Patchd
15th February 2007, 00:10
I was given this question to answer for one of my philosophy classes, note that this was the "b)" part to one whole question, I just thought I should write it in here:
-How successful are the criticisms of the Ontological Argument?
Ontology means the study of the nature of being, reality, and substance. The argument was originally developed by Saint Anselm in the 11-12th Century in order to prove the existence of God, and focuses primarily on the definition of God and existence as a predicate. Other developers of this argument include René Descartes, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga, it is most probably one of the hardest of all the three main arguments (Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological) conceived in order to prove the existence of God, as it is an a priori argument as opposed to an a posteriori argument. Nevertheless, there have been many successful criticisms which have discredited this theory. The first key critic was Gaunilo [of Marmoutier], others include the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Bertrand Russell.
Saint Anselm provided the first Ontological Argument in his work, Proslogian 2. In this work Anselm suggested that God was "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Therefore because existence in reality is greater than that in understanding, for God to be the greatest being, he must also exist in reality as well as understanding, otherwise he would not be the greatest possible being. Gaunilo however, opposed this, stating that if someone were to describe to you the "most perfect island", it would be foolish for one to believe it truly existed. Gaunilo's criticism was aimed at the process by which Anselm attempted to prove the existence of God. However, Gaunilo himself was not exempt from any criticism either, his critic was Plantinga, a 20th Century advocate of the Ontological argument. Plantinga claimed that an island's perfection cannot be compared to God as a greatest possible being, as an island has no intrinsic maximum, he believed that an island can be bettered one way or another, whether that be by adding more palm trees or more grains of sand. Many people have foolishly accepted Plantinga's counter-argument [note: Practically all in my class accept Plantinga's counter-argument], but that is only because they have forgotten the meaning of the word "perfect". Plantinga stated that an island could always be bettered, however, he fails to explain how an already "most perfect island" can be made even more perfect. Surely perfection marks an intrinsic maximum does it not? If not, then it would not be perfect in the first place. There is always a limit to how many palm trees or grains of sand can be added before it becomes too much and the island ceases to be "perfect". Plantinga fails here as a "most perfect island" cannot be improved upon, and this in turn means that Gaunilo's argument is totally valid.
The next key critic of the Ontological argument came from the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He opposed Descartes' contribution to the Ontological argument. Descartes had claimed, in his work, Meditation 5, that because God was a perfect being he must exist, because existence is a predicate of a perfect being. The being would not be perfect if it did not exist, claimed Descartes, in addition to this, he claimed that existence being a predicate of a perfect being is the same as stating that three sides is a predicate of a triangle. Kant decided to deal with Descartes' use of existence as a predicate. He stated that to state that something exists tells us nothing about an object/subject, whereas to say that 'X is soft', or 'X is yellow' does do so, for something to be a predicate, believed Kant, it must give information about 'X'. From this, Kant claimed that Descartes provided a paradoxical argument, he stated that, if 'X exists' informs us of a property 'X' has, the 'X does not exist' denies that it has that property. From this, one can ask the question, "if 'X' does not exist, how can it lack anything?"
David Hume was very influential in shaping Kant's argument. In his work, Treaties on Human Nature, Hume provided two parts to his argument. The first part stated that it is not possible to take an idea in one's mind, apply pure logic to that idea, and reach a conclusion that is based entirely in the observable universe. This, like the previous criticisms of the Ontological Argument already mentioned, is valid. Hume was right to state this, as it is one thing to imagine something existing in one's mind, however, it is another thing to attempt to link that existence in the mind to that in reality. One's imagination is completely different to reality, and if something cannot be proven with empirical evidence the it is merely a theory and nothing more. Hume's second part links in with his first part. In his second part, he argued (like Kant in the future) that existence cannot be treated as a predicate that something can have, or have-not. To think of God in one's mind, and then to think of him as in reality is the same thing. But, Hume stated, it is merely that, thinking. It does not actually provide a base for God's existence.
The 20th Century philosopher, Bertrand Russell followed on from Kant and Hume. He also rejected the way Anselm and Descartes used existence as a predicate and believed that they used the word "exist" in the wrongly. He stated that if existence can be used as a predicate, he could construct a similar a priori argument, such as; 1) Donkeys exist, 2) Eeyore is a donkey (Eeyore is fictional donkey), 3) Therefore Eeyore exists.
Another criticism of the argument concerns Anselm's definition of God. Anselm's definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is not accepted by everyone. Polytheistic religious people may well disagree on the definition, an atheist's definition of God may be, "a fictional being which some believe to be the greatest possible being". If one used the latter definition of God and applied it to Anselm's Ontological Argument, then they would not advance far, for one would not be able to advance from God being great to him existing in reality, as "a fictional being" can only exist in understanding and not in reality.
In conclusion, the Ontological Argument fails from the very beginning. Descartes, Malcolm and Plantinga should not have even bothered with their theories, as they based their arguments upon Anselm's theory, which had been refuted by Gaunilo over 500 years before Descartes tried. However, at least it gave other philosophers the chance to provide their criticisms, Hume's and Kant's counter-arguments focussed on Descartes' (and Anselm's) use of existence as a predicate, and were both viable, Bertrand Russell developing Hume's and Kant's criticism was also useful, however simple it may have been. The Ontological argument, like the Cosmological and Teleological argument has been tried, tested and found wanting.
Any criticism would be great, thanks if you read it :D
-How successful are the criticisms of the Ontological Argument?
Ontology means the study of the nature of being, reality, and substance. The argument was originally developed by Saint Anselm in the 11-12th Century in order to prove the existence of God, and focuses primarily on the definition of God and existence as a predicate. Other developers of this argument include René Descartes, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga, it is most probably one of the hardest of all the three main arguments (Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological) conceived in order to prove the existence of God, as it is an a priori argument as opposed to an a posteriori argument. Nevertheless, there have been many successful criticisms which have discredited this theory. The first key critic was Gaunilo [of Marmoutier], others include the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Bertrand Russell.
Saint Anselm provided the first Ontological Argument in his work, Proslogian 2. In this work Anselm suggested that God was "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Therefore because existence in reality is greater than that in understanding, for God to be the greatest being, he must also exist in reality as well as understanding, otherwise he would not be the greatest possible being. Gaunilo however, opposed this, stating that if someone were to describe to you the "most perfect island", it would be foolish for one to believe it truly existed. Gaunilo's criticism was aimed at the process by which Anselm attempted to prove the existence of God. However, Gaunilo himself was not exempt from any criticism either, his critic was Plantinga, a 20th Century advocate of the Ontological argument. Plantinga claimed that an island's perfection cannot be compared to God as a greatest possible being, as an island has no intrinsic maximum, he believed that an island can be bettered one way or another, whether that be by adding more palm trees or more grains of sand. Many people have foolishly accepted Plantinga's counter-argument [note: Practically all in my class accept Plantinga's counter-argument], but that is only because they have forgotten the meaning of the word "perfect". Plantinga stated that an island could always be bettered, however, he fails to explain how an already "most perfect island" can be made even more perfect. Surely perfection marks an intrinsic maximum does it not? If not, then it would not be perfect in the first place. There is always a limit to how many palm trees or grains of sand can be added before it becomes too much and the island ceases to be "perfect". Plantinga fails here as a "most perfect island" cannot be improved upon, and this in turn means that Gaunilo's argument is totally valid.
The next key critic of the Ontological argument came from the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He opposed Descartes' contribution to the Ontological argument. Descartes had claimed, in his work, Meditation 5, that because God was a perfect being he must exist, because existence is a predicate of a perfect being. The being would not be perfect if it did not exist, claimed Descartes, in addition to this, he claimed that existence being a predicate of a perfect being is the same as stating that three sides is a predicate of a triangle. Kant decided to deal with Descartes' use of existence as a predicate. He stated that to state that something exists tells us nothing about an object/subject, whereas to say that 'X is soft', or 'X is yellow' does do so, for something to be a predicate, believed Kant, it must give information about 'X'. From this, Kant claimed that Descartes provided a paradoxical argument, he stated that, if 'X exists' informs us of a property 'X' has, the 'X does not exist' denies that it has that property. From this, one can ask the question, "if 'X' does not exist, how can it lack anything?"
David Hume was very influential in shaping Kant's argument. In his work, Treaties on Human Nature, Hume provided two parts to his argument. The first part stated that it is not possible to take an idea in one's mind, apply pure logic to that idea, and reach a conclusion that is based entirely in the observable universe. This, like the previous criticisms of the Ontological Argument already mentioned, is valid. Hume was right to state this, as it is one thing to imagine something existing in one's mind, however, it is another thing to attempt to link that existence in the mind to that in reality. One's imagination is completely different to reality, and if something cannot be proven with empirical evidence the it is merely a theory and nothing more. Hume's second part links in with his first part. In his second part, he argued (like Kant in the future) that existence cannot be treated as a predicate that something can have, or have-not. To think of God in one's mind, and then to think of him as in reality is the same thing. But, Hume stated, it is merely that, thinking. It does not actually provide a base for God's existence.
The 20th Century philosopher, Bertrand Russell followed on from Kant and Hume. He also rejected the way Anselm and Descartes used existence as a predicate and believed that they used the word "exist" in the wrongly. He stated that if existence can be used as a predicate, he could construct a similar a priori argument, such as; 1) Donkeys exist, 2) Eeyore is a donkey (Eeyore is fictional donkey), 3) Therefore Eeyore exists.
Another criticism of the argument concerns Anselm's definition of God. Anselm's definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is not accepted by everyone. Polytheistic religious people may well disagree on the definition, an atheist's definition of God may be, "a fictional being which some believe to be the greatest possible being". If one used the latter definition of God and applied it to Anselm's Ontological Argument, then they would not advance far, for one would not be able to advance from God being great to him existing in reality, as "a fictional being" can only exist in understanding and not in reality.
In conclusion, the Ontological Argument fails from the very beginning. Descartes, Malcolm and Plantinga should not have even bothered with their theories, as they based their arguments upon Anselm's theory, which had been refuted by Gaunilo over 500 years before Descartes tried. However, at least it gave other philosophers the chance to provide their criticisms, Hume's and Kant's counter-arguments focussed on Descartes' (and Anselm's) use of existence as a predicate, and were both viable, Bertrand Russell developing Hume's and Kant's criticism was also useful, however simple it may have been. The Ontological argument, like the Cosmological and Teleological argument has been tried, tested and found wanting.
Any criticism would be great, thanks if you read it :D