Philosophy of Religion AO2 1 d, e and f evaluation questions

Ontological arguments Ontology is a branch of philosophy that explores the concept of existence. It comes from the Greek word ‘ontos’, meaning ‘being’. In philosophy, existence can refer to several different types of existence. Everyone in this classroom exists physically – we can be seen and heard, we exist empirically. Now consider maths. Numbers exist, but they don’t exist physically. I cannot go out and touch the number six – but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Now think about your emotions. We can be happy, sad, excited, shocked… Our emotions don’t exist in the same way as we exist, but they also don’t exist in the same way as numbers. Emotions can be felt, but not by others – they exist in an entirely different way. Ontological arguments work from principles and definitions in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. They use logic to conclude God’s existence, rather than sensory experience. According to the ontological argument, almost everything exists contingently. We are contingent beings because we wouldn’t exist without our parents, oxygen, food, etc. Everything else in the universe exists contingently too; in other circumstances it would cease to exist. However, according to religious believers, God is necessary rather than contingent. God is not a ‘thing’; He has not come about because of anything; there was no time when God did not exist, and there is nothing that could happen that would cause God to cease to exist. God’s existence is different.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as: The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive. The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God. The effectiveness of the ontological argument for God’s existence. Whether the ontological argument is more persuasive than the cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence. The effectiveness of the challenges to the ontological argument for God’s existence. The extent to which objections to the ontological argument are persuasive.

1. Deductive Proofs For this theme, we have been looking at deductive, a priori arguments. The inductive arguments we have looked at argue for the probability of God’s existence; deductive arguments hold that it is logically necessary for God to exist. As these arguments are based on logic, they can also be categorised as a priori arguments. This means that unlike the arguments we have looked at so far, these arguments do not rely on our experiences, but favour logic.

Challenges to the Ontological Argument Create a mind map or timeline of the challenges to the ontological argument – page 2 – 3 Use the PPP, video, textbook, booklet, WJEC booklet and the extract from Vardy to help you Challenges to the ontological argument It is your responsibility to complete this – detailed and with ‘reasoning and evidence’

AO2 Challenges Why did Kant reject the ontological argument? If not completed Why did Hume reject the ontological argument? Why did Aquinas reject the ontological argument? Why did Davies reject the ontological argument? Why did Russell reject the ontological argument? Russell - Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g. Men exist Santa Claus is a man Therefore Santa Claus exists

AO2 Challenges – Page references link to Vardy Why did Gaunilo reject the ontological argument? 85 Why did Aquinas reject the ontological argument? 89 Why did Kant reject the ontological argument? 86-7 Why did Hume reject the ontological argument? 88 Why did Russell reject the ontological argument? 88-9

Success Criteria Include Gaunilo – Islands … Aquinas Hume and Kant - that statements about God are synthetic and that existence is not a predicate Russell - Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g. Men exist Santa Claus is a man Therefore Santa Claus exists Davis - such a being is “possible” but not actual

Gaunilo’s challenge – Vardy 85 Gaunilo was a contemporary of St Anselm, and was the first to object to Anselm’s idea that God exists by definition. Gaunilo was a Christian, but he believed that Anselm’s argument was not logical and therefore needed to be refuted. He wrote his objections under the title ‘On Behalf of the Fool’. Think! Why do you think he called his work this? Gaunilo claimed that the flaws in Anselm’s logic would become obvious if one went through the argument again, but replacing the idea of God with the idea of an island. He explained that we could imagine the most perfect Lost Island; we understand the implications of the term ‘the most perfect island’ and therefore this notion exists as a concept in our understanding (basically, we can imagine, and understand, a perfect island). Using Anselm’s logic, we might go on to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. If our island is truly the mostperfect, it cannot be inferior to any other island: it must exist in reality. But clearly, there is no such island in reality. We cannot bring something into existence just by defining it. “When someone tells me there is such an island, I easily understand what is being said, for there is nothing difficult here. Suppose, however, he then goes on to say: you cannot doubt that this island, more excellent than all land, actually exists somewhere in reality…I would think he were joking; or if I accepted the argument, I do not know whom I would regard as the greater fool, me for accepting it or him for supposing that he had proved the existence of this island with any kind of certainty.”

Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo Anselm was actually quite impressed with Gaunilo’s argument, and even included it in later versions of his book, along with his reply. Anselm argued that, although Gaunilo was right in the case of an island, his objections didn’t work when applied to God, because an island has contingent existence, whereas God’s existence is necessary. The ontological argument only works when applied to God, nothing else, because of God’s uniqueness and the way in which He exists. Of course this perfect island you can imagine doesn’t exist, because it is contingent – it relies on lots of other things for its existence. God doesn’t.

Aquinas’ challenge – Vardy 85 People have different definitions of God – not everyone agrees God is ‘That than which nothing greater can be known’. ‘Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition God exists is not self evident to us.’ Summa Theologica Also, not everyone is convinced by the argument, had it been a very strong argument then everyone would find God’s existence to be self- evident, but it is not. God’s existence is synthetic and cannot be proven by analysing a concept.

Aquinas - The Ontological Argument fails! Some things were self-evident and could be known a priori In order to do this we must be able to define subject and predicate Therefore, man cannot define God a priori Humans have limited intellect and are unable to understand or define the nature of God

Kant – what can you remember? Vardy 86-7 Many philosophers believe that Kant’s criticism of ontological arguments for the existence of God is fatal; it has demolished the arguments. Kant argued that ‘existence is not a predicate’; it is not a characteristic of something. Predicates of something describe what that thing is like; it might be blue, fuzzy, round, sharp or shiny. Predicates tell us something about the object that would help us identify it in some way. Existence, according to Kant, is not the same as a predicate, it doesn’t tell us anything about the object. When we say something ‘exists’, we are saying that there is an example of something with these characteristics in real life. If we apply this to the ontological argument, then when we are thinking of Anselm’s ‘TTWNGCBC’ or Descartes’ ‘supremely perfect being’, we are thinking of a concept. Whether or not that concept is actualised is an issue, but not one that can be solved simply by adding ‘existence’ to the predicates we ascribe to the concept. We can predicate of a unicorn that it is like a horse and has a single horn in the middle of its head, but adding ‘exists’ to our description won’t make any different as to whether or not the concept is actualised so that we can go and find one. I cannot simply say ‘a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a horn that exists’, and one will appear as an example in real life. Therefore, when we describe the concept of God, it is pointless to say that existence is a predicate, because it doesn’t actualise God. It doesn’t create a God that we can use as a real-life example, because existence is not a predicate; it’s not one of God’s characteristics. Important point = Kant was not arguing against the existence of God but rather pointing out the flawed logic of ontological arguments. It is possible to apply Anselm’s logic to Kant’s objection and say that God’s existence is necessary; other things only exist contingently. Therefore, necessary existence can be a predicate of God – but it can only be predicated of God. This isn’t a very strong defence however, because then the argument becomes circular: we have to accept that God

Hume – see Vardy 88 This argument is presented by Cleanthes in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume, or his character Cleanthes, puts the argument like this: “I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.” The argument in this passage, formalised, goes something like this: (1) The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction. (2) If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable. (2) Everything can be conceived not to exist. Therefore: (3) Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.

To find out whether a statement can be proved a priori, we try to imagine that it is false. If we are able to imagine that it is false, then we may infer that it cannot be proved a priori; empirical investigation will be necessary in order to discover whether the statement is true or false. If we are unable imagine the statement being false, then we may infer that the statement is true. This is because conceivability is a guide to possibility. What is impossible involves a contradiction, and what involves a contradiction is inconceivable, so what is impossible is inconceivable. To find out whether God is a necessary being, therefore, we must try to imagine that he does not exist. As we are able to do so, his non-existence is possible. No amount of abstract reasoning will be able to establish his existence, therefore, because only necessary truths can be proved a priori. The conceivability of God’s non-existence shows that no a priori proof of his existence is possible.

Russell – see Vardy 89 Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g. Men exist Santa Claus is a man Therefore Santa Claus exists In your own words explain how this can be used to challenge the ontological argument

John Hick Rejects Malcolm’s argument that God’s existence must be necessary because it is not logical absurd. Hick claims that the ‘most that can be said is that if God exists, God exists necessarily.’ Hick’s argument is problem free – but the if stops is being a proof of God’s existence

Strengths Deductive and a priori – logically persuasive – proof. If the definition of God is correct it works S. Davies, existence is a predicate – thalers It is based on a convincing premise – it is better to exist in reality. If existence is a predicate of a Supremely Perfect Being then to deny the existence of a Supremely Perfect Being is contradictory Plantinga’s possible worlds theory Demonstrates God’s existence Reason is the only reliable source of knowledge – senses mistaken Anselm’s argument supports those with faith

The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive Read the extract from the textbook Highlight all the points that support a priori arguments Hightlight all the points that support a posteriori arguments Underline any ‘evaluation’ words Use this information to write up an essay plan to the question on page 4 of Booklet 4

The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God Read and make notes from Vardy ‘The Puzzle of God’ pages 91 to 94 What are the different religious views about the nature of God? What are the arguments for the existence of God? Complete the essay plan for this question.