لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Ontological
Arguments
Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that
God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other
than observation of the world e.g., from reason alone. In other words,
ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori
and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
The
first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century
A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God
from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St.
Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being
namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists
can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a
being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater
can be conceived i.e., God exists.
In the
seventeenth century, Ren Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For
instance, in the Fifth Meditation, Descartes claims to provide a proof
demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being.
Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely
perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose
interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do
conceive a supremely perfect being we do have the idea of a supremely perfect
being we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists.
In the
early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz attempted to fill what he took to
be a shortcoming in Descartes' view. According to Leibniz, Descartes' arguments
fail unless one first shows that the idea of a supremely perfect being is
coherent, or that it is possible for there to be a supremely perfect being.
Leibniz argued that, since perfections are unanalysable, it is impossible to
demonstrate that perfections are incompatible and he concluded from this that
all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity.
In
more recent times, Kurt Gödel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and
Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which
bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes
and Leibniz. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and
Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear whether we should really say
that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the existence
of God.
Critiques
of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm.
Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel
Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that
ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit
assumption that "existence" is a predicate. However, as Bertrand
Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments
are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to
explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a
thousand years.
In
various ways, the account provided to this point is rough, and susceptible of
improvement. Sections 1 - 5 in what follows provide some of the requisite
embellishments, though as is usually the case in philosophy there are many
issues taken up here which could be pursued at much greater length. Sections 6
- 8 take up some of the central questions at a slightly more sophisticated
level of discussion:
1.
History of Ontological Arguments
2.
Taxonomy of Ontological Arguments
3.
Characterisation of Ontological Arguments
4.
Objections to Ontological Arguments
5.
Parodies of Ontological Arguments
6.
Gödel's Ontological Argument
7.
Plantinga's Ontological Argument
8. St.
Anselm's Ontological Argument
Bibliography
Other
Internet Resources
Related
Entries
1. History of Ontological
Arguments
1078:
St. Anselm, Proslogion. Followed soon after by
Gaunilo's critique In Behalf of the Fool.
1264:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa. Criticises an argument
which somehow descends from St. Anselm.
1637:
Descartes, Meditations. The Objections
particularly those of Caterus and Gassendi and the Replies contain much
valuable discussion of the Cartesian arguments.
c1680:
Spinoza, Ethics. Intimations of a defensible
mereological ontological argument, albeit one whose conclusion is not
(obviously) endowed with religious significance.
1709:
Leibniz, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding.
Contains Leibniz's attempt to complete the Cartesian argument by showing that
the Cartesian conception of God is not inconsistent.
1776:
Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Part
IX is a general attack on a priori arguments (both analytic and
synthetic). Includes a purported demonstration that no such arguments can be
any good.
1787:
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason. Contains famous
attack on traditional theistic arguments. Three objections to "the
ontological argument", including the famous objection based on the
dictum that existence is not a predicate.
1831:
Hegel, Lectures of 1831.
Famous assertion uncontaminated by argument of the correctness of
ontological arguments.
1884:
Frege, Foundations of Arithmetic. Existence is a
second-order predicate. First-order existence claims are meaningless. So
ontological arguments whose conclusions are first-order existence claims
are doomed.
1941:
Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God. Defence of modal
ontological arguments, allegedly derived from Proslogion 3.
1960:
Malcolm, "Anselm's Ontological Argument".
Defence of modal ontological arguments by a famous ordinary philosopher.
