The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one of the oldest arguments in Christian theology. It is also one of the most difficult to understand because it relies soley upon logical arguments and not at all upon empirical evidence.
Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was one of the most influential proponents of this argument, and phrased it so:
We have a concept of a Perfect Being:
Such a Perfect Being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.
Somewhat more difficult to understand, he also wrote:
Assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
Buried within all of that philosophical double-talk is the argument that in order for a being to qualify as “Greatest†(i.e., no “greater†being can be conceived of), it must have the quality of “existence.†If this “Greatest†being were simply an idea in people’s minds, then it would not have its own existence and, hence, wouldn’t really qualify as “Greatest†anymore.
If you find that to be nonsense, then you aren’t alone. Even one of Anselm’s contemporaries, a monk named Gaunilo, noted that argument allowed for satirical copy-cats:
We have a concept of a Perfect Island:
Such a Perfect Island must necessarily exist.
Why? If it did not exist, then it would not be Perfect.
Basically, the rebuttal here suggests that if the Ontological Argument is valid, then absolutely every perfect thing we can think of must also simultaneously exist in reality â€" but we know that that isn’t true. Therefore, there must be some flaw in the argument itself.
Anselm and those who accept his argument do not agree with this critique. First, they argue that a “Perfect Island†is not really a concept but merely an imaginary idea â€" but this just begs the question of why their “God†is not also just an imaginary idea.
Second, they argue that the idea of a “Perfect Being†is more valid because it is universal among human beings. Unfortunately, that is more assertion than substance. No proof is offered of it and contrary evidence certainly exists. But of course, even if it is true that the idea of a “Perfect Being†were reasonably universal, how does that demonstrate that the concept is more valid? That resorts to the logical fallacy that anything which is popular is more likely true.
And besides, there are other ideas which have as much or nearly as much universality as the idea of a “Perfect Being†allegedly has. What about the concept of the “Perfect Meal†or the “Perfect Spouse�
Other Ontological Arguments have been offered on the basis of mathematics, logic and other sciences. The arguments here state that the existence of perfect relationships in those fields points to the existence of a perfect being.
This does not really amount to much, however, since perfect relationships do not really exist in the way human beings and rocks do. Instead, they are concepts in our minds â€" if the analogy is really to be used, then it should be accepted that a Perfect God is also just a concept in our minds. This is a conclusion few atheists will disagree with.
A final example of an Ontological Argument was offered by Descartes, who suggested that we all have within us the idea of a perfect, infinite Being. But since we ourselves are neither perfect nor infinite, then this idea could not have come from within us. Instead, it must have come from outside of us â€" from a real perfect, infinite being. In his own words:
For though the idea of substance be in my mind owing to this, that I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, seeing I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite.
One objection to the Cartesian Ontological Argument is something already noted: one can merely assert that all humans have an innate idea of a perfect, infinite Being. It cannot be proven and there does exist real contrary evidence.
Although it can be shown that some sort of religion appears to have existed in all cultures, it is not true that religion and theism are logically connected, much less religion and the sort of theism assumed here â€" one can occur without the other. Nevertheless, many religious groups and theologians continue to accept this assumption, thus keeping this argument on artificial life-support long after the plug should have mercifully been pulled.
« Arguments for the Existence of God | What is God? »
No comments:
Post a Comment