| |
|
So, I wrote this paper for a philosophy class about St.Anselm (got an A+ on it, no big whoop), and I'd thought I'd share his argument with you. (I wasn't sure whether to put this in Temple or here, but I choose here because it feels like philosophy more than religion).
Anselm's arguments are so deceptively simple, it's beautiful. I'll give you Wikipedia's entry on it:
1) God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2) Existence is a perfection.
3) God exists.
Isn't that nice? Here's a fuller explanation of it (written by me)
Firstly, to understand Anselm’s ontological argument, one must understand the basic assumption. In most philosophical works, the author puts forth an assumption and attempts to either prove it, or refute it. In Anselm’s Proslogion, he suggests that the Fool is a fool because he does two things. First, he understands what is God, that is to say, he has an understanding of the concept of God. The second idea the Fool has is that he cannot believe that God exists. Anselm explains that he will prove that the two ideas are contradictory.
The author understands that to argue something in philosophy, one must first define exactly what one is arguing. Anselm writes to God that “[You] are something than which nothing greater can be thought” . In other words, Anselm defines God as a being than which nothing greater can be conceived . Nothing can possibly be greater than God, because by definition God is the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived.
Anselm starts by using the analogy of a painter. He explains that the painter thinks in advance of what he is going to paint. He has the painting in his understanding. Then he paints whatever he thought of in advance. Anselm writes that even the fool can agree that the actual painting in reality is greater than the understanding of the painting. Therefore, Anselm argues, whatever we have in understanding and in reality, the one that is greater is the one that is in reality. In other words, actual existence is better than understanding.
This is where Anselm makes his main logical move. God is the greatest thing conceivable, and it is agreed that existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind, then God must exist in both the mind and in reality. Another way of saying it is God is the greatest thing, and if it is greater to exist in reality, God must exist because he is the greatest thing.
Anselm proves this by using what’s known as reductio ad absurdum logic. In this line of reasoning, one proves the absurdity of the antithesis of one’s view. Anselm’s reasoning is as follows: either God exists or God does not exist. We assume that God does not exist (which is the antithesis of Anselm’s argument). If God does not exist (but exists only as an understanding), then that being which nothing greater which can be conceived, is a being which a greater being can be conceived. This is a logical impossibility, which we have already proven, therefore, the proposition “God does not exist” is incorrect, and therefore, God does indeed exist, according to Anselm.
Another way of thinking of Anselm’s ontological argument is the idea of perfections. Qualities such as power or beauty are perfections, spoken of in terms of varying degrees. In terms of intelligence, what is more powerful is more perfect, in terms of beauty, what is more beautiful is more perfect. Anselm is trying to create absolute standards. Anselm defines God as the perfect being. This means that He has all the perfections to the greatest conceivable degree. Anselm argues that if someone were ever to conceive of some greater degree of perfection than he or she previously conceived of, then they must regard God as having that greater degree of perfection. According to Anselm, this proves that God exists, since claiming that God is only imaginary entails a logical contradiction, because existing is better than imagining. If the idea of God is as a being that is only in understanding, it is not the concept of the greatest because existing is the greatest degree of perfection in terms of existing. A being that did not exist would not be the greatest conceivable thing, which is not perfect.
Isn't that nice, too? Isn't that so... perfect (pardon the pun).
But here's where it gets interesting. Any good philosopher can point out the HUGE loopholes in his argument. But, I'm going to offer you a really nice criticism of Anselm; I'm going to give you Gasking's proof. It's frigging awesome.
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore God does not exist.
Ohmigod, that's awesome. Now, see, this is the reason why I'm agnostic; there's so much good "evidence" from both sides.
Does anybody else know of any other ontological arguments? Or, better yet, take apart Anselm's, or Gasking's? |
|
|
