Transcript ao2-ontological

Philosophy of Religion
AO2
1 d, e and f evaluation questions
Ontological arguments
• Ontology is a branch of philosophy that explores the concept of existence. It comes
from the Greek word ‘ontos’, meaning ‘being’. In philosophy, existence can refer to
several different types of existence. Everyone in this classroom exists physically – we
can be seen and heard, we exist empirically. Now consider maths. Numbers exist, but
they don’t exist physically. I cannot go out and touch the number six – but this doesn’t
mean it doesn’t exist. Now think about your emotions. We can be happy, sad, excited,
shocked… Our emotions don’t exist in the same way as we exist, but they also don’t
exist in the same way as numbers. Emotions can be felt, but not by others – they exist
in an entirely different way.
• Ontological arguments work from principles and definitions in an attempt to
demonstrate the existence of God. They use logic to conclude God’s existence, rather
than sensory experience. According to the ontological argument, almost everything
exists contingently. We are contingent beings because we wouldn’t exist without our
parents, oxygen, food, etc. Everything else in the universe exists contingently too; in
other circumstances it would cease to exist. However, according to religious believers,
God is necessary rather than contingent. God is not a ‘thing’; He has not come about
because of anything; there was no time when God did not exist, and there is nothing
that could happen that would cause God to cease to exist. God’s existence is different.
Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn
from any aspect of the content above, such as:
• The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive.
• The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments
for the
existence of God.
• The effectiveness of the ontological argument for God’s existence.
• Whether the ontological argument is more persuasive than the cosmological/teleological
arguments for God’s existence.
• The effectiveness of the challenges to the ontological argument for God’s existence.
• The extent to which objections to the ontological argument are persuasive.
1. Deductive Proofs
• For this theme, we will be looking at deductive, a priori arguments.
The inductive arguments we have looked at argue for the probability
of God’s existence; deductive arguments hold that it is logically
necessary for God to exist. As these arguments are based on logic,
they can also be categorised as a priori arguments. This means that
unlike the arguments we have looked at so far, these arguments do
not rely on our experiences, but favour logic.
Challenges to the Ontological Argument
Create a mind map or timeline of the challenges to the ontological
argument – page 2
Use video 2 on the OA and this powerpoint on the website, booklet 3,
and the extract from Vardy at the back of booklet 4 to help you
It is your responsibility to complete this – detailed and with
‘reasoning and evidence’
Homework
Complete the notes on the challenges to the ontological argument
AO2 Challenges
1. Why did Gaunilo reject the
ontological argument?
2. Why did Aquinas reject the
ontological argument?
3. Why did Kant reject the
ontological argument?
4. Why did Hume reject the
ontological argument?
5. Why did Davies reject the
ontological argument?
Why did Russell reject
the ontological
argument?
Gaunilo’s challenge – Vardy 85
Gaunilo was a contemporary of St Anselm, and was the first to object to Anselm’s idea that
God exists by definition. Gaunilo was a Christian, but he believed that Anselm’s argument
was not logical and therefore needed to be refuted. He wrote his objections under the title
‘On Behalf of the Fool’.
• Think! Why do you think he called his work this?
Gaunilo claimed that the flaws in Anselm’s logic would become obvious if one went through
the argument again, but replacing the idea of God with the idea of an island. He explained
that we could imagine the most perfect Lost Island; we understand the implications of the
term ‘the most perfect island’ and therefore this notion exists as a concept in our
understanding (basically, we can imagine, and understand, a perfect island). Using Anselm’s
logic, we might go on to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is
inferior to the same island existing in reality. If our island is truly the mostperfect, it cannot
be inferior to any other island: it must exist in reality. But clearly, there is no such island in
reality. We cannot bring something into existence just by defining it.
“When someone tells me there is such an island, I easily understand what is being said, for
there is nothing difficult here. Suppose, however, he then goes on to say: you cannot doubt
that this island, more excellent than all land, actually exists somewhere in reality…I would
think he were joking; or if I accepted the argument, I do not know whom I would regard as
the greater fool, me for accepting it or him for supposing that he had proved the existence
of this island with any kind of certainty.”
Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo
Anselm was actually quite impressed with Gaunilo’s argument, and even
included it in later versions of his book, along with his reply.
Anselm argued that, although Gaunilo was right in the case of an island,
his objections didn’t work when applied to God, because an island has
contingent existence, whereas God’s existence is necessary.
The ontological argument only works when applied to God, nothing else,
because of God’s uniqueness and the way in which He exists. Of course
this perfect island you can imagine doesn’t exist, because it is contingent –
it relies on lots of other things for its existence. God doesn’t.
Aquinas’ challenge – Vardy 85
People have different definitions of God – not everyone agrees God is
‘That than which nothing greater can be known’.
‘Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition God exists is
not self evident to us.’ Summa Theologica
Also, not everyone is convinced by the argument, had it been a very
strong argument then everyone would find God’s existence to be selfevident, but it is not. God’s existence is synthetic and cannot be proven by
analysing a concept.
Aquinas - The Ontological Argument fails!
Some things were
self-evident and
could be known a
priori
In order to do this
we must be able to
define subject and
predicate
Therefore, man
cannot define God
a priori
Humans have
limited intellect and
are unable to
understand or
define the nature of
God
Kant – what can you remember? Vardy 86-7
Many philosophers believe that Kant’s criticism of ontological arguments for the existence of God is fatal; it
has demolished the arguments. Kant argued that ‘existence is not a predicate’; it is not a characteristic of
something. Predicates of something describe what that thing is like; it might be blue, fuzzy, round, sharp or
shiny. Predicates tell us something about the object that would help us identify it in some way. Existence,
according to Kant, is not the same as a predicate, it doesn’t tell us anything about the object. When we say
something ‘exists’, we are saying that there is an example of something with these characteristics in real
life.
If we apply this to the ontological argument, then when we are thinking of Anselm’s ‘TTWNGCBC’ or
Descartes’ ‘supremely perfect being’, we are thinking of a concept. Whether or not that concept is
actualised is an issue, but not one that can be solved simply by adding ‘existence’ to the predicates we
ascribe to the concept. We can predicate of a unicorn that it is like a horse and has a single horn in the
middle of its head, but adding ‘exists’ to our description won’t make any different as to whether or not the
concept is actualised so that we can go and find one. I cannot simply say ‘a unicorn is a horse-like creature
with a horn that exists’, and one will appear as an example in real life.
Therefore, when we describe the concept of God, it is pointless to say that existence is a predicate,
because it doesn’t actualise God. It doesn’t create a God that we can use as a real-life example, because
existence is not a predicate; it’s not one of God’s characteristics.
• Important point = Kant was a Christian, and so was not arguing against the existence of God but rather
pointing out the flawed logic of ontological arguments.
It is possible to apply Anselm’s logic to Kant’s objection and say that God’s existence is necessary; other
things only exist contingently. Therefore, necessary existence can be a predicate of God – but it can only be
predicated of God. This isn’t a very strong defence however, because then the argument becomes circular:
we have to accept that God
Hume – see Vardy 88
This argument is presented by Cleanthes in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Hume, or his character Cleanthes, puts the argument like this:
“I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to
demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is
demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly
conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also
conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose
this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.”
The argument in this passage, formalised, goes something like this:
(1) The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.
(2) If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.
(2) Everything can be conceived not to exist.
Therefore:
(3) Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.
• To find out whether a statement can be proved a priori, we try to imagine
that it is false. If we are able to imagine that it is false, then we may infer
that it cannot be proved a priori; empirical investigation will be necessary
in order to discover whether the statement is true or false. If we are
unable imagine the statement being false, then we may infer that the
statement is true. This is because conceivability is a guide to possibility.
What is impossible involves a contradiction, and what involves a
contradiction is inconceivable, so what is impossible is inconceivable.
• To find out whether God is a necessary being, therefore, we must try to
imagine that he does not exist. As we are able to do so, his non-existence
is possible. No amount of abstract reasoning will be able to establish his
existence, therefore, because only necessary truths can be proved a
priori. The conceivability of God’s non-existence shows that no a priori
proof of his existence is possible.
Russell – see Vardy 89
Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g.
Men exist
Santa Claus is a man
Therefore Santa Claus exists
In your own words explain how this can be used to challenge the
ontological argument
Strengths
1. Deductive and a priori – logically persuasive – proof. If the definition of
God is correct it works
2. S. Davies, existence is a predicate – thalers
3. It is based on a convincing premise – it is better to exist in reality. If
existence is a predicate of a Supremely Perfect Being then to deny the
existence of a Supremely Perfect Being is contradictory
4. Plantinga’s possible worlds theory
5. Demonstrates God’s existence
6. Reason is the only reliable source of knowledge – senses mistaken
7. Anselm’s argument supports those with faith