ontological Flashcards
(25 cards)
a priori definition
an argument that is based on logical deduction and is prior to sense experience.
key scholars
Anselm of canterbury
Descartes
who is Anselm
he was an 11th century monk, thelogian and Archbishop
Anselm quote
“i believe in order to understand”
Belief precedes understanding. His argument is written as a prayer. Anselm is a committed theist whose argument is anchored in the theistic language game
what kind of argument is ontological
a deductive argument
what is a deductive argument
deductive arguments intend to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. If the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true.
what is the argument based on
the argument is based ion the claim that God’s existence can be deduced from his definition - once God is correctly defined , there can be no doubt that he exists.
three claims the ontological argument makes
- the proposition ‘God exists’ is a a priori/deductive - it can be known to be true without reference to sense experience, just by thinking about Gods nature
- in the proposition ‘God exists’, the subject ‘God’ contains the predicate ‘exists’… so God must exist
- Gods existence is a necessary truth, not a contingent one.
what quote starts Anselms argument
“The fool says is his heart, “there is no God”” (psalm 14:1)
Anselms definition of God
“God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”
Anselms ontological argument in its simplest form
p1 God is the greatest conceivable being(that than which nothing greater can be conceived).
p2 it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
c therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.
Anselms ontological argument
p1 God is the greatest conceivable being(that than which nothing greater can be conceived).
p2 This is a definition in which even a fool understands in his mind, even though he does not understand it to exist in reality.
p3 There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing that this idea exists in reality
p4 for example, a painter has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint; but when he has painted it, that idea now exists both in his mind and reality
p5 It is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality than to exist only in the mind
p6 If God existed only in the mind, I could think of something greater namely a God who existed in reality also
c Therefore, in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must exist both in the mind and in reality
Gaunilos criticism
Gaunilos criticism uses a parody of Anselms argument. He gave an ontological argument for the existence of a perfect lost island. He says to imagine an island than which no greater island can be conceived and uses Anselms structure to illustrate its flaws.
p1 it is possible to conceive of the most perfect (lost) island
p2 it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
c therefore thew most perfect (lost) island must exist in reality.
reductio ad.absurdum - reduce it to absurdity
Gaunillo suggests that Anselms arguments is flawed because it could be used to prove the existence of an endless number of perfect objects - perfect trees. The real fool is anybody who argued something into existence in this way.
we can show a postereiori that this perfect island does not exist, so Anselms a priori argument does not work
Anselms response to Gaunillo
Anselm responded to Gaunillos criticism in the second version of his ontological argument. He writes
“God cannot be conceived not to exist - God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived - That which can be conceived not to exist is not God”
Islands are contingent
God is necessary
Anselm argues that you cannot compare God to an island(or any other things). God is a special case. So you can’t use the argument for anything but God. This is because islands are contingent, meaning they cannot exist necessarily.
Necessary existence is only a predicate of God, and not of things
Descartes support
he was a rationalist
God is defined as the supremely perfect being.
he must therefore possess all the perfect predicates of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence
he must also possess existence
first strength of ontological
it has certainty as a deductive argument - if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
- whilst inductive arguments are only probabilistic, deductive arguments give absolute certainty
- argument does not rely on empiricism/observation which is criticised by plato “The body is a source of endless trouble for us” - we cannot trust our senses and our observations, they deceive us. Knowledge gained in this way is unreliable.
if the premises of a deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must be true - deductive arguments give absolute certainty.
the ontological argument is a deductive argument - if it succeeds, it is absolute proof of the existence of God.
This is much more reliable and certain than inductive arguments, which can only give probability.
second strength of ontological
Anselms ontological argument is supported by descartes
descartes was a mathematician, scientist and philosopher of the enlightenment.
he asserted it was ‘quite evident’ that God must exisy by definition.
he used the examples of a triangle and mountains/valleys to illustrate his point.
This supports a key enlightenment philosopher is a strength of Anselms original ontological argument
first criticism of ontological
Gaunilo: the perfect island example demonstrates that Anselm’s argument does not work
anselms response islands are contingent whereas God is a necessarily existent. The argument cannot be applied to an island God is a special case
second criticism of ontological
Kant: Existence is not a predicate
kant objects to Descartes version of the ontological argument
he argues that existence is not a real predicate
this is because to say God exists adds nothing to our understanding of his essence.
Theres no difference between our concept of God and our concept of a God that exists
real predicates give us new knowledge of a subject. To say ‘he exists’ does not add anything
logic alone is insufficient - we need sense experience in order to truly understand something that exists
third criticism of ontological
Kant: Only if there is a God will God exist necessarily - Anselms proposition doesnt prove Gods existence
The ontological argument fails because it omits the word ‘if’
it should read: ‘if there is a God, then God will exist necessarily’
the statement ‘God exists necessarily’ may be logically true, because that is how Anselm defines God, but it does not follow that there really is a God.
you cannot define God into existence
fourth criticism of ontological
The argument depends on accepting Anselms definition of God (language games)
The ontological argument is a deductive argument - if it succeeds, it is proof of the existence of God. But this depends on accepting the premises of the argument, which incudes Anselms definition of God.
Anselm is assuming that even the fool accepts his definition of God. However, not everybody shares his definition of God
The argument only works if somebody accepts Anselms definition of God. This requires religious faith; they need to be part of the theistic language game.
The argument might work for people who already believe in God, but it does not succeed at persuading those who do not
Kant: The argument only shows that ‘if’ God exists, He exists necessarily
Karl Barth conceded this: he said that the argument was not intended as proof for Gods existence but was the result of a religious experience that Anselm had
the argument does offer proof
- If someone accepts Anselms definition of God, this decutive argument offers certain proof (unlike probabilistic inductive arguments)
It is a priori and therefore does not rely on fallible sense experience
the argument does not offer proof
Kant: ontological arguments merely show that ‘if’ God exists, he exists necessarily.
The argument only works if someone accepts anselms definition of God - it is therefore limited
it does have value for faith
The argument is written as a prayer - it is immersed in the religious language game. It has value for those with faith.
‘I believe in order to understand’ - Anselm believes that faith precedes understanding. The argument is the result of faith (not the cause of it).
Karl Barth: Anselm’s argument is about faith, not logic. It is the result of a religious experience - it is designed for people who already have faith.
