Defined
Ontology is the study of being and the Ontological Argument is an
a priori metaphysical argument regarding the nature of God’s existence. It is a purely rationalistic argument, not
based in observation or empiricism. This
argument is first known to have been developed in writing by Anselm (1033-1109)
in his Proslogium. Anselm
was a Benedictine monk and Archbishop of Canterbury. He stated regarding God, “if that being can
be even conceived to be, it must exist in reality. For that than which a greater is
inconceivable cannot be conceived except as without beginning. But whatever can be conceived to exist, and
does not exist, can be conceived to exist through a beginning. Hence what can be conceived to exist, but
does not exist, is not the being than which a greater cannot be conceived. Therefore, if such a being can be conceived
to exist, necessarily it does exist”.[1]
Another
way to state Anselm’s argument is like this:
Nothing greater than God can be thought (in the mind). If God does not exist, then something greater
could be thought, because existing and being thought is greater than being
thought alone. Therefore, God must
exist. Other proponents of the
Ontological Argument are Alvin Plantinga (1932- ) and Rene Descartes
(1596-1650), who used a form of this in his Meditations. Critics include Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274),
David Hume (1711-1776), and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
Objections to the Ontological Argument
A number of philosophers have criticized the ontological argument,
one of the first being Gaunilo, a monk who was a contemporary of Anselm. Gaunilo proposed the notion of the perfect
island, which is that than which no greater island can be conceived. If it does not exist, then it is not a
greater island than that which can be conceived, because being conceived and
existing is greater than being conceived without existing. Therefore, he said, the island must
exist. One can insert almost anything in
place of the island and use the same argument.
Anselm responded to Gaunilo in the Proslogium
with the contention that the argument works only for God, because “God’s
existence is uniquely a necessary existence”.[2] Because God is a perfect and necessary being, it
is not possible for Him to not exist.
Descartes used a similar argument to refute critics who stated that
conceptual existence does not require actual existence. Descartes, using a rationalist argument,
stated that it is a logical necessity to affirm the essential nature of a
concept. For example, the essential
nature of a triangle is to have three sides.
He then reasoned that it is clearly perceived that existence is the
essence of a necessary existent. Hence,
God must exist.[3] Of course, one must prove the premise here of
a being that necessarily exists. A
criticism of Descartes’ argument was that he did not prove that God’s existence
is not logically impossible.
Kant’s critique
Kant probably offered the most valid critique of this argument by
basically stating that it is an illogical transition to take the notion of a
perfect being from the realm of thought to that of reality. Kant reasoned that existence is not a
predicate of someone or something and is not part of the essence. It adds nothing to the essence of God if he
exists. The concept of God remains the
same and no new predicate is added to the conception of God with the addition
of existence. This would merely posit or
affirm the existence of God with His predicates. The real adds nothing to the possible. For example, God’s omnipotence is part of His
essence and nothing would be added to His omnipotence if He actually
existed. In the same way, one hundred
possible dollars does not increase in value if it is real: The value of the possible is $100 and the
value of the real is $100. Whether or
not it actually exists does not change the value. So, for Anselm to say that existence
increases the value of the object conceived is an invalid logical step,
according to Kant.
A Necessary Being
It appears the best hope for overcoming Kant’s objections lies in
the understanding of a necessary being.
If it can be demonstrated that it is necessary for there to be an
uncreated creator or an unmoved mover, the argument would be validated. However, by doing this we would have moved
out of the a priori ontological reasoning to an a posteriori cosmological
argument. In other words, to assert that
there must be something or someone who caused the first cause is to permit the
underlying premise that there are observable causes. This moves the argument from the purely
mental and rational to the empirical and phenomenological. Plantinga offered an argument that appears to
overcome the objections of Kant and others.
It is a bit long to reproduce here, but is well-reasoned and relies on a
seeming undeniable premise that something exists. At any rate, the ontological argument appears
somewhat insufficient to conclusively argue for God’s existence, whatever type
of god that may be.
So, where to go from here?
After sorting through the varieties of this argument and
corresponding criticisms, what does it mean?
Many people in the 21st century think of God, with a myriad
of different ideas concerning his existence and nature, but very few probably
ever consider the ontological argument.
So, is it little more than mere philosophical musings? Possibly.
The ontological argument is interesting to ponder, but likely not
sufficient to convince anyone one way or the other. There are other more convincing reasons and
evidences for God’s existence which are mentioned in different sections on this
website. The most compelling by far is
the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all of which are reliable
historical facts.
Selected Bibliography:
Geisler, Norman, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1999.
Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
[All Biblical quotations are from the NASB version.]
[1]
Anselm, Proslogium, translated by
Sidney Norton Deane (Chicago, IL: The
Open Court Publishing Company, 1903), 154.
[2]
Richardson, Alan, and John Bowden, editors, The
Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (: Westminster John Knox Press, 1983), 415.
[3]
Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1999), 556.
No comments:
Post a Comment