LECTURE 18: GOD AND REASON
In today’s lecture we will:
1. Recap our investigation into Natural Theology
2. Outline and evaluate three versions of the ontological argument for God’s
existence
a) St. Anselm
b) Descartes
c) Malcolm
3. Discuss some of the traditional criticisms against the ontological argument
4. Examine the moral argument for God’s existence
5. Conclude our rational investigation into God’s existence
TODAY’S LECTURE
TOPIC RECAP
Natural Theology
Does God exist?
So far we have investigated the claim in accordance with Natural Theology
Revealed Theology
Knowledge of God through
special revelation
The Bible
Mystical Experience
The Church
Moses
The Holy Spirit
RECAP
Natural Theology
Knowledge of God through the
natural intellect
Rationalism
“The view that affirms reason, with its
interest in evidence, examination, and
evaluation, as authoritative in all matters
of belief and conduct”
(Miller, Ed L. Questions that Matter, 2009.
p.10)
Arguments considered so far
The cosmological and teleological arguments both rely on the concept of
causality
Cosmological argument
If every event has a cause there must be a first cause
Teleological argument
If there is complexity/purpose there must be an intelligent cause
Both arguments begin with an a posteriori observation
Logic, deduction, and a process of elimination are used to find the only
possible explanation for this observation
In both arguments God is used as a transcendent (outside of time and space)
first cause
RECAP
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Anselm’s’ version of the ontological argument
Textbook pp. 280-281
How does Anselm define God?
What does the example of the painter show?
Why must God exist?
What is the relationship between the understanding and existence?
What is wrong with the idea that God does not exist?
Can we think of anything greater than God?
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Anselm’s’ version of the ontological argument
1.
It is possible to conceive of a being “than which nothing greater can be
conceived.”
2.
If that being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists only in
the mind, then it is not the greatest being that can be conceived.
3.
Therefore the possibility of conceiving a being than which nothing greater
can be conceived entails the logical necessity of the real existence of such
a being.
4.
This being than which nothing greater can be conceived it the being we
call God.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Descartes’ version of the ontological argument
1.
God, by definition, is that being which is absolutely perfect
2.
It is more perfect to exist than not to exist
3.
Therefore, to conceive of God it is necessarily to conceive of him as
existing
4.
Therefore, to say “God does not exist” is to contradict oneself
5.
Therefore, the sentence “God exists” is necessarily true
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Malcom’s version of the ontological argument
1.
God, is an unlimited being
2.
The existence of an unlimited being is either impossible or necessary.
3.
The concept of an unlimited being is not self-contradictory, so such a
being is not impossible.
4.
Therefore, such a being is necessary.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The method of the ontological argument
All argue that God must exist because he is perfect
Ontological argument = Argument of existence
All versions attempt to argue for God’s existence by using reason alone
They make no use of observation
Each begins by defining God
All versions proceed by ‘unpacking’ this definition of God
All versions argue that a necessary part of this definition is that God
exists
o They argue that God must exist a priori
o
o
o
o
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
a priori arguments
Bachelor
John is a bachelor
All bachelors are unmarried men
Therefore John is an unmarried man
Ella is a mammal
All mammals are warm blooded
Mammal
Therefore John is an unmarried man
God is an X
All X’s must exist
God
Therefore God must exist
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
CRITICISMS OF THE
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Criticisms of the ontological argument:
Is it always more perfect to exist than not to exist?
Is it better for the following to exist or not exist right here and now?
A swarm of angry bees
A million dollars
A ton of horse muck
A big buffet for everyone includingour favourite foods
CRITICISMS
Criticisms of the ontological argument:
‘Perfect’ Predicates
Which of the following exists?
Excalibur
Harry Potter
Unicorns
Fire-Breathing Dragons
Dragons
And the following:
An absolutely perfect Sword
An absolutely perfect Unicorns
An absolutely perfect Pizza
An absolutely perfect Desert Island
An absolutely perfect Ice-Cream
Just because we can add the predicate
“perfect” doesn’t mean it must exist!
CRITICISMS
Criticisms of the ontological argument:
Existence is not a predicate
Subject
Predicate
My cake
is pink
has a bunny on it
has lemon icing
has a vanilla filling
Exists
CRITICISMS
These predicates
add to or change
the subject
Claiming that a
subject exists or not
does not alter or add
anything to it
SUMMARY
What is the point of Natural Theology?
Few thinkers claim that we can know everything about what God is
Rational arguments, such as the ontological, cosmological, teleological
arguments are attempting to see how far human reason can take us towards
knowledge of God
Few thinkers claim that rational arguments can replace religious belief
Advocates of natural theology see such arguments as worthwhile attempts at
exploring the limits of human reason
Rational arguments for God exists are then primarily an intellectual experiment
Next Lecture: We will investigate arguments claiming that using
human reason alone is an inadequate or insufficient way to gain
knowledge of God’s existence
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT