Content and Exam Tips for OCR A Level Religious Studies
Ontological Argument
Arguments Based on Reason
Content
the ontological argument
Key Knowledge
details of this argument including reference to:
Anselm
Gaunilo’s criticisms
Kant’s criticisms
Saint Anselm (1033-1109 CE)
Anselm was the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. He is best known for the celebrated “ontological argument” for the existence of God in the Proslogion.
Ontological Argument
The word ‘ontos’ means ‘being’. The ontological argument (‘concerned with being’) is an a priori argument, first proposed by St. Anselm in his book Proslogion. The argument attempts to prove God’s existence by definition.
Definition of God
Anselm defines God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. He then quotes Psalm 14:1 'The fool says in his heart there is no God.' His argument aims to show why the non-believer is foolish.
Anselm's Example
We can think of things in our mind but to exist in reality is greater. Anselm uses the example of a painter who has the idea of a painting in his mind. The painting is greater once it has been created because it now exists in reality as well as in the mind of the artist.
Existence in Mind and Reality
It is greater to exist in both the mind and in reality than to exist in just the mind alone.
Anselm says that the 'fool' would agree with his definition of God so has the concept in their mind, but they do not think that God exists in reality.
Therefore, because it is greater to exist in mind and reality than in mind alone, and because God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', God must exist in reality.
The success of ontological arguments depends on the logical reasoning. If there is a logical fallacy then the premises and conclusions can be challenged.
Anselm's Two Versions of the Ontological Argument
Version One
Premise 1: God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
Premise 2: It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than in the mind alone
Premise 3: God must be a being that exists in the mind and reality otherwise God is not a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
Conclusion: God exists
Version Two
Premise 1: God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
Premise 2: It is greater to be a being that cannot be conceived not to exist than to be a being that can be conceived not to exist
Premise 3: God must be a being that cannot be conceived not to exist
Conclusion: God must exist
In version two, Anselm is considering the notion of necessity and contingent existence and categorising God as a necessary being. Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence.
Anselm's Fool
Anselm considers God's existence to be self-evident by virtue of the fact that God is the greatest possible being. It is possible that Anselm is assuming the cosmological position that all things need a creator and God is that creator so it is obvious there cannot be a world without a creator. Alternatively, Anselm could be assuming the cosmological argument that the world is contingent and so depends on a necessary being.
Anselm Against Atheism
Another way of reading Anselm is from the position of an attack on atheism. Anselm is reflecting on the notion that is God exists then God is transcendent and above all things. For an atheist to state with certainty that there is no God, it could be assumed that somehow the atheist has a complete understanding of the nature of the universe and all existence. Anselm is stating that anyone who speaks with certainty that there is no God is a fool. Evidence only exists in the temporal world; if God is transcendent, and exists outside of the temporal world, what evidence does the atheist have?
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Descartes argued that necessary existence belonged to God as three angles belong to a triangle; it cannot be separated from God’s nature and definition. Furthermore, if God is a perfect being, he must exist to put the idea of his existence into the minds of imperfect humans, who could not otherwise conceive of him.
Norman Malcolm
Malcolm argued that the very nature of God meant that if he did not exist necessarily, he could not exist at all. Since it is contradictory to say that God does not exist, then he must exist necessarily. ‘…existence cannot be a perfection of something.’ Malcolm proposed a form of the argument in support of necessary existence working on the presumption that if God could exist, he does exist:
God is that which nothing greater can be thought.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
If God possesses all perfections, he must possess necessary existence.
A necessary being cannot not exist.
If God could exist then he would exist necessarily.
It is contradictory to say that a necessary being does not exist.
God must exist.
Malcolm’s argument has not been generally acceptable. One reason for this is that there can be things that do not exist without their existence being impossible. It might be illogical to say ‘sometimes there is a God, and sometimes there isn’t’ but it is not illogical to say ‘maybe there is a God and maybe there isn’t’. Malcolm’s argument rests on our acceptance that God’s existence is not the same as other kinds of existence.
Additionally, Malcolm did conceive that he would not persuade atheists. He felt that the argument was still worthwhile because it would help to confirm theistic belief. The trouble with this is that Malcolm was just reducing the Ontological Argument to one which confirms that God exists for those who believe in God. It is arguable that theists would want to be able to say that God exists in reality, whether we believe in him or not.
Alvin Plantinga – Modal Logic
Plantinga furthered the argument, by claiming that since God is maximally great and prefect, then he must exist in any and all conceivable worlds. He suggested that:
We are able to imagine any number of alternative worlds in which things may be different.
There must be any number of possible worlds, including our own.
If God’s existence is necessary, he must exist in them all and have all of characteristics of God in them all.
This is because God is maximally great and maximally excellent.
Such a being would be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent in all worlds.
In God and other Minds (1976), Plantinga observed that ‘…the greatest possible being must have maximal excellence in every possible world.’
Weaknesses
David Hume
Hume considered the Ontological Argument a failure because it made a false assumption about existence; that necessary existence was a coherent concept. Hume also argued that existence could only ever be contingent, it is not necessary. All things that could be said to exist could also be said not to exist.
Immanuel Kant
Kant opposed the view of Anselm that existence was necessary for perfection. He called this a predicate, that is, something that can be stated as true about an object without actually seeing or experiencing it. Thus, if God had all perfections, then a predicate of God would be that he called existed. However, Kant observed:
Existence is not associated with the definition of something, since it did not add to our understanding of that thing.
We must establish the existence of something before we can say what it is like, not the other way around.
We cannot ascribe existence a priori to our definition of a perfect being.
Bertrand Russell
Russell supported Kant's ideas on instantiation. In order to discuss the qualities of anything, we must first instantiate it and then discover it's properties. If you cannot instantiate God you can never demonstrate God's existence.
Douglas Gasking
Gasking demonstrated the fallacy of the Ontological Argument:
The creation of the world is the most supreme achievement conceivable.
The greater the limitation of the creation, the more impressive the achievement.
The greatest limitation of a creator would be non-existence.
Therefore, a world created by a non-existent creator would be greater than one created by an existent creator.
An existing God is therefore not the greatest conceivable being, since an even greater being would be one that did not exist.
Conclusion: God does not exist.
Richard Dawkins
Dawkins rejects the Ontological Argument, claiming that it is ‘logomachist trickery’ that ‘offends me aesthetically’ and should be treated with suspicion because it has no bias in empirical fact or scientific observation and lacks even ‘a single piece of data from the real world.’
St Thomas Aquinas
God's existence is self-evident to Himself but not to us; the predicate is the same as the subject.
Descartes' Ontological Argument
Descartes' version of the argument is in some way clearer than that of Anselm.
He starts by stating that ‘God is a supremely perfect being’ i.e. possesses all perfections - existence is a perfection. Therefore God exists. He used a triangle to prove his point. A triangle has necessary characteristics (predicates) such as internal angles which add up to 180 degrees. If any of these predicates are removed, the triangle is no longer a triangle. Descartes holds that just as we cannot conceive of a triangle without it having three angles; just as we cannot think of a mountain without a valley; so we cannot think of God without conceiving him as existing. Existence is a necessary predicate of God.
Gaunilo (11th Century)
Gaunilo was a monk from Marmoutier, France, and a contemporary of Anselm. He criticised Anselm's reasoning and defends the thinking of the 'fool'.
Gaunilo's Criticisms
Gaunilo used the analogy of the perfect island in his book On Behalf of the Fool to illustrate the absurdity of the first form of the ontological argument.
He said that if you imagine ‘the most perfect island’, then since it is perfect and existence is part of perfection then it must necessarily exist. Otherwise, the grottiest island would be better than the imaginary ‘perfect’ island.
Anselm’s counter argument to this was that he was not arguing about contingent things such as islands, but of ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Islands have no ‘intrinsic maximum’ – they can always be bettered (since according to John Hick, notions of perfection are subjective). God is not temporal or contingent and thus his existence is necessary. Anselm formulated the second form to counter argue this specific criticism.
Second Form
Anselm developed his argument by proposing that it is impossible to conceive of a God not existing. God is a necessary being – he cannot not be. If God were a contingent being (one whose existence depends on something else), he would not be the greatest since we could image him not existing. Thus, a necessary being is greater than a contingent one. If God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ then he must be a necessary being i.e. in existence.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths of Gaunilo's Criticisms
It is possible to imagine something in your mind but it does not have to exist in reality.
Anselm is defining things into existence.
Bertrand Russell suggested that existence is only meaningful if it refers to an instance of something.
Weaknesses of Gaunilo's Criticisms
Alvin Plantinga supports Anselm. He states that an island has no intrinsic maxim - it can always be improved. God does have an intrinsic maxim; he is the greatest conceivable being and cannot be any greater. Therefore, God exists.
Gaunilo and Russell both want empirical evidence, but even the arguments that rely on empirical evidence are not perfect.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 CE)
Kant was a German philosopher and one of the foremost thinkers of the Enlightenment. His comprehensive and systematic work in epistemology (the theory of knowledge), ethics, and aesthetics greatly influenced all subsequent philosophy, especially the various schools of Kantianism and idealism.
Kant's Criticisms
Kant's criticisms focus around analytic and synthetic statements. An analytic statement contains the truth needed to verify it within the statement itself, e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men. A synthetic statement needs external evidence to verify whether it is true or false, e.g. it is snowing outside.
Kant's first criticism: God has necessary existence
Kant agreed with Descartes' reasoning that by definition a three-sided figure must be a triangle, but pointed out that if you do not have a triangle in the first place, then it won't have three sides anyway. To posit a triangle, and yet to reject its three angles, is self-contradictory; but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles.
Applying this reasoning to the existence of God, Kant argued that if you believe in God, it is logical to think his existence is necessary. However, the fact that you can define something in an analytic way does not necessarily make it real. A popular example of this is 'A unicorn has one horn'. That may be true but it does not make unicorns exist.
Kant's second criticism: Existence is not a predicate
Kant accepted that there are some sentences where the subject cannot be thought of without the predicate - in other words they contain information that is inseparable from the subject, for example, a house has a door. Two plus two equals four. But God and existence, he said, was not like that because it was quite possible to think of a being who does not exist.
He also pointed out that existing in reality may not add anything to an idea that exists in the imagination. Kant gave the example of coins - he pointed out that you do not do anything to the description of an object by saying it is real not imaginary. An imaginary pile of a hundred gold coins will have the same number in it as a real pile. All you are doing by saying this object really exists is asserting there is a real example of it; you are not improving the description of it. To say that something exists makes no difference to the definition of the thing. Just because you add ‘and exists’ to the end of the word ‘bachelor’, this does not change its definition.
Because the existence, or non-existence, of real money adds nothing to the number of coins, he said existence is not a predicate. So if we cannot accept existence as a predicate when talking of coins, why should we make a special case when talking about something like God? In answer to this criticism, some supporters of the ontological argument point out that there is a big difference in what you can buy with real coins and imaginary ones, so existence is a predicate.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths of Kant's Criticisms
Kant is right to argue that existence needs synthetic verification. 'God exists' is not an analytic statement because it does not hold the truth needed to verify within the statement.
Existence is not a real predicate because it does not add anything new to the description of the concept.
A definition of a concept does not bring it into existence.
Weaknesses of Kant's Criticisms
A priori ontological arguments use reason only, not synthetic evidence. If you follow the premises, you have to come to the logical conclusion that God exists. Descartes argues that just as a triangle must have three sides, a mountain must have a valley, so existence cannot be separated from God.
The definition of God includes the predicate of existence. Existence is part of what it means to be the greatest conceivable thing (Anselm) or a supremely perfect being (Descartes).
God is logically necessary. Anselm showed it was greater to be necessary than contingent. A logically necessary being cannot not exist.
A Priori and A Posteriori Arguments
A Posteriori arguments use empirical data, sense, and observations. This type of arguments are found in teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God.
A Priori arguments use reason to come to their conclusion. This type of argument is found in the ontological arguments for the existence of God.
Evaluation
Strengths of a priori arguments
Rely only on reason and logic so do not need to use the senses that can be deceptive.
The premises have to lead to the conclusion.
Empirical evidence can be interpreted in many different ways.
Strengths of a posteriori arguments
Rely on empiricism, senses, and observations which everyone can experience and verify.
Use synthetic evidence which leads to a probably conclusion. New evidence could change this conclusion and it allows for a variety of approaches.
Start from what is known and then reach a conclusion about what is unknown. This is a more reasonable approa
ch; how can we start with something we know nothing about?