The ontological argument is a philosophical argument that aims to establish the existence of God based solely on the concept of a perfect being. It is a highly debated and intricate argument that has been developed and refined by various philosophers throughout history, including Anselm of Canterbury and René Descartes. In this essay, we will delve into the intricacies of the ontological argument, exploring its premises, objections, and counter-objections, to better understand its strengths and weaknesses as a proof for the existence of God.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Anselm, an 11th-century theologian and philosopher, formulated the ontological argument in his work “Proslogion.” He argued that God is the greatest conceivable being, and the very concept of God implies existence. Anselm’s argument can be summarized as follows:
1. God is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—one that exists in reality.
4. But we cannot conceive of a greater being than God.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm’s argument rests on the idea that existence is a necessary attribute of a perfect being. According to his line of reasoning, if we can conceive of a being that possesses all perfections, then existence must be one of those perfections. Anselm asserts that denying the existence of God would lead to a contradiction, as it would imply that there could be a greater being than the greatest conceivable being.
Criticisms and Objections
The ontological argument has faced numerous criticisms over the centuries. One notable objection comes from Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm, who proposed the “Lost Island” analogy. Gaunilo argued that using Anselm’s logic, one could conceive of the most perfect island and claim its existence solely based on its perfection. However, this would not guarantee its actual existence.
Immanuel Kant, an influential philosopher of the Enlightenment era, provided a different critique. Kant argued that existence is not a predicate that can be added to a concept. He contended that existence is not a property or characteristic that can enhance the concept of an object, as Anselm’s argument assumes. Kant posited that existence is a predicate that applies to empirical objects but not to concepts.
Descartes and the Ontological Argument
René Descartes, a 17th-century philosopher, presented his own version of the ontological argument. Descartes posited that the idea of God, as a perfect being, is an innate idea placed within us by a benevolent and all-powerful God. He argued that the very presence of this innate idea suggests that its cause—a perfect being—must exist. Descartes believed that God’s existence is evident because of our clear and distinct perception of the idea of God.
Modal Versions of the Ontological Argument
Modal versions of the ontological argument aim to demonstrate the necessary existence of God. These formulations use modal logic, which deals with possibilities and necessities, to present the argument. The modal ontological argument posits that if God’s existence is possible (in any possible world), then it follows that God’s existence is necessary (true in all possible worlds). This argument attempts to establish God’s existence as a necessary truth rather than a contingent one.
Plantinga’s Modal Version
Alvin Plantinga, a contemporary philosopher, developed a modal version of the ontological argument known as the “modal ontological argument from possible worlds.” Plantinga argued that if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. Since a maximally great being possesses all perfections, including necessary existence, it follows that a maximally great being exists in the actual world as well.
Objections and Counter-Objections
Critics of the ontological argument often raise the objection of the argument’s reliance on the concept of perfection. They argue that the concept of a perfect being is subjective and varies from individual to individual. Additionally, opponents claim that the ontological argument is based on logical reasoning rather than empirical evidence, rendering it less persuasive for those who prioritize empirical verification.
In response to these objections, proponents of the ontological argument assert that it offers a unique perspective on the existence of God—one that transcends empirical evidence. They contend that the argument taps into the realm of pure reason and explores the concept of perfection as an inherent quality of God. They argue that existence is indeed a necessary attribute of a perfect being, and denying this attribute would contradict the very concept of perfection.
Conclusion
The ontological argument, though highly debated and subject to various objections, continues to captivate philosophers and theologians. It presents an intriguing approach to establishing the existence of God based on the concept of a perfect being. While objections have been raised, defenders of the ontological argument maintain that it offers a distinctive perspective that challenges the boundaries of empirical evidence and relies on logical reasoning. Whether one finds the ontological argument compelling or not, it remains an enduring topic of philosophical inquiry, inviting further exploration and analysis.