Theology: Ontological Argument

I need some help; I have wrote this essay for A2 Edexcel Religious Studies, yet my teacher graded it only as a B. I need to get an A for him to predict me the subsequent grade for university. I'm wondering how I could possibly improve this.

i) Examine the ways in which the Ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists.

There are many different forms of the Ontological arguments for the existence of God. The most famous argument was postulated by Anselm in the Proslogion; the Proslogion was put forth by Anselm as a rejection of his previous argument (Monologion) for the existence of God that he deemed too complicated. The Ontological argument is a priori, deductive, and analytic.

Deduction is a process of reasoning that draws a general conclusion from specific inferences; in other words, if the premises of the argument are correct, then the conclusion necessarily follows. A deductive argument cannot be proven to be false. Because the argument is deductive, it is true by definition.

The Ontological argument deduces the existence of God from the concept of God, and, for this reason, the argument is a priori. A prior truth is one prior to experience; in so much, that the truth does not have to be verified by sense experience. Rather it deduces its proofs from ideas. An a priori true thought would be one whose possibility guaranteed its truth.

An analytic statement is a statement where the predicate is contained within the subject. Analytic statements are true or false in terms of the words used: A bachelor is an unmarried man. The Ontological argument follows the analytic method of knowledge; in this instance, for example, this is to be found when Anselm reaches the conclusion of God by analysing God himself.

The argument utilizes reduction ad absurdum; this method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing the opposite that it is trying to prove to absurdity:

Suppose X

From X It follows that Y

Y is absurd (self-contradictory)

Therefore X is false

The argument starts from the definition ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ and if we are to reject this definition then the argument does not get off the ground. Its conclusion is self-evidently true or logically necessary following the premises.

Anselm quotes at the beginning of Psalm 52: ‘the fool in his heart has said that there is no God’. The atheist is the psalmist fool. He is a fool because failed to understand the implications of the argument of God. Had the atheist grasped the God, as that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it would be impossible for him to deny his existence. Thus, Anselm argues that in order to deny the existence of God, he has the idea of God ‘in his mind’ (in intellectu)

ii) The weaknesses of the argument of the Ontological argument give support to atheism’

Anselm’s argument takes place in two forms: the first form based upon de dicto necessity (true by definition) and the second form based upon necessary existence. The first form relies upon the definition ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’. Anselm’s argument is based upon the word ‘God’ and what is meant exactly by this. In this form Anselm argues that it is better to exist in the mind and in reality (de re) than to just exist in the mind. Therefore, as God is the greatest possible being, God must exist in reality. His argument runs as thus:

P1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived

P2. If God exists in the mind alone, a greater being could exist in both the mind and in reality

P3. This being would be greater than God

P4. Thus, God cannot exist only in the mind

C. Therefore, God exists both in the mind and in reality.

Anselm argues, along with Descartes, that just as we can argue that things do not necessarily exist, we can show that things necessarily do exist; this is Anselm’s second form. Anselm developed his second form to show that it was impossible to conceive of god as not existing. He argued that God’s existence was necessary. This necessity was logical necessity; in so much, that it would be illogical to pose to the statement that God does not exist, since any being who possessed the property of necessary existence could not fail to exist.

Anselm’s argument was refuted by Gaunilo, who demonstrated by using a reductio ad absurdum argument of his own, that if Anselm’s logic were to be applied to things other than God, it would still reach a valid conclusion. By replacing the word ‘God’ with ‘Greatest Island’, which had the same logic as Anselm’s with valid premises but yet had a false conclusion, Gaunilo was able to show the absurdity of the argument. The argument thus follows:

P.1 I cannot conceive of a greater island can be thought

P2. Such an island must possess all perfections,

P3. Existence is perfection;

C. therefore, the island exists in reality.

Anselm rejected Gaunilo objection to the ontological argument on the grounds that Gaunilo misunderstood the arguments purpose. Anselm noted that his argument was only intended to apply to a necessary being, not to contingent beings, such as an island, which many or many not exist. Perfect islands are also subjective – I cannot assure that my perfect island is the same as your perfect island.

Kant pointed out that existence is not a real predicate; In other words, existence does not tell us what an object is like. Neither do we add anything to the subject when we declare that it exists. He states: ‘existence is not a real predicate’. Kant argued that simply adding existence to something does not make that same thing greater. For example, 100 thalers in the imagination are not made greater by existing in reality. However, 100 thalers in reality are more useful than a hundred thalers in the mind since it has practical uses. Kant puts it thus: ‘A hundred thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers’.-

Bertrand Russell, similarly to Kant, asserts that ‘existence’ cannot be a predicate, if it were; we could construct other arguments such as:

P1. Man exists

P2. Santa is a man

C. Therefore, Santa Clause exists

Russell stated that the two claims ‘cows exist’ and ‘unicorns do not exist’ do not say that they have or do not have a particular attribute of existence. Rather, we use them to say that one has an instance and the other does not. He quotes: ‘existence is certainly not a predicate’.

Gottlob Frege distinguishes between first order predicates and second order predicates. First order predicate tells us something about the nature of something i.e. the cat is white. Second order predicates tell us about concepts i.e. there is only one cat. Fredge’s objection to the argument is that it uses existence as a first order predicate, whereas it is a second order predicate.

David Hume considered the Ontological argument a failure because it made a false assumption about existence. Hume argued that: ‘However much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside of it to determine whether or not it exists. We cannot define something into existence – even if it had all the perfections we can imagine’. Hume argued that all things that exist could or could not exist.

Richard Dawkins rejects the Ontological argument on the grounds that the argument is ‘infantile’. Dawkins uses the analogy of the playground. He objects that we should see the argument should be from suspicion that any line of the argument lacked a ‘single piece of data from the real world’.

Anselm assumes that ‘God’ functions as an analytic term, and that the definition of God is beyond question; in other words, the success of the argument relies upon how it works as a deductive proof. The definition ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, although true for many believers, is not the case for all: In this case the atheist could argue that If we can describe God in any other way or from a more strictly atheist perspective reject Anselm’s definition all together, then the argument fails. Furthermore, Anselm treats existence as an analytic term; however, statements about existence are synthetic, since existence is contingent.

Alvin Plantinga reformulated the argument using the concept of possible worlds. He critics the argument but states that it can be salvaged using the notion possible worlds. The argument goes as follows:

P1. There is a possible world, in which there exists a being with maximal greatness (existing in every possible world) and excellence (having the properties of omniscience, omnipotence e.g.)

P2. Therefore, in any of the possible world this being has maximal greatness.

P.3 This world is a possible world.

C. Therefore, in our world there exists this being.

Plantiga’s argument only show that God exists is possible in all possible worlds, not that he is actual in all possible worlds. Brian Davis argues that this only shows Gods rational acceptability rather than his actual existence.

The Ontological argument certainly is not in the least bit convincing. Peter Cole:’ It seems that the Ontological argument is insufficient to convert the atheist, since it fails as a proof. However, perhaps that was not Anselm’s original intention. It is likely that Anselm was writing for those who already had belief in God, and thus show that their belief was rational. Indeed, Anselm says in his Proslogion: ‘ I have written the following treatise in the person of one who…seeks to understand what he believes’.

Bibliography:

Cole, Peter. Philosophy of Religion. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1999

Davies, Brian. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982

Tyler, Sarah K, and Reid, Gordon. A2 Religious Studies. London: Edexcel Limited, 2007

Reply 1

User722716

Original post by heartlesswhore

There are many different forms of the Ontological arguments for the existence of God. The most famous argument was postulated by Anselm in the Proslogion; the Proslogion was put forth by Anselm as a rejection of his previous argument (Monologion) for the existence of God that he deemed too complicated. The Ontological argument is a priori, deductive, and analytic.

Deduction is a process of reasoning that draws a general conclusion from specific inferences; in other words, if the premises of the argument are correct, then the conclusion necessarily follows. A deductive argument cannot be proven to be false. Because the argument is deductive, it is true by definition.

Your terminology here is quite jumbled. Arguments can't be true or false, only statements or propositions. I'm not sure what you mean by "general conclusion", and a deductive argument is an inference, doesn't do anything from inferences as such. You seem to understand the basics but it's quite confusing to read this passage.

Also, I don't suppose they'll care at A level but it's a bit clumsy to describe an argument as a priori and analytic.

The Ontological argument deduces the existence of God from the concept of God, and, for this reason, the argument is a priori. A prior truth is one prior to experience; in so much, that the truth does not have to be verified by sense experience. Rather it deduces its proofs from ideas. An a priori true thought would be one whose possibility guaranteed its truth.

Be careful not to overlap a priori with analytic - your first sentence is about it being analytic. "Ideas" is a word that carries a lot of Humean baggage, but also seems to suggest analyticity to me.

It might be the case that true a priori is necessary, or something like your last sentence, but it's a strong claim and one that you don't need to make. Best to avoid causing controversy.

An analytic statement is a statement where the predicate is contained within the subject. Analytic statements are true or false in terms of the words used: A bachelor is an unmarried man. The Ontological argument follows the analytic method of knowledge; in this instance, for example, this is to be found when Anselm reaches the conclusion of God by analysing God himself.

Again just a little clumsiness thing, it's not God himself being analysed, it's "God" or even better the concept represented by "God".

The argument utilizes reduction ad absurdum; this method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing the opposite that it is trying to prove to absurdity:

This just needs re-wording for clarity.

The argument starts from the definition ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ and if we are to reject this definition then the argument does not get off the ground. Its conclusion is self-evidently true or logically necessary following the premises.

No need to talk about self-evidence or necessity here.

The key problem with your answer to the first part is that you don't actually explain the argument. That should probably be the first thing you do.

I'll maybe have a look at part 2 later.