Origins of the Ontological Argument

-

Descartes

Descartes understood all knowledge as grounded in what he called ‘clear and distinct perception’, meaning they were almost G-d-given and intrinsic. Mathematical concepts were clear and distinct perception; however, some philosophical ideas fall into this category as well. 

Descartes takes Anselm’s idea of God as something which ‘nothing-greater-can-be-thought’ and transforms this into the idea of ‘a supremely perfect being’. For Descartes this notion was a clear and distinct perception.

He argued that this perception necessitates the notion of ‘existence’ since supreme perfection would not be supreme perfection without it. Therefore, just as the notion of a triangle necessitates 3 angles, or, the notion of mountains necessitates that there must also be valleys, so the notion of God as a supremely perfect being necessitates the attribute of existence. 

Therefore, it is logically necessary that God must exist. It would be illogical to separate the notion of God (as supremely perfect being) from the attribute of existence. Additionally, for Descartes, God was the only supremely perfect being since a supremely perfect being by definition is unique.

Malcolm

Norman Malcolm wrote in the 20th century and so postdated the criticisms that had been made to both Anslem and Descartes. With this hindsight Malcolm could not accept the first argument of Anselm in Proslogion 2, nor the notion of existence as an attribute of a supremely perfect being as proposed by Descartes.

Malcolm was more interested in the validity of Anselm’s second form of the ontological argument found in Proslogion 3. He agreed that to accept the notion of a being which is ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’, and then also expect that being to be subject to the limits of the possibility of non-existence, was a logical absurdity.

TTWNGCBT must have necessary existence since a being that did not have necessary existence would be inferior to a being that necessarily existed. This necessary existence must be unlimited, that is, not limited by the possibility of non-existence. In other words, a being that was TTWNGCBT that had the possibility – and limitation – of not-existing was not as great as a being TTWNGCBT that necessarily, and always, existed. Only an unlimited being could be TTWNGCBT and thereby be worthy of worship. Therefore, a being which is TTWNGCBT must exist necessarily and beyond all limitations.

QUOTE BANK!!

Hick: "… The second main period in the history of the ontological argument begins with Rene Descartes...”

Descartes: “...the idea of God ... is one which I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number.”

Descartes: “I cannot think of God except as existing, just as I cannot think of a mountain without a valley.”

Davies: “Malcolm is thinking of something which does not depend for its existence on anything apart from itself.”

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