Arguments From Reason Flashcards
What is the ontological argument?
Ontological arguments claim that God’s existence can be proven a priori - with absolute certainty, using deductive logic. Variations if the ontological argument have been put forward for at least a thousand years - St Anselm’s is one of the earliest. A priori knowledge is m is prior to sense experience.
Who is Anselm?
Follower of Plato, Anselm believes that we can know God’s existence purely by reason, a priori. ‘Faith seeking understanding’.
What are Anselm’s basic idea?
Dealing with the ‘fool’: The fool says in his heart that there is no God. Both the theist and the atheist can agree that God exists in the mind. Even the strictest atheist can think of God - if they couldn’t then they wouldn’t understand what they didn’t believe in! We may not be able to fully convince (understand) God, but we do know that we can’t conceive of anything greater than God. Hence, both atheists and theists can agree to this definition of God:
‘That than which nothing greater can be conceived’
What is version 1 of Anselm’s ontological argument?
P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. God exists as an idea in our mind.
P2: A being that exists in reality is greater than an imaginary being. Anselm gives the example of a painter, who has an idea of a painting in his/her mind. When the painting exists in reality, it is greater than when it is first an idea in the artist’s mind.
P3: If he only exists in the mind, God would not be the greatest being (this would be a contradiction).
P4: Therefore God must exist in the mind and in reality. Anselm says that the very definition of God proves his existence.
Evaluation of version 1 of Anselm’s ontological argument
Premise 1: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’.
Criticisms: Is it really possible to come up with a definition of God - a being of whom we have no knowledge nor empirical evidence? Anselm doesn’t define what ‘greatness’ is - greatness means different things to different people. He doesn’t tell us what God is, in himself - his nature. What is God like? Is God the God of Christian beliefs?
Premise 2: A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. Anselm gives the example of a painter to demonstrate that it is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind. The painting in his/her mind is greater once it has been painted because now it exists in reality as well as in the mind of the painter.
Criticisms: Gaunilo argues that this is a poor analogy - there is a real difference between the initial idea and the finished product that we can see and experience.
Premise 3: If he only exists in the mind, God would not be the greatest being (thus would be a contradiction). Since anything that exists in reality is greater than things that exist only in the mind, something existing in reality would be greater than God. That is a contradiction, or mistake in reasoning, because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Criticism: To accept the definition of God but reject the conclusion he exists is a contradiction! It is an illogical, absurd claim to say that God does not exist.
What is Anselm’s conclusion?
God must exist in reality. We are led logically to conclude, a priori, that God exists in reality. The fool fails to believe only because he hasn’t considered the true definition of God. Once he accepts Anselm’s definition then he has to accept that God exists.
Strengths of version 1 of Anselm’s argument
- Atheists and theists do in fact have a sense and understanding of God in mind.
- God does exist in our mind. Innate sense of the divine.
- If he only exists in the mind, God would not be the greatest being.
- Mostly coherent.
- A priori knowledge links with our innate sense of the divine.
- A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. Anselm gives the example of a painter. The painting in his/her mind is greater once it has been painted because now it exists in reality as well as in the mind of the painter.
Weakness of version 1 of Anselm’s argument
- Perhaps Anselm is confusing atheists with agnostics.
- Is it possible to come up with a definition of God - a being of whom we have no knowledge nor empirical evidence?
- Anselm doesn’t define what ‘greatness’ is - greatness means different things to different people.
- He doesn’t tell us what God is - in himself - his nature. What is God like? Is God the God of Christian belief?
- Gaunilo argues that the example of the painting is a poor analogy - there is a real difference between the initial idea and the finished product that we can see and experience!
- Does the very definition of God prove his existence? Anselm is extremely vague in his reasoning.
- My perfect May not be someone else’s perfect.
Who was Gaunilo?
Gaunilo was a Benedictine monk and contemporary of Anselm. Gaunilo believed in God. His argument was asking whether Anselm’s argument was philosophically sound, not questioning God’s existence. Gaunilo called his work ‘On behalf of the fool’ because he put himself in the position of a rational non-believer. The significance of Gaunilo being a monk is that he is a believer of God. He is arguing with someone who also believes in God. Usually theism versus atheist.
What was Gaunilo’s criticism against version 1 of Anselm’s argument?
Gaunilo uses an example of a perfect island. If the perfect island did not exist, it would be a contradiction to call it the perfect island, for the perfect island would not be perfect if it did not exist. Therefore the perfect island, and anything else we think of as perfect must, by definition exist, it would be perfect.
To Gaunilo, this is absurd. The perfect island does not exist, just as perfect pens, books, tables and so on do not exist. Here, Gaunilo appeals to his own empiricist views. He asks his readers to look at the evidence of the world. There is no trace of these perfect beings - no perfect island, tables or books. He argues that if parallel arguments from perfection are absurd, then the original ontological argument is absurd.
How did Anselm counter Gaunilo’s island criticism?
Anselm pointed out that an island is contingent. It’s very existence is contingent. That is, it depends on things like sea and earth. Islands do not have to exist, so their existence cannot be necessary. For there to be an island there must be other conditions fulfilled. This is true of any contingent being. There is nothing in the universe - as far as we can tell - that exists wholly independently of anything else. A table would not exist were there no materials or table-makers. Anselm argues that God is supremely necessary. He is not dependent on anything else, so the argument applies to him alone.
What does John Hick say?
John Hick believes that the idea of the perfect island does not make sense because it is in definable. If I add one grain of sand or an extra palm tree to the perfect island, does it become imperfect or even more perfect? If we keep adding billions of grains of sand, it ceases to be a perfect island and becomes Australia, instead. Also, your perfect island is not my perfect island: I might hate coconuts.
What does Anselm say about the fool?
Anselm believes that God cannot be thought not to exist. Some challenge this, saying that it would mean the ‘fool’ could not think that there is no God. How does Anselm address this challenge?
Anselm here directly addresses the issue. The verb he uses throughout the argument is intelligere, that is, ‘to understand’. It is not merely that the concept of God needs to be thought of. It needs to be really understood. Anselm says that the fool says what he does because he has not really understood the thought he had.
For example, I might tell you about an art exhibition I visited and say that there were amazing sculptures, some in eight dimensions, and an extraordinary picture of a nine-sided circle. If you were paying attention, you might point out that what I said was complete nonsense. The fact that I can use the swords dies nit mean either that ghetto make sense in themselves or that the way I use them entailed any understanding on my part. So it is with the fool. His sentence, ‘There is no God’, would be nonsense to any rational mind. The rational mind would think matters through. A weakness in Anselm’s response is that even fools do not, generally, deny what is truly self-evident.
What is version 2 of Anselm’s ontological argument?
You cannot compare God to an island - an island is contingent - it relies on other things for its existence (sea, earth etc).
God is utterly different because God has necessary existence - meaning God must exist. God cannot not exist.
P1: It is possible to think of beings that come in and out of existence (contingent beings) and those that have necessary existence (must exist).
P2: A necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
P3: Since God is the greater conceivable being, God is a necessary being. Therefore, God cannot not exist.
What are Aquinas’ criticisms of Anselm’s argument?
Aquinas believed that the ontological argument must be rejected:
- It is possible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God; people quite clearly manage it - including Anselm’s fool.
- Anselm claims to know who ‘God’ is - but (like Gaunilo) Aquinas says that God is completely beyond our understanding. Any idea of God can only be in human terms, with all the limitations of human language and knowledge. God’s existence is hidden from us - including what it means to say that he exists.
- We cannot know that our definition of God is correct so cannot use it as the basis for arguing for his existence.
- The only way to God is indirectly - through examining the world around us.
