Introduction to Humanities Lecture 11 Anselm & Aquinas By David Kelsey

Saint Anselm Saint Anselm of Canterbury lived from He was a monk and later Archbishop of Canterbury. Wanted to see how far argument and reason could substantiate the central doctrines of Christianity. He invented the ontological argument for the existence of God.

A priori vs. A posteriori arguments A Posteriori Arguments: –An a posteriori argument has at least one premise which is contingent. It has at least one premise that is a question of fact. –Examples: the Cosmological and Teleological arguments for the existence of God A priori arguments: –Have absolutely no premises that are a question of fact. –Composed entirely of a priori claims. –An a priori claim: true or false in virtue of the meaning of it’s words alone. The ontological argument is an a priori argument…

Defining GOD According to the Judeao-Christian-Islamic tradition: God is the greatest or most perfect possible being. –What can we infer about God from this? –If God is perfect, he has every perfection. Thus, God is: –Omnipotent: maximally powerful –Omniscient: maximally knowledgeable –Omnibenevolent: is perfectly good –Omnipresent: is everywhere What other perfections might there be?

A Reductio for God’s omnipotence An argument that God must be omnipotent: –Suppose God wasn’t omnipotent. –Then there could be a being more powerful than God. –That would be greater than God. –But God is the greatest of all possible beings. –So God must be omnipotent. This argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum. –Reductio’s always assume the negation of the conclusion they are out to prove. –The argument then derives a contradiction A contradiction: –Asserts that something both is and isn’t the case –cannot possibly be true –The contradiction above: –The argument then concludes by asserting what it was to prove

The form of the Reductio So here is the form of our reductio: –1. God isn’t omnipotent. –2. Thus, there could be someone more powerful than God. –3. Thus, there could be someone greater than God. –4. But, by definition, God is the greatest possible being; there couldn’t be someone greater than God. –5. Thus, there both can and can’t be someone greater than God. –6. Thus, (1) is false: God is omnipotent.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument Anselm’s concept of God: –Anselm uses the notion of God seen in the Judeao-Christian-Islamic tradition. –For Anselm: God is ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’. This is not the same concept as the greatest being we can conceive. Such a concept would be limited by the way us humans conceive of things…. –Anselm is assuming the Great chain of being here. If you run up and down the chain you find it easy to conceive of beings both lesser and greater. Your mind is carried to greater and greater things…

Anselm’s Reductio Anselm’s argument is a Reductio Ad Absurdum. The basic form of the reductio: –Assume God doesn’t exist –But then God isn’t the being than which nothing greater can be conceived. –But God is the being than which nothing greater can be conceived. –Thus, God exists.

The form of Anselm’s argument Anselm’s argument: –1. God does not exist. –2. By God is meant that than which nothing greater can be conceived, (or NGC). –3. NGC does not exist (from 1 & 2) –4. So NGC exists in the understanding but not in reality. (from 2 & 3) –5. NGC can be conceived to exist in reality as well as the understanding. –6. If NGC were to exist in reality as well as the understanding, it would be greater. –7. NGC is not NGC (from 4 & 6) –8. NGC cannot exist in the understanding alone. (from 7) –9. NGC must also exist in reality (from 6 & 8) –10. God exists (from 2 & 9) –11. God does not exist and God exists (from 1 & 10) –12. Premise 1 is false (by 1-11 and reductio ad absurdum) –Thus, 13. God exists

Evaluating Anselm’s argument Evaluating Anselm’s argument: –Is Anselm’s argument valid? –Is Anselm’s argument sound? –Which premises might be false? Premise 1… Premise 2… Premise 5… Premise 6…

Denying premise 2 Denying premise 2: –Some argue that premise 2 is false. –They say that such a definition of God is incorrect. –Thoughts…

Denying premise 5 Challenging the fifth premise: –Can you conceive of God as existing in reality?

Denying premise 6 Can we deny premise 6: –We can do this by claiming that existence in reality is not a perfection. –Thus, a being that existed in both the understanding and in reality is not more prefect than a being that existed just in the understanding. Anselm’s reply would probably go like this: existence entails the ability to use all of one’s perfections Counter: Is existence the kind of thing that can even be a perfection at all?

Defining God into existence Defining God into existence: –Note that this argument attempts to move from the essence of God to God’s existence. It moves from our grasp of what God is, to the fact that God is. Seems to be claiming that the existence of God is self evident… –But can Anselm really define God into existence?

Refutation by logical analogy Refutation by Logical Analogy: –Many people think that Anselm’s argument just has to be wrong for it just shows too much. –Can’t we give an argument of the same form as Anselm’s, but for an obviously false conclusion. Since the new argument isn’t sound, neither is Anselm’s. This move is called Refutation by logical analogy.

Gaunilo’s parody Here is the argument: –Assume: 1. The island than which no greater can be conceived (GPI) does not exist. –2. So GPI exists in the understanding but not in reality. (from 1) –3. GPI can be conceived to exist in reality as well as the understanding. –4. If GPI were to exist in reality as well as the understanding, it would be greater. –5. GPI is not GPI (from 2 & 4) –6. GPI cannot exist in the understanding alone. (from 5) –7. GPI must also exist in reality (from 4 & 6) –8. GPI exists (from 7) –9. GPI does not exist and GPI exists (from 1 & 8) –10. Premise 1 is false (by 1-9 and reductio ad absurdum) –Thus, 11. GPI exists

Anselm’s reply Anselm’s possible replies to Gaunilo: –He could give up or bite the bullet. –Gaunilo’s argument isn’t valid… –A premise from Gaunilo’s argument is false…

Anselm’s best reply Anselm’s reply: –Can the greatest possible island even exist in reality? –Although the greatest possible being could have all the perfections to the greatest degree, could an island really have them?

Aquinas Saint Thomas Aquinas –Lived from –A monk whose writings have been deemed authoritative by the Catholic Church. –In 1244 became a friar. Later he became a priest and in 1323 was made a Saint. –Heavily influenced by the works of Aristotle. –In his work Summa Theologica he gave 5 different argument’s for God’s existence. –He called these the 5 ways.

Aquinas on Aristotle Aquinas on Aristotle: –Aquinas was greatly influenced by the works of Aristotle. –But Aquinas thinks there is a fundamental mistake in Aristotle’s metaphysics. Aquinas thinks Aristotle overlooks the notion of existence. –Aristotle on existence: Form is what actualizes a potentiality, matter, into an actually existing thing. And efficient causes are what bring a particular substance into being. But the world, existing eternally, has no efficient cause. Existence is just born in its form.

Aquinas on existence So for Aristotle, Form brings existence along with it. But for Aquinas, a things existence differs from its essence. –The essence of any substance is both matter and form for such an object is different from something purely formal… –For something imaginary like a phoenix, its essence being form and matter, it lacks existence. –So existence is something added to those substances that do in fact exist. –Likewise for spiritual substances, they are composed of pure form and existence. It is this new understanding of existence which leads Aquinas to rethink Aristotle’s notion of efficient causation and subsequently God’s existence as unmoved mover. –We now turn to Aquinas’ famous 5 ways…

Theism There are 3 general argument patterns for Theism. –Theism, Atheism & Agnosticism We have so far seen one of these argument patterns: the Ontological argument. Ontological Arguments: –Argue that by an analysis of the very concept of God he must exist. Cosmological Arguments: –The form of the argument is roughly this: There must be a first cause of all things and this first cause must be God. Teleological Arguments: –Argue for God’s existence via premises about the design or goals or purposes of things.

The 5 ways The 5 ways: –The first way: about things causing change in other things. –The second way: about ‘efficient causation –The third way: about things causing others to exist –The fourth way: about things causing others to be good or noble. –The final way: about purposes.

Aquinas’ 5 ways The first 4 ways: –Different versions of the Cosmological argument. –Each way uses a different sense of the word ‘cause’. –In each case Aquinas wants to show that there is an uncaused cause… –All Cosmological arguments have a form like this: 1. There is something that causes everything else, I.e. a first cause. 2. Only God could be a first cause. 3. Thus, there is a God. The final way: a version of the teleological argument.

The first way The form of the first way: –1) Things change. –2) Change is an alteration in which something becomes actually what it was only potentially until then. –3) Everything that changes must be made to change by another thing. –4) But if one thing causes change in another, either the cause is a first cause of change or it is caused to change by another (from 3) –5) There couldn’t be an open causal chain of changing changers going back forever into the past. –6) Thus, there is an unchanging changer, a first cause of change. (from 1 & 5) –7) And this first cause is God.

Aquinas’ argument for the 3rd premise The third premise: 3) Everything that changes must be changed by another thing. –A change from potentiality to actuality can only be brought about by something that is already actual. The ball and batter… –Nothing can be both potential and actual in the same respect. –So nothing can change itself. Thoughts on this argument? Can you think of anything that could change itself?

Aquinas’ argument for the 5th premise The 5th premise: There couldn’t be an open causal chain of changing changers going back forever into the past. –In this case there is no first cause of change Open causal chain: an infinite number of things, one causing change in the other… –Ball and Batter… –But then there couldn’t be any intermediate causes either Such causes could only cause change if actualized themselves by some prior cause. Ball and Batter again… –But if there weren’t any intermediate changers there would be no change at all. Thoughts on this argument? –Is it possible that we have intermediate causes of change without a first cause? –Maybe there is another possibility: a closed loop of intermediate changers…

Evaluating the first way The first premise: –says simply that things change. –Change: Aquinas means the kind of change we see in the ball when it is hit by the bat. The fourth premise: –Assuming that everything that changes must be changed by another thing, if one thing causes change in another, either the cause is a first cause of change or it is caused to change by another. The fifth premise: –There is an unchanging changer, a first cause of change. –This thing isn’t changed by anything else. It can cause change though. –Domino’s… –Question: why suppose that there is just one unchanging changer? The conclusion: –This first cause is God –Question: why suppose this first cause is God?

The Second Way The Second way: –1) efficient causes come in series Something cannot be the efficient cause of itself for to be so it would have to preexist itself, which is not possible. And if you take away a cause you take away its effect –2) Such series of efficient causes could not go on to infinity If the series were infinite there would be no first cause. If there were no first cause there would be no intermediate causes... –3) So there must be a first efficient cause –4) this everyone gives the name God

Evaluating the Second way Challenging the Second way: –Some things to notice: Notice the similarity between the first and second ways… The second way is focused on a specific kind of causation, efficient causation. –An efficient cause causes something to come to be –Example: the hammer, the spark and the explosion –Evaluating the premises: Premise 1 –Questions? Premise 2 –Questions? Premise 3 –Questions? The conclusion: –Questions?

The Third Way Two ways in which a thing can exist: –Necessary things can’t fail to exist. –Contingent things come into and go out of existence. The third way: –1. Some things must exist of necessity. –2. There can’t be an open causal chain of necessary things each causing the next to be necessary. –3. Thus, something must be ‘necessary per se’. –4, And this is God.

The first premise The first premise: –Says that something must be necessary. –So not everything can be contingent. His argument: –1) consider if everything existed contingently. –2) All contingent things must start to exist at some time. –3) So all contingent things must fail to exist at some time. (from 2) –4) But then there must have been a time at which nothing existed. (from 1 & 3) –5) But if there had been such a time nothing would exist now. From nothing you get nothing –6) But things do exist now. –7) Something must exist of necessity. This thing caused contingent things to come to be.

Finishing the 3rd way The second premise: –says that there cannot be an open causal chain of necessary things each causing the next to be necessary. –His argument: In this case there is no first cause of change. But then there couldn’t be any intermediate causes and so no change at all… –Question? The third premise: –says that something must be ‘necessary per se’ –Necessary Per Se: Something that owes it’s necessity to nothing else it can cause the necessity of other things though. –Question? The conclusion: –Questions?

The Fourth Way The fourth way: –1) Some things are good (noble and true). –2) Some things are better (or more noble or truer) than other things. –3) These better (more noble and truer) things have more good (are more noble and are truer) in accord with their distance from a maximum. Comparative judgments… –4) if something that is maximally true, good and noble were not in existence then there would be no things possessing truth, goodness and nobility to a lesser degree. So whatever is maximally good (noble and true) is the cause of whatever else that is good –5) Thus, something is maximally good and causes everything else that is good (from 1 & 4) –6) This maximally good thing we call GOD.

Finishing the argument Something to notice: –Notice the appeal that this argument makes to the great chain of being… The first 3 premises: The fourth premise: –Question: This seems to imply that the maximally good thing is the cause of whatever else is good. –Questions? Premise 5: The conclusion:

The fifth way The fifth way: –1) Everything has a design, acts for a purpose. –2) Something can only have a design or act for a purpose if it is directed to do so by a designer. Ex: arrows and archers –3) Everything has a designer, which we call God.

The first premise of the Design Argument The first premise: 1) Everything has a design, acts for a purpose. –Goal-directed behavior is observed in all natural substances –Their behavior hardly ever varies and is almost always turning out well –Just like we plant and harvest and store food for the winter, intention and design is pervasive throughout… Examples...

Understanding the fifth way The fifth way: –is a teleological argument for the existence of God. –Teleological Arguments: Most are arguments by analogy. They usually rest on some analogy between things we know to be designed by humans and things we know not to be designed by humans, such as the universe as a whole. The analogy is then made: if the first has a designer so does the second, which is God.

Thoughts about the fifth way Thoughts about the fifth way? –Finding a relevant difference: Anyone see a relevant difference? Things vs. universes? –Could something besides God be the designer of the universe? Other possible designers: –Gravity? –Evolution? Aquinas’ reply…