Critically Evaluate The Ontological Argument Flashcards
(17 cards)
INTRO
Introduce the ontological argument
The ontological argument is a classical, a priori, analytic argument for the existence of God, relying solely on reason.
Originally developed by St Anselm of Canterbury in his Prosologian II and III, it defines a god as “That than which nothing greater can be conceived”
INTRO
Outline Anselms argument
P1: God is the greatest conceivable being
P2: It is greater to exist in reality (in re) than in the mind alone (in intellectu)
C: Therefore, God must exist in RE (in reality)
Anselm saw his argument his argument as a way of understanding belief - not evangelism - following the motto “faith seeking understanding”
Descartes reformulation
In his fifth meditation, Descartes supported Anselm, arguing that existence is a necessary predicate of a supremely perfect being.
- Just a triangle necessarily has three sides, so, God must exist too as part of the very concept of perfection.
Descartes view: God, being supremely perfect, must have all perfections, Existence is a perfection. Therefore God exists.
Descartes believed that the essence of God included existence, and to deny this is akin to logical contradiction.
Immediate Historical criticism: Guanilo
Guanilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselms responded in “On Behalf of the Fool:
He proposed the perfect island parody:
- If we define the most perfect island as one greater than which nothing can be conceived, and argue that such an island must exist in reality because that is greater than in the mind alone, we arrive at absurd conclusions
- Aims to show that conceptual perfection does not entail real existence
(Anselm responded that his argument only applies to contingent beings, not necessary beings)
KANTS critique
In his critique of pure reason, Kant presented the most influential critique of the ontological argument. His objections focus on two main points
- Existence is not a predicate - it does not add to the concept of a thing
- All existential claims are synthetic, not analytic
Kant argued saying that “God exists” cannot be derived merely from the definition of God. To claim that God exists is to add something to the concept, which cannot be done through analytic reasoning alone
Modern reflections:
Karl Barth & Iris Murdoch
Karl Barth defended Anselm by emphasising that the argument is not a proof but a reflection on faith. He saw it as a theological meditation rather than a rational demonstration of
Similarly, Iris Murdoch suggested that the argument invites reflection on the nature of existence itself, especially regarding divine reality. She believed it challenges believers to reconsider what they mean when they say “God exists”
Guanilos island
Strengths (2)
- Demonstrates that the structure of Anselms argument can be applied to absurd conclusions (e.g. perfect islands)
- Suggests that the arguments logic’s flawed and that definitional existence is incoherent
Guanilos island
Weaknesses (2)
God is a necessary being; islands are contingent. Anselm never claimed the argument worked for finite, imperfect things.
- The critique may be misunderstanding the ontological arguments emphasis on necessity, not maximal perfection
KANTS existence is not a predicate
Strengths (3)
- Most widely accepted critique. Demonstrates that existence adds nothing to a concept
- E.g. a real £100 note and an imagined £100 note are the same conceptually - existence doesn’t enhance the idea
- Undermines Descartes’ and Anselms premise that existence is a great-making property
KANTS existence is not a predicate
Weaknesses (2)
- Some philosophers (e.g. Normal Malcolm) argue that necessary existence is different from empirical existence, and thus may be a valid predicate
- Quine challenged Kant’s strict division between analytic and synthetic statements, calling it a “dogma of empiricism”
Bertrand Russels Linguistic critique
Strengths
(3)
— Points out that the argument smuggles in existence as an assumption e.g. “The present king of France is bald” assumes such a person exists.
- Shows how grammatical form can mislead reasoning
- Helps identities category errors in the argument
Bertrand Russell’s Linguistic critique
Weaknesses (2)
- May reduce the argument to a linguistic understanding without addressing his metaphysical intent
- Some argue Bertrand Russells critique doesn’t fully grapple with necessary existence, the heart of Anselms claim
Descartes Predicate argument
Strengths (2)
- Reiterates a clear, rationalist interpretation: If existence is a perfection, and God has all perfections, then God must exist
- Fits well with Descartes rationalist epistemology and his quest for indubitable truths
Descartes predicate argument
Weaknesses (2)
- Relies on existence being a perfection, which can’t convinbly refute
- The triangle analogy doesn’t work - we can deny both the triangle and the God it describes. We are not logically compelled to accept the triangles real existence, only its conceptual features.
Barth & Murdochs interpretive defense
Strength (2)
- Emophasises the theological and meditative value of the argument - faith seeking understanding
- Offers a non-litetal interpretation of “existence”, perhaps as a moral or metaphysical reality rather than physical
Barth & Murdochs interpretive defense
Weaknesses (2)
If the argument is not a rational proof, it cannot serve as support for propositional faith (faith based on reason or evidence)
- Makes the argument universal only for believers; rather than a general philosophical proof
LOA
Whilst the ontological argument is significant and theologically rich, its attempt to deduce the existence of God through reason alone fails.
It should be understood not a proof, but as a reflection on the concept of God (as Karl Barthes and Iris Murdoch suggested) and the limits of human reason.
As such, it has value for faith, but not for philosophical demonstration.
