Arguments for and against the Ontological concept of God.
The Ontological argument for the existence of God was first developed by an Italian monk, Anselm of Canterbury. The word ‘ontological' derives its name from the Greek word ‘ontos', meaning ‘being'. The argument essentially states that God, by definition, is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived. Such an idea exists in an intellectual sense so that even those who deny God's existence, such as ‘the fools' in Psalm 14: 1, who say in their heart ‘there is no God' already have an understanding or idea of what he means in their imagination. However, a being which could only be conceived of in the mind will always be inferior to a being which also exists in reality. Therefore "that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality" (Anselm, 1078, Prosologion, Chapter II That God Truly Exists). Anselm also proposes a second argument for God's existence in chapter three of ‘Prosologion: God cannot be thought of as not existing' "that which nothing greater can be conceived exists, as truly that it cannot be thought of as non-existent". In this essay, I will explore Anselm's argument for God, and by utilizing analytical methods I will examine various philosophers' arguments. Using these ideas as well as my own, I will come to an informed decision on the effectiveness of the Ontological argument based on the ideology of thinkers such as Descartes, Kant, Norman Malcolm and Guanilo of Mamoutier.
The Ontological argument has been interpreted differently and provoked debate among scholars over the centuries. French philosopher René Descartes, fascinated by the concept of God, found this argument particularly fascinating and defended a somewhat simpler version in his treatise: Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes version can be laid out as follows:
¬ I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
¬ Necessary existence is a perfection.
¬ Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists (Descartes, 1641 "Meditations on First Philosophy").
For Anselm, the ability to be ‘self-existent', that is, existing independently of other beings or causes, was a perfection of which only God could possess. Descartes agreed with this and in his first premise, he states that God, by definition, has every perfection. This premise is impossible to argue against as it simply brings out what is contained within the definition of God. The second premise states that ‘necessary existence' is a perfection. A necessary being is defined as a being who does not depend upon other things for its own existence. In Descartes view, this necessary existence is a perfection and it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. This premise is seen by many critics as the weak point of the argument. One objection is that there is no good reason to view existence as a perfection, for example, a real diamond ring is better than an imaginary one and a real palace would be better than an imaginary palace. But these are loaded examples, is an actual disease better than the idea of a disease? Is the idea of pain better than actual pain? Defenders of this argument need to further explain what is meant by the term perfection and justify the claim that existence is perfection, for the premise to be true and the argument sound. The conclusion of Descartes argument, being that God must exist. The greatest strength of Descartes argument seems to be the logic. If one accepts the premises as true, then the conclusion must also be true and the argument is formally valid. So for the argument to be void, at least one of the premises must be false. All the arguments premises, if accepted, lead to the conclusion of the existence of God, so Descartes argument can be considered valid. Whether the argument is sound or not is debatable considering the truth of premise two depends on the definition of what ‘perfection' is in relation to the argument.
Immanuel Kant criticised the ontological argument in his book Critique of Pure Wisdom. Where he suggests the argument as being "tautological", and that by analysing the meaning of a word or concept it is possible to come to certain logical implications or conclusions from it. For example, when we analyse the concept of a novel we can see that it logically implies a fictitious narrative. So, it would be tautological to state that "I am reading a fictional novel" you would not be adding anything not already contained in the word "novel". In relation to Kant's argument, he distinguishes between an analytical statement which tells us nothing new, and an existential or synthetic statement where we are stating something about the real world. The latter statement can be either verified or falsified. But according to Kant the statement ‘God is a necessary being' is analytical, not existential, in other words, the term necessary is logically part of the concept of God but it does not tell us if God exists in reality. This means that we can only say if God exists, his existence is necessary (similar to the example made: if a novel exists it is fiction). This leads to Kant's second criticism: the idea of something does not imply its existence, in reality, its actual existence is something additional to the idea of the thing this is what Kant meant when he famously said: "existence is not a predicate". To use Kant's example, the idea of a hundred dollars may correspond to a hundred real dollars but has no power to make someone rich, in the same way, the idea of God does not justify the claim that he exists. However, Descartes or Anselm may rebut this point by pointing out the uniqueness of God and state that the concept of God is not a logical concept but an existential one.
Norman Malcolm was an American philosopher and a defender of a modal version of the ontological argument presented by Anselm. Malcolm's argument goes as follows:
¬ If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
¬ If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
¬ Hence either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
¬ If God's existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
¬ The concept of God is not contradictory.
¬ Therefore God's existence is logically necessary. (Malcolm, 1960 "Anselm's Ontological Arguments"),
What Malcolm means in his summarization of the conclusion is that the quality of existing necessarily rather than contingently enhances our notion of the ‘thing' (the thing being God). Malcolm describes what it is like compared Anselm who merely maintained that the ‘thing' as explained has an instance in the world. A famous criticism of Malcolm's argument comes from the American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga agreed with Malcolm's point that if God's existence depended on other circumstances, then he would be a limited being and not a God. Plantinga explains that "an adequate definition of the word ‘God' must include or entail that He is dependent upon nothing whatsoever". Plantinga's analysis presents Malcolm's argument to be lacking in the propositions "God exists" and "His existence is logically necessary".
A contemporary of Anselm's was a monk known as Guanilo of Mamoutier, responded to Anselm's argument with an objection that many find very convincing. The argument goes as follows: imagine a perfect island. By definition, the perfect island has all the insular perfections, pleasant climate, clean beaches, fine food, free drinks etc. Now, if existence is indeed one of the perfections, then the island must have the property of existence. After all, you would certainly prefer to book your holiday on an island that exists in reality, rather than one that exists as an idea. Guanilos argument, that the perfect island exists, is sound but since the perfect island does not, in fact, exist and so there must be something fundamentally wrong with the argument. Anselm would argue against Guanilos island theory and point out that this way of reasoning can work with everyday things. However, Anselm's argument is talking about a necessary being, the utmost being one can comprehend. Not temporal contingent things such as islands which are fixed in time and space these things are dependent upon others for their own existence. God is not contingent or temporal. God is not dependent upon other things for his existence.
A problem with the ontological argument that many of these philosophers have not addressed in their papers, is the problem of suffering. The problem with the ontological argument presents itself in the first premise: "God has all the perfections" if God has all the perfections then he must also be morally perfect. God, by definition, is omnipotent and omniscient meaning God has unlimited power. With all of these factors in mind, one would pose the question to why God can allow the occurrence of physical pain or emotional distress, which in many cases neither afflicts nor is caused by those who are morally depraved. You need only go to the daily news to find out that millions of people each year suffer due to famine, disease, war, poverty, abuse, natural disasters etc. The question always arises: why would God allow this to happen? If God is omniscient he must be aware of these facts and if he is omnipotent then he presumably could prevent this from happening if he so desired. If he is omnibenevolent and morally perfect which according to Anselm "God has all the perfections". No morally perfect being, would not wish to alleviate the suffering and in some cases truly agonising unbearable misery in what appears to be a perfectly indiscriminate manner. The problem with anyone who accepts Anselm argument is how to reconcile these four statements:
¬ God has all the perfections
¬ God is omnipotent
¬ God is omniscient
¬ God is morally perfect
God having all the "perfections" and being morally perfect whilst still allowing widespread suffering to happen is contradictory and the only conclusion that can be deduced is that: God does not exist. Advocates for the Ontological argument may try to evade the question of suffering, by stating that God is not all powerful. although he knows about our suffering and grieves for us, he cannot lessen it any more than he already does. But this is also contradictory, as God cannot have all the perfections, be omnipotent but still not have the power to stop suffering. If this is the case, then he does not have all the perfections, as he is not omnipotent, leading to the same conclusion as before: God does not exist.
As the arguments for and against Anselm's argument demonstrate above, if God exists, his existence would be necessary, however from there each argument diverges: Descartes argued that God by definition has ‘every perfection' and that ‘necessary existence' is a perfection, therefore, God must exist. Kant's rebutted this point and states that God's necessary existence is logically part of the concept of God but, it does not tell us if God exists in reality, and goes onto state that the idea of something does not imply its existence. Malcolm argued in favour of the ontological argument and stated: If God's existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory therefore God exists. Mamoutier argued against the ontological argument by presenting an example, and by using the same logic as the ontological argument, concludes that Anselm logic must be invalid and the argument false. Finally, Anselm's ontological argument for God was concluded to be false. This is due to the overwhelming logic presented by philosophers, breaking apart the premises and the contradictory problem that arises through the problem of suffering.