★Arguments based on reason: ontological

overview

• ontology is the branch of philosophy which explores the nature of existence

• the ontological argument claims that by thinking about the definition of God and its implications, we can work out though reason that God must exist by St Anselm

• it is an a priori argument - it depends on logic rather than sense experience

ontological

to do with the nature of existence

a priori arguments

• arguments which draw conclusions through the use of reason

• some people argue that a priori arguments are more persuasive because they rely on deductive logic

• if the premises are true, then they lead to certainty

• e.g. 1+1=2 or all bachelors are unmarried men

a posteriori

• arguments which draw conclusions through the use of experience

• a posteriori arguments can only lead to strong probability because they rely on sense experience, and new evidence or a better explanation could be found

• however, they might be more persuasive than a priori arguments because people can see the evidence for themselves

• e.g. it is raining outside or all swans are white

contingent

depending on other things for its existence

necessary existence

existence which does not depend on anything else

predicate

a term which describes a distinctive characteristic of something

deductive argument

• the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow

• bachelors are unmarried men → Sam is an unmarried men → Sam is a bachelor

inductive argument

• the conclusion follows from the premises. if the premises are true, then the conclusion may likely lead to a probable conclusion

• cats have tails → Sam has a tail → Sam is a cat

analytic argument

• the truth (or falsity) of an analytic statement is completely determined by the meanings of the words and symbols used to express it

• an analytic proposition is true by definition and needs no experience or evidence to support it

• e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men

synthetic argument

• the truth (or falsity) cannot be determined solely from the definitions of its terms

• a synthetic proposition need evidence and experience to support it

• e.g. the car outside my house is red

Anselm’s ontological argument

• Anselm lived in the 11th century and was a Benedictine monk who became Archbishop of Canterbury

• his argument was written for ‘faith seeking understanding’, not as an attempt to convert non-believers

• he made reference to the ‘fool’ who does not understand that God must exist: ‘the fool says in his heart', “there is no God” Psalm 53

Anselm’s first form

• premise 1 - God is the greatest conceivable being

• premise 2 - if God exists in the mind alone, then a greater being can be imagined to exist both in the mind and in reality

• premise 3 - this being would then be greater than God

• premise 4 - thus God cannot exist only as an idea in the mind

• conclusion - therefore, God exists both as an idea and in reality

Gaunilo’s perfect island criticism of Anselm’s argument

• Gaunlio attacked Anselm’s ontological argument

• replacing the word ‘God’ with ‘the greatest conceivable island’ led to an argument which had the same form as Anselm’s, with true premises, and yet which leads to a false conclusion:

• premise 1 - i can conceive of a ‘lost island’ that than which no greater island can be thought

• premise 2 - such an island must possess all greatness

• premise 3 - it is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind

• conclusion - therefore, the ‘lost island’ must exist in reality

replies to Gaunilo’s criticism

1. however, this is not necessarily true. Anselm is speaking about God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, whereas Gaunilo is talking about a lost island and Plantinga pointed out that we can always think of a greater island (e.g. one which is bigger, has more trees). an island cannot have an ‘intrinsic maximum’

2. necessary existence is part of the concept of God whereas it is not part of the concept of the greatest conceivable lost island. therefore, there is no contradiction in saying the island does not exist but there is a contradiction in saying God does not exist as it is equivalent of saying that ‘an existing God does not exist’

Anselm’s second form

• premise 1 - God is the greatest conceivable being

• premise 2 - it is greater to be a ‘necessary’ being than a contingent being

• premise 3 - if God exists only as a contingent being, then a greater non-contingent being could be imagined

• premise 4 - this being would then be greater than God

• premise 5 - to be the greatest, therefore, God must be non-contingent

• conclusion - God is also a ‘necessary being’, since no other being could have created him and he cannot be made to cease to exist

Descartes’ ontological argument

• Descartes distinguished between a thing’s essence and its existence. he argued it was possible to determine what the essential nature of something was (its essence) independently of knowing whether it existed

• he used the illustration of a triangle whose essence was three angles that added up to 180 degrees. the idea of the triangle could not be separated from the idea of the three angles

• however that does not demand that triangles actually exist. however, as Descartes could conceive of his own existence, he could also conceive of the existence of a supremely perfect being

• when he considered the idea of a supremely perfect being, he argued that existence was an aspect of perfection. in other words, the idea of a supremely perfect being was the unique case where existence was part of its essence, and therefore demanded such a being existed

1. i exist

2. in my mind i have the concept of a supremely perfect being

3. existence is a perfection, so existence is part of its essence

4. a supremely perfect being must exist in order to be supremely perfect

5. therefore, a supremely perfect being exists

Norman Malcolm

• Norman Malcolm developed Anselm’s second form. he rejected Anselm’s first form since it implied that existence was a property, which Malcolm disagreed with (a similar view to Kant)

• however, the second form involved necessary existence, and Malcolm did regard this as a property, and thus it was not open to Kant’s criticisms

• Malcolm avoids the language of greatness that Anselm used, and instead defines God as ‘an unlimited being’. one characteristic of an unlimited being would be necessary existence, since an unlimited being cannot be dependent on anything

• hence, God’s existence is either impossible (since he could not be brought into existence by anything greater than himself) or God is necessary (since he cannot be brought into existence as he must always have existed)

• but God’s existence cannot be impossible since the only thing to make it impossible would be that the notion was logically contradictory, which it is not

• therefore, God must be necessary and so must exist

Aquinas’ criticisms of the ontological argument

• Aquinas said that God cannot be demonstrated through a priori argument, because it is not self-evident that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’

• people have different ideas about what God is, and they are able to conceive of God not existing. the human mind cannot comprehend God

• ‘non-existent God’ can’t be a contradiction because people managed to imagine a world with no God

• Anselm’s argument, Aquinas thought, only shows that many people have a concept of God, but it does not show that there is an existing reality which matches that concept

Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument

• Kant attacked Descartes’ form of the ontological argument, but it also applies to Anselm’s form. Kant challenged Descartes’ view that God’s existence was a necessary predicate. he said: ‘existence is not a real predicate’ as it does not add anything to the concept

• more recently, a similar criticism centres around first and second-order predicates. the former tells us about the nature of something e.g. ‘the cat is black’. the latter tells us about concepts e.g. ‘there are lots of cats’

• it is argued that Anselm and Descartes wrongly defined existence as a first-order predicate when it really is a second-order concept. existence is the property of concept, not of an object. hence, the affirmation of existence is nothing more than the denial of the number zero. existence is not something that can be added to or subtracted from something

• we do not add anything when we declare that it ‘is’. in the sentence ‘God exists’, the subject is really ‘the concept of God’ and the predicate ‘exists’ means that ‘the concept of God really applies to something’. existence is not a property

• the real contains no more than the merely possible, so a concept is not made more perfect/greater by adding reality. another criticism by Kant attacked Descartes’ form of the ontological argument. it concerned the rejection of both subject and predicate:

• if you have a triangle, then you must have three angles → but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle with its three angles → if you do not have a triangle, then you don’t have three angles → likewise, if there is no God, then there is no being with necessary existence → if God exists, he will have necessary existence, but it is not a contradiction to say that such a concept does not have an actuality

criticisms of Kant

1. necessary existence is a property of an inability to be generated or made corrupt - Malcolm supports this

2. Stephen Davis argued that existence is a great making quality since the existence of money in reality, rather than just the concept of money in my mind, permits me to purchase real items in the real world

Bertrand Russell

• Russell criticised the logic of the ontological argument by using the example that ‘the present king of France is bald’

• statements about the present king of France can be neither true nor false because there is no present king of France

• likewise, making statements about the attributes of God is only meaningful if there is an actual God; the statements themselves do nothing to answer this question

‘The ontological argument fails because it rests on a logical fallacy’ Discuss

How persuasive are ontological arguments for the existence of God?