ANSELM's SECOND ARGUMENT - NORMAL MALCOLM S VERSION

ANSELM's SECOND ARGUMENT - NORMAL MALCOLM S VERSION

Dialogue Education

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

for the existence of God

********************************************

There are a number of ways of trying to prove that God exists. One can:

  1. Argue from the design in the world (The DESIGN ARGUMENT)
  2. Argue from the existence of an absolute standard of morality or from the existence of our conscience (The MORAL ARGUMENT)
  3. Argue from existence of the world based on the first cause argument or the dependency of the world on God (The COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT)
  4. Argue from human experience of God (The ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE)

All these arguments are important and significant but they share one thing in common their starting points are something we experience. They are A POSTERIORI ARGUMENTS in that they are based on experience as a starting point. The arguments may or may not succeed, but at least it would make sense with all of them to deny the existence of God, to say that perhaps God does not exist. After all, it is a possibility that Tony Blair may not exist even though he does it is not necessary that Tony Blair exists. He might not have done.

The Ontological argument is totally different from any of the other arguments on several grounds:

  1. It does not start from experience as a starting point,
  2. It claims to arrive at the existence of God by analyzing the idea of God and this idea does not depend on experience it is therefore an A PRIORI ARGUMENT.
  3. If the argument succeeds, then the existence of God is logically necessary and, as a matter of logic, it simply does not make sense to doubt that God exists.

The key issue in the ontological argument is what is meant by 'necessity'. Once you have understood this you will have begun to understand the argument if you fail to understand this you will not have begun to appreciate what the argument is about.

Take this issue slowly and start by moving back a little. Take the statement: "All bears are animals" This statement is true, but what makes it true? It is true because we know by examining or analysing the word 'bear' that it must be an animal. It is part of the very definition of the word bear that it should be an animal. It simply does not make sense to say that a bear is not an animal. Once we understand what the word 'bear' means we can see that various statements are true including:

"All bears will die", and

"Bears have bones"

It will be clear from this that when we are talking here about bears we are referring not to Paddington bear, Rupert Bear, Pooh bear or even Teddy bears but to bears that are animals, that are born and die and that have sense organs. I am defining what a bear is and the truth of the statement follows from my definition. If I want to determine the truth of these statements I first have to understand what is meant by the word 'bear'.

Now take another statement:

"All bears are brown"

This is different from the previous statement not just because it is not true (we know that there are black bears and polar bears) but because the statement could only be proved to be right or wrong based on EVIDENCE. We would have to check all the bears we could find to find whether they were all brown and if we found one black or white or red bear the statement would be untrue.

So we have a division between two types of statement:

1

Dialogue Education

  1. ANALYTIC STATEMENTS are statements which are necessarily true because the predicate is included in the subject. To determine their truth, we have to learn more about what the subject word means. So to determine whether 'All bears are animals' is true, we would have to find out how the word 'bear' is defined.
  1. SYNTHETIC STATEMENTS are statements which are true because of the evidence. We will not find out whether the statements are true by analysing the subject but by looking at evidence.

ANALYTIC statements are A PRIORI because these are independent of experience whilst SYNTHETIC statements are almost always A POSTERIORI (the 'almost' here is because Kant maintained there were a priori synthetic statements - but these are not relevant for the Ontological argument). What has all this to do with God? The answer is a great deal. The key problem is whether the statement: GOD EXISTS is an analytic or synthetic statement. It is this question with which the ontological argument is, at least partly, concerned.

Aquinas maintained that as far as we are concerned 'God exists' is a synthetic statement if we want to determine whether it is true we must start from facts in the world, we must reason from experience and start with the existence of motion, causation, contingency; the design in the world or similar features of the world around us. It makes sense to say that 'There is no God' just as it makes sense to say 'there are no bears'. Both statements would be based on evidence and both statements may or may not be true. Aquinas did not think it was possible for human beings to know God's essence. If we could know God's essence, then he considered that we would be able to know that God's essence includes God's existence, but we cannot know this. The ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT maintains that 'God exists' is an ANALYTIC STATEMENT. It cannot fail to be true. If this is the case, then to determine whether the statement is true we must first begin with a definition of God. AQUINAS maintains that GIVEN that the world is caused, is in motion or is dependent then IT IS NECESSARY that God exists. God is DE RE necessary, God is factually necessary without dependence and without beginning or end, God is necessary in himself but, Aquinas holds, we can only know that God is necessary by examining the world around us. It makes sense to deny that God exists even though such a denial would be false. (As we saw in the Cosmological argument, some maintain that the very idea of de re necessary existence is flawed. Whether it is or not is a crucial issue for the Cosmological argument.)

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT effectively starts with the claim that God is DE DICTO NECESSARY. God cannot not exist it is logical nonsense to say that God does not exist since once we have understood what the word God means we could not fail to see that God exists in just the same way as once we have understood what a bear is we could not fail to understand that it is an animal. However it seeks to move from God's de dicto necessity to God's de re necessity AND THIS IS WHERE PROBLEMS ARISE.

This, then, is where the whole debate starts. If you think that it is odd that no mention has yet been made of Anselm, Gaunilo, Descartes, Gessendi, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Hartshorne and all those other people who have discussed the argument, then this is because none of them will really be understandable until one has understood that the ontological argument is an a priori argument which is held to show that God's existence is de dicto necessary and that this can then be used to arrive at God's de re necessary existence. If this is accepted, then everything is going to hinge on how you define God.

ANSELM’S FIRST ARGUMENT

------

If everything is going to turn on definitions, it is not surprising that Anselm's argument starts with a definition. Anselm defines God as:

"That than which nothing greater can be conceived"

1

Dialogue Education

Notice that this definition is given in the Proslogion (1078) Ch. 2, which is an address to God Anselm is trying to show how selfevident God's existence is to a believer[1]. Anselm believes already and this is important. The Proslogion is, effectively, a prayer and not a piece of philosophy and this is important.

Anselm's argument proceeds as follows:

-God is by definition that than which nothing greater can be conceived. This definition is understood by believers and nonbelievers.

-It is one thing to exist in the mind alone and another to exist both in the mind and in reality.

-It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than to exist in the mind alone.

-Therefore God must exist in reality as well as in the mind. If he did not, then we could conceive of one who did and he would be greater than God.

In effect, what Anselm is saying is that 'God Exists' is an analytic statement we can find that the statement is true merely by analysing what it means to be God. The key step is (3) above the move from God's existence as a concept to God's existence 'in re', in reality. Anselm was a Platonist (unlike Aquinas who was an Aristotelian) and this had a major effect on their positions as should become clear from the reading.

Gaunilo challenged Anselm with his LOST ISLAND argument. If the Lost Island is the greatest that can be conceived it too must exist. Gaunilo, however, did not really understand Anselm's challenge. Anselm's point is that only God has all perfections and his argument therefore only applies to God, only God is 'that than which none greater can be conceived', only God is the greatest possible being. Because God is perfect God must, for Anselm, be necessary as otherwise God would lack something that belongs to perfection (although it may be asked what characteristics belong to perfection and this may not be clear).

Plantinga says that the concept of the 'most excellent island' is as meaningless as 'the highest number' as the qualities that make up an island's excellence have no intrinsic maximum. This can lead one to ask whether the same applies to God Anselm's reply to Gaunilo effectively says that it does not.

Gaunilo is saying that God is merely the greatest ACTUAL being just as the island is the greatest ACTUAL island but this is NOT what Anselm is saying. Anselm is claiming that God is the greatest POSSIBLE being and his argument only applies to God.

St. THOMAS AQUINAS (1224-75)

------

St. Thomas Aquinas rejects the Ontological argument for various reasons:

Aquinas claims that we do NOT have an agreed definition of God. He rejects Anselm's definition and holds that many people have different ideas of God some people even hold that God has a body (which Aquinas considers to be absurd). We cannot, therefore, start from an agreed definition since not only can we not agree on a definition but even if we could we have no way of knowing that this definition is correct.

We can only reason to God from the effects of God’s action in the world - so any argument has to start from experience. It has to be A POSTERIORI.

1

Dialogue Education

Aquinas does not consider that we know what God’s nature is, so a real understanding of God’s nature is impossible to us. However Aquinas holds that IF we understood God’s nature (as God does) then we would know that God’s nature DOES have to include existence (i.e. ‘God exists’ would be analytic) but as we do NOT know God’s nature, we have to treat it as synthetic. BE CAREFUL HERE THEREFORE. Aquinas is saying that, in fact, ‘God exists’ is analytically true but we cannot know this to be the case and we can only treat it as synthetically true.

RENE DESCARTES (1596-1650)

------

Descartes' version of the argument is in some ways clearer than that of Anselm. 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. Descartes gave several more precise formulations of his argument in response to the criticism of Caterus. His second restatement is as follows:

  1. Whatever is of the essence of something must be affirmed of it
  2. It is of the essence of God that he exists for by definition his essence is to exist, therefore
  3. Existence must be affirmed of God.

Descartes did qualify his argument in order to guard against the sort of attack that Gaunilo developed against Anselm. He says that:

  1. The argument applies only to an absolutely perfect and necessary being (it cannot, therefore, be applied to something like a lost island).
  2. Not everyone has to think of God, but if they do think of God then God cannot be thought not to exist.
  3. God alone is the being whose essence entails God’s existence. There cannot be two or more such beings.

Aquinas rejects precisely the point that Descartes wants to affirm. Descartes says we can know God's essence and therefore we can say that God must exist. Aquinas does not think that God's essence is knowable to us.

In a way Descartes is right It is impossible to have a triangle without it having three angles, just as it is impossible to have a spinster who is not female the predicates follow from the subjects. BUT all this tells us is something about the IDEA of a triangle and not about whether there are any triangles. We might say that "It is necessary for a unicorn to have a horn" and this may indeed be true, but this does not prove there are any unicorns.

ONCE YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT A TRIANGLE IS, THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT A TRIANGLE MUST HAVE THREE ANGLES, similarly ONCE YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS TO TALK OF GOD, THEN GOD MUST EXIST. The issue, however, is what is meant by existence.

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

------

It was Kant who called this the ‘ontological argument’ - the reason for the name is that he thought that the argument made an illegitimate jump from ideas to reality (‘ontos’). Kant held there were various objections to the argument:

We have no clear idea of a necessary being - God is defined largely in negative rather than in positive terms.

The only sort of necessity is where statements are necessary because of the way words and language are used. It applies to propositions, not to reality. There are NO necessary propositions about existence.

What is logically possible may not be ontologically possible. It is true that a triangle must have three sides or a unicorn must have a horn but this does not mean there are any triangles or any unicorns.

Existence is not a predicate or a perfection.

Kant’s last point can be summarised as follows:

  1. Whatever adds nothing to the concept of an essence is not part of that essence,
  2. Existence adds nothing to the concept of an essence - to say a hundred dollars is real rather than imaginary does not add any characteristics to a dollar.
  3. Existence is not part of the essence of a thing, it is not a perfection.

Kant considered that Anselm’s argument can be summed up as follows:

  1. An absolutely perfect being must have all possible perfections,
  2. Existence is a possible perfection
  3. Therefore an absolutely perfect being must have existence as one of its perfections.

Kant rejects (2). One can have an idea of something, but however much you develop the idea, you have to go outside it by getting evidence from experience as to whether or not it exists.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT GOD EXISTS?

------

This seems simple enough doesn't it? However it is NOT simple and most of the confusion about the Ontological argument revolves around a confusion on this point.

Is God's existence more like a bear or a triangle? Is God an object of some sort? If God is an object, then he is rather like a bear there may be a bear in the road outside or there may not (cf Martin Lee's article either God is something or nothing. To say he is like a bear is to say God is a 'something', however ineffable) similarly there may be a God or there may not be. Hume and Kant both thought that God's existence was like this. God is in some sense an object, a being of some sort albeit a highly exalted being. If this is so, then both Hume and Kant held we cannot move from the IDEA of God to the reality of God. I may have a perfectly clear idea of a bear but this does not mean there is one.

Hume says that however much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside it to determine whether or not it exists. We cannot define something into existence even if it has all the perfections we can imagine. As Kant says "Existence is not a perfection, but that in the absence of which there are no perfections.". Kant is saying that existence is not a predicate: ‘all existential statements are synthetic’ - in other words, any statement to the effect that something exists may be true or it may not, it needs evidence to support it. As Kant says, 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. The same holds true of the concept of an absolutely necessary being.

Bertrand Russell argues that when we say 'Cows exist' what we are really saying is that the concept of 'cow' is instantiated whereas the concept of unicorn is not. In this, Russell follows Frege who argues that 'exists' tells us that a particular thing is instantiated or exists rather than being a predicate. To say that something exists is to say that the collection of features indicated by the predicate expression of that thing is realized or instantiated. Frege’s famous example is:

Top View