Questions and Lecture: The Ontological Argument (Descartes and Anselm)
William O'Meara (c) Copyright, 1997
1. What is the first argument which Descartes offers?
2. State the second argument, the ontological argument, in clear logical form.
3. Is it valid or invalid in the logician's sense? Why?
4. Are the premises true? Explain. If you disagree with Descartes, make a good argument for why the challenged premise is true.
5. State the ontological argument of Anselm in clear logical form.
6. Is it valid or invalid in the logician's sense? Why?
7. Are the premises true? Explain.
8. What is the key question which Aquinas raises about Anselm's argument?
9. Is the concept of God self-evident to God in the analysis of aquinas? explain.
10. Is the concept of God self-evident to humans in the analysis of Aquinas? Explain.
11. Using Aquinas's analysis of happiness, explain how the argument of Anselm leads to an existentialist interpretation of the nature of ultimate human happiness, even though the rationalist argument from the idea of the perfect good fails to prove the existence of God.
Descartes and Anselm, The Ontological Argument
The first argument which Descartes offers is, we have seen an argument from the idea of God as an effect which requires that only God could be the cause of that idea. In one summary of the argument, Descartes writes:
By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite (eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence, . . . we must conclude that God necessarily exists.
The second argument that Descartes offers is the ontological argument which Anselm first proposed. Descartes writes:
Just as the mind perceives that it is necessarily involved in the idea of the triangle that it should have three angles which are equal to two right angles, it is absolutely persuaded that the triangle has three angles equal to two right angles. In the same way from the fact that the mind perceives that necessary and eternal existence is comprised in the idea which it has of an absolutely perfect Being, it has clearly to conclude that this absolutely perfect Being exists.
When the mind understands the definition of a triangle, then the mind can draw out the necessary conclusion that the interior angles are equal to two right angles by a proof in geometty. In a similar manner, when the mind understands the definition of God as the absolutely Perfect Being, then the mind can conclude with necessity that the concept of the Perfect Being includes the concept of necessary existence. For necessary existence is a perfection whereas contingent existence is an imperfection. Beings that come into existence and pass out of existence are limited by their births and deaths. But a Perfect Being has no such limitations or imperfections. Hence, the concept of the Perfect Being includes the concept of necessary existence.
Anselm's Formulation
Anselm conceives of God as the Perfect Being, that "being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Anselm says that when the fool says that God does not exist, the fool is thinking of God as the being than which nothing greater can be conceived and is denying that such a being exists. At least the fool has this idea of the Perfect Being in his understanding.
Anselm then argues that if the Perfect Being exists only in the understanding, then the Perfect Being is not the Perfect Being. For a more perfect being can be conceived of, namely, one which exists both in human understanding andd in reality. To correctly think the idea of the Perfect Being, the mind must conceive of that Being as existing in reality. For existing in reality is greater than existing only in the understanding. To quote Anselm:
Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible.
Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, that which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. (Text, p. 132)
The logical structure of Anselm's argument is valid: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true:
Premise 1: If God, the Perfect Being, exists in the understanding alone, then the Perfect Being is not Perfect. (For it is more perfect to exist both in reality and in the understanding.)
Premise 2: It is contradictory to say, it is impossible, that the Perfect Being is not Perfect.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Perfect Being does not exist in the understanding alone. The Perfect Being exists both in the understanding and in reality.
The question we must ask of Anselm's argument is whether the premises are true.
Premise 2 can be accepted as true. It is impossible for the Perfect Being not to be Perfect, as Anselm as defined Perfect Being.
However, we can question premise 1: Is Anselm's definition of the Perfect Being correct; Or as we could ask of Descartes: Does Descartes have a clear and distinct idea of God as the Perfect Being?
The Evaluation by Thomas Aquinas
The basic question that Aquinas raises against the argument of Anselm is whether the human mind has a corect idea of God by merely thinking of ideas. We can assume, Aquinas says, that God has a clear idea of God and that God knows that He exists necessarily. However, we cannot assume that human beings have such a clear idea. Hence, humans cannot prove that God exists from their mere idea of God.
Aquinas sums up his refutation of Anselm as follows:
The proposition "God exists" is self-evident to God. For God knows he is the eternally existent Perfect Being. God knows the meaning of the term "God" by direct self-awareness. Hence God knows that eternal existence belongs to Himself.
However, the proposition "God exists" is not self-evident to the human mind. For the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God. The human mind can make up a definition of the term "God"; and we can say that if that definition is correct, than God necessarily exists. However, the question is: Do we have a correct definition of the term "God"?
The text is very clear on page 134. So we can say that the ontological argument is valid: lf the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, we do not know with certitude that the premises are true.
However, Aquinas indicates that we might have an inborn but confused idea of God. He writes:
To know that God exists in a general and indefinite way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by a man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for there are many who imagine that man's perfect good (which is happiness) consists ln riches, and others in pleasures, and others something else. (134)
Since God is a human being's ultimate happiness, that good than which nothing greater can be conceived, for Aquinas, we do have a natural but vague knowledge that God exists. People, however, have to search for this ultimate happiness; many only gradually learn that riches and pleasures do not give the eternal, perfect happiness that they are seeking. However, we cannot turn this argument into a conclusive proof. For there are many people who will deny the basic assumption; they will deny that humans seek an eternal and perfect happiness. The two different attitudes towards happiness, the attitude that happiness should be eternal and perfect and the attitude that it should be temporal and human, appear to be two existential attitudes chosen freely as different ways of making sense out of people's lives.
LINKS
William O'Meara (c) Copyright, 1997
-