that those who deny God's existence do so because they do not understand what it means to talk about God. In this, he feels he is following Anselm but - firstly - it doesn't seem that Anselm intended his argument solely for believers and - secondly - an anti-real approach to the ontological argument says no more than ''God' is meaningful for those who use that word'. The believing community would seem to have no need for such an argument and the unbelieving argument has no use for them
109
line four appears to be false (problems with Malcolm's argument)
line four of Malcolm's argument - 'God's existence can be impossible only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd' - appears to be false. This can be shown by reducing it to an equation in which the premises are:
(x) = a self-contradictory notion
(y) = a logically absurd notion and
(z) = the conclusion that God exists:
we have: not (X) + not (y) = (z) aka "not self-contradictory + not logically absurd = God exists"
however we could also have: not (x) + not (y) = not (z) aka "not self-contradictory + not logically absurd, but God does not exist"
110
Malcolm uses impossible in two senses (problems with his argument)
1. 'as a matter of fact unable to come about' (if God is the sort of thing that cannot come into existence, then if he doesn't exist, he cannot exist)
2. 'unable to be thought without contradiction' (if his existence is impossible then the concept of such a being must be self-contradictory or logically absurd)
111
the argument moves from an 'is' of definition to an 'is' of affirmative predication (problems with Malcolm's argument)
the argument moves from an 'is' of definition to an 'is' of affirmative predication:
1. 'Is can be used in giving a definition - 'A novel is a work of fiction'
2. or it can be used to explain that there actually 'is' something or other - 'There is an abominable snowman after all'
EG. 'a pixie is a little man with pointed ears, therefore there actually is such a thing as a pixie'. We cannot accept this argument because it seems to move from a definition to a conclusion ("if a pixie is a little man with pointed ears then he must be in some sense in order to have pointed ears" is ridiculous)
112
if God is (definitionally) necessarily existent, then there is something which can truly be said to be necessarily existent (problems with Malcolm's argument)
if God is (definitionally) necessarily existent, then there is something which can truly be said to be necessarily existent. And here lies Malcolm's error:
- we can certainly agree that if God is definable as a necessary being, then God is by definition a necessary being. And if we can get people to accept our definition, we can easily convict them of self-contradiction if they also say that God is not a necessary being
- But we cannot infer from 'God is a necessary being' that God is truly predicated of anything.
- It may seem that in that case we would have to end up saying 'The necessary being does not exist', which might be though to involve the same mistake as that involved in saying 'My mother is not my mother'.
- But to deny Malcolm's conclusion all we have to say is: 'Possibly nothing at all is a necessary being' which is certainly not self-contradictory and may even be true
113
evaluation of Malcolm's arguments
- even if we go so far as to agree with Malcolm that some aspects of mathematics are a 'special case', this does not automatically show that 'God exists necessarily' is another special case (that it is an analytic existential proposition)
- Malcolm adopts an anti-realist stance
- line four of Malcolm's argument - 'God's existence can be impossible only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd' - appears to be false.
- he uses 'impossible' in two senses
- the argument moves from an 'is' of definition to an 'is' of affirmative predication
- Equally, he says that if God is (definitionally) necessarily existent, then there is something which can truly be said to be necessarily existent. And here lies Malcolm's error
114
key ideas ABOUT Plantinga's argument
- it centres around the concept of 'possible worlds' in modal logic: modal logic uses a system of possible but non-actual worlds to give a framework by which we can judge what is possible and what is necessary in the real world
- it is about the possibility of a being possessing maximal excellence (IE. possessing all the cartesian perfections) and a being possessing maximal greatness (IE. possessing maximal excellence in all possible worlds)
- it is based on world-indexed properties: for a being to be recognised in one world as the same being in another world, its features must remain constant so for something to exist in one possible world, it cannot vary significantly from world to world, and whatever is necessary or impossible cannot vary at all from world to world
115
Plantinga's argument
1. the existence of a maximally excellent being in one possible world is either necessary or impossible - INSTANTIATED
2. it can be impossible only if the notion of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd
3. that notion is neither self-contradictory or logically absurd, therefore such a being exists necessary in one possible world
4. whatever is necessary or impossible cannot vary from world to world
5. so such a being must exist in all possible worlds
6. so there is a being possessing maximal greatness
7. so God exists necessarily
116
evaluation of Plantinga's argument
- it assumes that whatever is logically possible exists
- he admits that we could have another term 'no maximality' which is the property of no world possessing a maximally great being, in which case the argument could be used to demonstrate the non-existence of God
- Plantinga commits the same logical error as Malcolm: not (x) + not (y) can = (z) or not (z)
- while the logic is sound, Plantinga accepts that one who does not accept the existence of God will not accept the truth of the first premise)
- there may be valid reasons to reject the possibility of maximal greatness and hence a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect:
A morally perfect being would create meaningfully free beings (us) and an omniscient being would know the future actions of its creations, however, knowing the future destroys the sense in which we have meaningful freedom. If this is true then maximal greatness is logically impossible to be instantiated, God is impossible because his attributes imply contradiction
117
Gottob Frege
(1848-1925) in The Foundations of Arithmetic
- attacks the use of numbers as properties of objects (like Kant's point about existence as a predicate)
- draws comparison between 'The King's carriage is drawn by four horses' and 'The King's carriage is drawn by thoroughbred horses': 'four' does not work in the same manner as 'thoroughbred' and tells us nothing about the individual horse
- 'existence is analogous to number. Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number nought' > C. J. F. Williams suggests that statements of existence ARE statements of number eg. 'they are some As' can be 'As exist'
118
'existence is analogous... Affirmation of...'
'existence is analogous to number. Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number nought' - Gottob Frege
119
does Kant's rejection of existence as a property or predicate engage with the Ontological Argument?
- It clearly engages with DESCARTES' presentation of the argument. Descartes is manifestly passing from a definition of God to the conclusion that God exists by means of the premise that existence is a perfection which God, by definition, must possess.
- However, we are not obliged to say that ANSELM argues in this way. There are two definitions of his text. If the first - 'And for sure that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot exist only in the intellect. For if it is only in the intellect it can be thought to be in reality as well, which is greater' - is correct then Kant's point about existence would seem to hold against Anselm.
- But if the proper translation is 'For if it is only in the intellect, what is greater can be thought to be in reality as well.' his argument is:
1. if than which nothing greater can be conceived is only in a mind, something greater can be conceived
2. for something greater can be thought to exist in reality as well
3. the assumption is therefore contradictory; either there is no such thing even in the intellect or it exists also in reality
4. but it does exist in the mind of the fool
5. therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as in the mind
120
is the ontological argument useless?
1. the Ontological Argument has anti-real value, so some believers may find it useful as a reaffirmation of faith using rational arguments HOWEVER it can of course be a recipe for believing whatever you like
2. whatever progress has been made in philosophy has been developed through the total philosophical effort of preceding generations, the Ontological Argument represents a significant part of that effort
3. it is a fierce drive to affirm meaning, of which there is a need for this in the 21st century
121
a summary of the main points of the Ontological Argument
Anselm's first formulation in Proslogion 2 argues that:
- God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
- an imaginary being would be less great than a real being
- therefore God exists in reality as well as in the mind
Gaunilo:
- retorted that using the same formulation one could argue that a lost perfect island must exist in reality
Anselm replied to Gaunilo in Proslogion 3:
- that the existence of islands in contingent, whereas God's existence is necessary
Aquinas:
- rejected the OA on the grounds that we do not know God's essence
Descartes argued that God's essence is his existence:
- I have the innate idea of a supremely perfect being
- existence is a perfection
- so existence cannot be separated from the concept of God (think mountains and valleys)
Kant objected that existence is not a predicate:
- all existential properties are synthetic/none can be analytic
Malcolm argued that:
- necessary existence might be a predicate of God
- God' existence is either impossible or necessary, it can be impossible only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory of logically absurd
- it isn't so God exists
- think of the infinity sequence of prime numbers
- anti-real force only plus not (x) + not (y) can = (z) or not (z)
Plantinga's modal logic:
- world-indexed properties mean that what is necessary or impossible cannot vary at all from world to world
- a being of maximal excellence can existence in one possible world therefore (through world-indexed properties) there is a being possessing maximal greatness
- Plantinga's own principle of 'no maximality' destroys the argument
- it also falls foul of not (x) + not (y) can = (z) or not (z)
However the Ontological Argument as a whole:
- has anti-real value for some
- is crucial in the history of philosophy
- the concept of a necessary being is alive and well still
