Challenges to the Ontological Argument

-

Guanilo

Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm, was a monk in France.

Gaunilo pointed out that understanding in the mind is very different from any understanding of God that we could have as this would be unlike any other understanding we possess. Without this special understanding through faith the definition Anselm offers is no more than words.

Gaunilo then used the principle of ‘reductio ad absurdem’ to demonstrate that Anselm’s definition was weak. He argued that the definition TTWNGCBT could equally be applied to an island – a most excellent island but it would be considered nonsense if this excellent island were argued to exist because one could always think of an island that was more excellent.

Anselm did reply to Gaunilo and pointed out that a ‘most excellent island’ indeed is in no way similar to God; God can have no intrinsic maximum. Therefore, the ontological argument applies only to God; an ‘island’ simply cannot be compared with ‘God.’

Kant

Immanuel Kant challenged the ontological argument as presented by Descartes in two ways:

Firstly, the premise is only hypothetical. He referred to Descartes’ triangle analogy to argue that although it is a logical necessity for a triangle to have three angles it is not a logical necessity for the triangle to exist. You can accept the triangle has three angles and that it does not exist. This is the same for God. In other words IF God existed then God would be TTWNGCBT.

Secondly, he challenged the notion that ‘existence’ is not a ‘predicate’ (defining characteristic) of God. This attacked Descartes idea that existence in both mind and reality is greater than just existence in the mind. Kant used the example of 100 real thalers (a currency used in Kant’s day).

100 thalers that exist in both mind and reality does not contain any more coins than 100 imaginary thalers.The value is the same and ‘exist’ does not add anything more meaningful to our understanding of the nature of a subject when we say it ‘exists’.

QUOTE BANK!!

Davies: “According to Gaunilo, if Anselm is correct then it is not only God’s existence that can be established by reasoning akin to Anselm’s.”

Guanilo: “You cannot doubt that this island that is more excellent than any other lands truly exists...”

Kant: “To posit a triangle, and yet to reject its three angles, is self-contradictory; but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles.”

Kant: “...a determining predicate is a predicate which is added to the concept of the subject and enlarges it.” 

Kant: “…’being’ is obviously not a real predicate.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Situation Ethics: Fletcher and Agape

-
Fletcher, influenced by earlier moral theologians, advocated a ‘new’ approach to Christian ethics between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism. His solution was that we should always use the principle of love or agape (selfless love) applied to each unique situation, meaning that ‘right’ decision in one circumstance cannot be a blueprint for all circumstances. Fletcher considered his teachings as firmly grounded in ‘classical’ Christianity, a key text being Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", indicating for Fletcher that the practical application of Christian love (agape) involved a more flexible approach to rules. For Fletcher, ‘absolute’ principles of right and good are not realistic; they became problematic if applied blindly without considering specific situations. He quotes Henry Miller's reference to legalism as ‘the immorality of morality’.  Fletcher argued that the Church’s legalistic approach that used ‘prefabricated rule...
Read more

Utilitarianism: Application

-
The use of animals for medical research Often, the principle of utility (or the ‘greatest happiness principle) is used to argue that human happiness in the long-term outweighs the suffering of animal experimentation. However, such philosophers as Peter Singer says we should have a rule against causing harm or suffering to any sentient being. However, the purpose of animal experiment should be considered; medical research after all, is more noble than cosmetic safety tests. The sheer numbers benefitting from successful treatments or controlling epidemics over against the amount of pain caused for animals is justification enough. Whether one uses Bentham or Mill is another variant. The above arguments would certainly support Mill; however, Jeremy Bentham argued famously, ‘the question is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But can they suffer?’ and indeed was an active campaigner for animal rights. Another point to consider is that any conclusion reached on for this area is difficu...
Read more

Irenaean type Theodicies

-
Irenaeus, like Augustine, did not have a systematic theodicy; unlike Augustine, Irenaeus presents God as responsible for the possibility of the existence of evil. This was deliberate because God wanted human beings to develop the qualities that would make them spiritually perfect. Crucial for Irenaean type theodicies is the first part of Genesis 1:26: ‘Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.”’ For Irenaeus, human beings were created with partial maturity, but the potential to develop and grow into the image and likeness of God. Thus, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden not because they were perfect and then sinned, but because they were immature. Hick Medieval theologians, and in last century the theologian John Hick, made an analogical distinction between ‘image’ (possessing the potential qualities of God’s spiritual perfection) and ‘likeness’ (actualising those qualities). John Hick disliked a literal reading of Genesis; instead h...
Read more