THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Transcription

1 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD By Edgar Galdámez At one point or another all us have asked ourselves or have been asked by someone else: "Does God exist?" and "How can we know that He exists?" These are not new questions for they have been the center of controversies for centuries. To these questions many philosophical answers have been offered by thinkers in the form of arguments. One argument is the ontological argument. The ontological argument is an a priori argument, that is, prior to or independent from experience. It attempts to prove the existence of God from the nature of his being ( "Ontology" from the Greek onta - the things that exist ad from the Greek logos word, a saying, discourse.) To this argument we will to dedicate the following pages, describing its origin and how different philosophers thought of it throughout the history of philosophy. We will attempt to put in perspective what they wrote and at the end give a critique of the argument as presented by one Christian thinker. But someone might object to having any argument for the existence of God and say that the existence of God is accepted by faith alone, apart from rason. Someone else might say that God's existence is obvious and only the fool would deny it. To these objections a few words from St. Thomas Aquinas will be appropriate: "But sacred doctrine makes use of human reason, not indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other 1

2 things that are put forward in this doctrine...sacred doctrine makes use of, these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments." 1 The Ontological argument was formulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury (the name was not given by St. Anselm but by a later philosopher, i.e. Immanuel Kant) in his Proslogion 2 (which means allocution or address) 3 in the eleventh century. 4 In this argument, St. Anselm was not trying to prove the existence of God for himself, for he was already a believer in God. (At the end of chapter one he writes: "For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand." 5 ) It was intended to be an address to God and at the same time "a philosophical proof" for the existence of God. 6 The argument is also Platonic in nature. The "most perfect" equals "the most real." 7 Why did St. Anselm use Platonic thought to describe his argument for the existence of God? One writer responds by saying that "Plato's philosophical view provided a virtually unchallenged methaphysical framework for Christian thought in Anselm's time." 8 1 St. Thomas Aquinas "Treatise on God" the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas in "Great Books of the Western World" Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952 ed. 2 Alvin Plantinga, ed., The Ontolgical Argument "From St. Anselm to contemporary Philosophers" (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1965) vii. 3 St. Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion in "Great Ideas Today 1969" Encyclopaedia Britannica. 4 Plantinga, vii. 5 St. Anselm, Proslogion 6 Platinga, vii. 7 Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy " The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter" (Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1988) pp David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992) p

3 To St. Anslem "God is that, which nothing greater can be conceived." 9 The opposite is that "which can be conceived not to exist" 10 and so to St. Anslem this is not God. 11 It is impossible to conceive God not to exist. If one can conceive "a being that which nothing greater can be conceived," then one cannot conceive "that which can be conceived not to exist." 12 To do so, according to St. Anselm, would be "an irreconcilable contradiction." 13 Therefore, "if this being can be conceived in the mind, it also exists in reality." 14 According to St. Anselm, existing in reality is greater than just having it in the understanding. Thus, if it's just in the understanding then there is something greater than it, which cannot be. For this reason, God exists in the understanding and in reality. If the fool is able to conceive this being (and he is able) 15 for he "undertands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding, although he does not understand it to exist." 16 Why does he say "there is no God"? Because he is "dull and a fool" says St. Anselm and is unwilling to believe and thus unable "to understand this to be true." 17 9 Plantinga, pp Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Plantinga, p St. Anselm, Proslogion 17 Plantinga, pp

4 Gaunilo a contemporary of St. Anselm who was a monk of marmoutier, answers in behalf of the fool 18 (though he does not consider himself a fool since he was already convinced of the existence of God) and argues that St. Anselm's argument does not prove the existence of God. Just conceiving him in our minds does not make him real (just as conceiving of a perfect island in our minds does not make it real. We can conceive it, but this in no way proves that it really exists.) Gaunilo argues that in order for the fool to believe in this being, there must be some proof that He is real. One cannot "make" something real that is not real or certain in the understanding. 19 Gaunilo says it clear in his own words: "I do not deny that this being is, in this way, in my understanding. But since from this one can in no wise conclude that it really exists, I do not yet concede to its existence at all, until some certain proof of it shall be given." 20 In response to Gaunilo, St. Anselm writes back affirming that his argument stands firm. 21 According to St. Anselm, Gaunilo's arguments do not weaken his argument, on the contrary, it reaffirms it. St. Anselm states that "if such a being...can be conceived at all, it must exist." 22 Not only "it must exist" but "it exists of necessity." Ibid., p Ibid., p.6 20 Gaunilo's reply in A Reply on Behalf of the Fool in "Great Ideas Today 1969" Encyclopaedia Britanica 21 Plantinga, p St. Anselm, in The Author's Reply to Gaunilo in "Great Ideas Today 1969" Encyclopaedia Britannica 23 Ibid. 4

5 St. Anselm also states that "whoever, then, denies the existence of a beingthan-which a-greater-cannot-be-conceived, at least understands and conceives of the denial which he makes...whoever, then, makes this denial, understands and conceived of that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived." According to St. Anselm, the example of the island cited by Gaunilo cannot be analogous with the thesis for the existence of God. An island, by definition does not need to be absolutely perfect, therefore, it can exist only in the understanding and not in reality. But in order for God to exist both in the understanding and in reality, He needs to be perfect (by definition). If He is not perfect then He is not that-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived which is not part of the original thesis. 24 So far we have seen the ontological argument as it was developed by St. Anselm, but now let's look at another philosopher's view of the argument. His name is St. Thomas Aquinas ( A.D.) 25 For St. Thomas Aquinas "the proposition 'God exists' is self-evident." 26 When we are able to comprehend what God is (in our minds) then we know for a fact that He exists. Those who cannot admit that God exists are not willing to admit that a being exists which is greater than anything that can be conceived. 27 However, the fact that God is self-evident does not mean that He is selfevident to us. He may be "self-evident in itself," but "insofar as it is not selfevident to us," says Aquinas, it "can be demonstrated 'that he exists' from those of 24 Ibid. 25 Plantinga, p Ibid. 27 Ibid., pp

6 His effects which are known to us." 28 In other words, for Aquinas the ontological argument was insufficient to prove God's existence. He believed that in order for god to be self-evident in us, we must use the practical things that affect us. For this, he developed his own a posteriori (from experience) argument, (deriving his philosophical inspiration from Aristotle. 29 ) called the cosmologial argument. The reasoning in this argument moves from the particulars to the whole. Aquinas uses his five ways (motion, efficient cause, possibility & necessity, gradation and governance of things) to prove the existence of God. 30 This is where Aquinas and Anselm part way. Thus, we look at another prominent philosopher who delt with the ontological argument, René Descartes ( ) 31 René Descartes belonged to a group of philosopher called the rationalists. For a rationalist truth exists in reason. If God exists, then He is to be proved through reason. For Descartes the idea of God is innate and sprung as being a principal one. His reasoning from the particulars to the whole is as follows: 1. I have imperfect ideas (for example, I doubt) 2. But one cannot know the imperfect unless he knows the perfect. 3. However, an imperfect mind cannot be the source of a perfect idea. 4. Therefore, there must be a perfect mind which is the source of my idea of 28 St. Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on God 29 Plantinga, p St. Thomas Aqunias, Treatise on God 31 Plantinga, p. 31 6

7 perfection. 32 This "perfect mind" is God for Descartes. This concept of the "perfect mind" does not exist only in his mind for two reasons: 1) The God he thinks of "is the image of a true and immutable nature," and 2) he cannot think of two beings with the same characteristics and nature. Therefore God exists. Because He exists now "it is necessary that He should have existed for all eternity." 33 Since for Descartes, the idea of the perfect Being is that of one who is true and of immutable nature, then it is necessary for God to exist. Any other being we can conceive is possible that it exists but is not necessary. 34 Benedict De Spinoza ( ) 35 is another important philosopher to consider the ontological argument. Though Spinoza was considered a pantheist 36 for equating nature with God, he argued for the existence of God stating that "if no cause or reason be granted which prevents its existence" then "it necessarily exists." 37 The problem with Spinoza is that by making nature equal to God (Substance) and viceversa, then there is nothing outside of itself that can prove that God does not exists. He stated: "If God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature," then it would be a contradiction. 38 Others have rightly said that "If God is a 32 Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, "A Christian Perspective" (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1980) pp Plantinga, p Ibid., p Ibid., p Palmer, p Plantinga, p Ibid., p

8 necessary Being...one that cannnot not be and if creation is contingent, then how can creation be "out of" or "part of" God (the Necessary)? Is this not a contradiction in terms? 39 This critique on Spinoza's view of God is valid and needs to further mention. But let's turn to another prominent and unique philosopher to examine the ontological argument. His name is Immanuel Kant ( ) 40 His view of the ontological argument is different from the rest of the philosophers previously discussed. Kant was not an atheist, but an agnostic who believed that if God (the "noumena" or the thing-in-itself) existed, it was impossible to know him through our reason. To this some have responded by saying that "If the agnostic does not have some knowledge of the infinite, then the very denial is meaningless, since he cannot know even the meaning of the term 'infinite' in his denial." 41 Kant also denied that the ontologial argument was a valid proof for the existence of God. He argued against Descartes use of a triangle with its three angles to say that existence of God "can no more be separated from the essence of God." 42 Kant answered by saying that "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...if its existence is rejected, we reject the thing itself with all its predicates; and no question of contradiction can then arise." 43 He goes on to say that "If we say, 'there is no God', neither the omnipotence nor any form 39 Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, p Plantinga, p Geisler & Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, p Plantinga, p Ibid., p

9 of its predicates is given; they are and all rejected together with the subject, and there is therefore not the least contradiction in such judgment." 44 So for Kant, we first have to answer the question: "how do we know God exists?" so that we can attribute existence to God. He believed that we cannot attribute existence to a mere concept, we have to go beyond that to prove it. To this last objection one can say that if necessity does not apply to existence, only to propositions, then it's a self-defeating argument since it claims to only be necessarily true about existence. And how do we know that necessity cannot be applied to existence? 45 It may be able to apply both to propositions and existence. One prominent writer said it well: "If necessary negative statements can be made about existence such as 'God cannot exist,' then why cannot necessary positive statements be made such as 'God does exist'?" 46 Also, this confuses what theists mean by "necessity". "Necessity" is used in an ontological way and not in a logical way, thus it does not disprove the argument. 47 Following the same line of thinking of that of Kant was Arthur Schopenhauer ( ) 48 He critiques Descartes' argument by saying the he confuses "reason and cause." 49 Instead of giving the cause of the existence of this being, he introduces the reason of its existence. In other words, he is attributing 44 Ibid. 45 Geisler & Feinberg, p Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1990) p Geisler & Feinberg, p Plantinga, p Ibid., p

10 existence because he proves he exists. He also said that if one considered this argument "by daylight" and "without prejudice, this famous ontological proof is really a charming joke." 50 So for Schopenhauer the ontological was folly and had no valid basis. Having examined the ontological argument as viewed by some philosophers of importance, let's look at one critique or evaluation of it as presented by Norman Geisler in his book Christian Apologetics. According to Geisler, the ontological argument formulated by St. Anselm is invalid (making Kant's arguments and others not discussed here, i.e. Hume, valid.) He states that "one cannot argue from the mere concept of an absolutely perfect or necessary being to its existence the way Anselm or Descartes did." 51 To Geisler, "the necessity is merely conceptual and not actual," and "There is no purely rational a priori way to prove God's existence." 52 Somewhere else, 53 Geisler states that in order for the ontological argument to be valid, one needs to assume that God exists and this is really a cosmological argument. Without this premise (that "something exists"), it "cannot possibly prove the existence of God. For it is always logically possible that nothing ever existed and, hence, it is not logically necessary to affirm that God exists." Ibid. 51 Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p Ibid. 53 Norman L. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p Ibid. 10

11 Finally, Geisler asserts that the ontological argument ends up with four views of God: theistic, pantheistic (such as Spinoza's), panentheistic (such as Plato's) and polytheistic (such as Aristotle's). 55 Geisler brings out some good arguments. However, the ontological argument, imperfect as is, offers some valid arguments for the existence of God. The fact of the matter is that ontological argument continues to be important in the discussion on the existence of God. Furthermore, the assertion made by Geisler that it is logically possible for nothing ever existed begs the question. It can be logical, but it can logically wrong. It is possible to say that, but one has to answer the question of existence. Something does exist. It is not necessary to assume that God exists to find out that God exists. It is logically possible to reason God's existence without assuming that He exists. However, we have to agree with Geisler that the ontological argument alone is not in itself sufficient to prove God's existence. One needs to involve a posteriori arguments such as the cosmological argument and the axiological argument (thought it can be considered part of the cosmological argument). Furthermore, we can convince someone philosophically that God exists, but the person must come to faith. One cannot know God without faith (Heb. 11:6). A person may refuse to believe in God and even deny the possibility that such a Being exists. These people substitute God for their own "superman" as the philosopher Nietzche. In fact, he is the one who articulated "God is dead" which has become a slogan for many. But is God really dead? If God is dead, then it is a settled matter and there is no need to prove that he is dead. It is just a matter of time until He fades away from our vocabulary, from our minds and from our discussions. 55 Ibid. 11

12 Etienne Gilson has said it well: "God will really be dead when on one will still think of denying his existence. Until, then, the death of God remains an unconfirmed rumor." Etienne Gilson, "The Idea of God and the Difficulties of Atheism" in Great Ideas Today 1969 Encyclopaedia Britannica. 12

13 WORKS CITED Aquinas, St. Thomas "Treatise on God" The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas in "Great Books of the Western World" Encyclopaedia Britannica 1952 ed. Geisler, Norman L. and Paul D. Feingberg. Introduction to Philosophy "A Christian Perspective" Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1980 Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, Philosophy of Religion. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974 Gilson, Etienne. "The Idea of God and the Difficulties of Atheism" in Great Ideas Today 1969 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Palmer, Donald. Looking at Philosophy " The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter" Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1988 Plantinga, Alvin ed. The Ontolgical Argument "From St. Anselm to contemporary Philosophers" Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, St. Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion in "Great Ideas Today 1969" Encyclopaedia Britannica. Stewart, David. Exploring the Philosophy of Religion Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,