The Misinterpretation of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
This argument has received a great deal of unfair criticism from many directions, but this article tries to underline some aspects that experts say may save some of its image. Check out what it is all about...
The ontological argument for the existence of God is attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, a monk and philosopher who was greatly influenced by the works of Saint Augustine. I say attributed because the author himself does not in any way consider it a proof for the existence of a Creator. In fact, the term was invented by Immanuel Kant, who used it to describe a series of chapters from a book Anselm wrote called "Proslogion".
In "Proslogion", Anselm imagines a conversation with a "foolish person" in which he tries to demonstrate the absurdity of a lack of faith in God, in order to somehow manage to convert him. This partner of his in conversation is a non-believer, which means he will not listen to anything else but a rational speech. Therefore, he refuses to accept that a creation of the human mind must necessarily exist in reality. In fact, the "ontological argument" is often refused on the basis of the impossibility of deducing the existence of something from its concept. However, as we shall see, Anselm is not trying to demonstrate the opposite. Instead, he makes a profile of a non-believer who can accept only what is not in contradiction with the laws of logic. An atheist is described as a smart person who would listen to a proper analysis. Anselm considered that the only link between a believer and a non-believer is reason. It is with this idea in mind that he suggests to his counterpart a mental exercise with different stages that in the end would offer a clear answer.
Rejecting the existence of God, an atheist would never admit that our idea of God has a correspondent in reality. He cannot, however, reject a description of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". This expression represents the biggest and most lavish term that we can come up with and it does not refer to a thing or reality. It is a construction of the human mind. It is a maximal notion, in the sense that our minds cannot invent a larger concept that would incorporate this one. As a consequence, Anselm says that although the expression itself is a logical description of God, it is still only a product of our imagination. He respects the principle according to which what is rational is not necessarily real. Now it is time to see what Anselm actually meant.
The starting point of the "ontological argument" is represented by the phrase: in our mind there is something "that above which nothing greater can be conceived". Let us name this part "A". Now, an atheist, from a logical point of view, can accept A easily. But Anselm says that there is nothing stopping us from stating that A can also be conceived as "existing in reality and not only in our mind". Now, we have a new concept "A1", which is larger than the previous one. In fact, A1 actually contradicts A (which was supposed to be the greatest creation of our mind) because it has something in addition: existence.
Our reasoning has reached an important result. Our notion of God can include existence. This is the part that was most criticized by latter philosophers. If we were to stop here we could join Kant and say that the demonstration is wrong because existence cannot be deduced from a concept. But Anselm did not stop here. Notion A1 means A that can be thought as existing. However, if we were to think of A1 as not just simply existing, but in fact consider it a necessary existence, then we would have another concept "A2" which would be greater than A1 and A. Even the atheist can see the logic behind this concept. As a consequence the real equivalent of the expression "that above which nothing greater can be conceived is actually A2 and not A.
In conclusion, Anselm did not attempt to demonstrate that from the concept of God you can deduce the existence of God. What he was actually trying to do is underline the fact that an atheist and a Christian deal with two different concepts: A and A2. The mistake is on the part of the former. Anselm simply repairs a crocked notion of God. This is the reason he said "credo ut itelligam" (I believe in order to understand).
In "Proslogion", Anselm imagines a conversation with a "foolish person" in which he tries to demonstrate the absurdity of a lack of faith in God, in order to somehow manage to convert him. This partner of his in conversation is a non-believer, which means he will not listen to anything else but a rational speech. Therefore, he refuses to accept that a creation of the human mind must necessarily exist in reality. In fact, the "ontological argument" is often refused on the basis of the impossibility of deducing the existence of something from its concept. However, as we shall see, Anselm is not trying to demonstrate the opposite. Instead, he makes a profile of a non-believer who can accept only what is not in contradiction with the laws of logic. An atheist is described as a smart person who would listen to a proper analysis. Anselm considered that the only link between a believer and a non-believer is reason. It is with this idea in mind that he suggests to his counterpart a mental exercise with different stages that in the end would offer a clear answer.
Rejecting the existence of God, an atheist would never admit that our idea of God has a correspondent in reality. He cannot, however, reject a description of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". This expression represents the biggest and most lavish term that we can come up with and it does not refer to a thing or reality. It is a construction of the human mind. It is a maximal notion, in the sense that our minds cannot invent a larger concept that would incorporate this one. As a consequence, Anselm says that although the expression itself is a logical description of God, it is still only a product of our imagination. He respects the principle according to which what is rational is not necessarily real. Now it is time to see what Anselm actually meant.
The starting point of the "ontological argument" is represented by the phrase: in our mind there is something "that above which nothing greater can be conceived". Let us name this part "A". Now, an atheist, from a logical point of view, can accept A easily. But Anselm says that there is nothing stopping us from stating that A can also be conceived as "existing in reality and not only in our mind". Now, we have a new concept "A1", which is larger than the previous one. In fact, A1 actually contradicts A (which was supposed to be the greatest creation of our mind) because it has something in addition: existence.
Our reasoning has reached an important result. Our notion of God can include existence. This is the part that was most criticized by latter philosophers. If we were to stop here we could join Kant and say that the demonstration is wrong because existence cannot be deduced from a concept. But Anselm did not stop here. Notion A1 means A that can be thought as existing. However, if we were to think of A1 as not just simply existing, but in fact consider it a necessary existence, then we would have another concept "A2" which would be greater than A1 and A. Even the atheist can see the logic behind this concept. As a consequence the real equivalent of the expression "that above which nothing greater can be conceived is actually A2 and not A.
In conclusion, Anselm did not attempt to demonstrate that from the concept of God you can deduce the existence of God. What he was actually trying to do is underline the fact that an atheist and a Christian deal with two different concepts: A and A2. The mistake is on the part of the former. Anselm simply repairs a crocked notion of God. This is the reason he said "credo ut itelligam" (I believe in order to understand).
Like This Article?
Follow:
Post Comment