CHALLENGES TO THE ARGUMENT
The proposition “God exists” is self-evident in itself…since God is his own existence but, because what it is to be God is not evident to us, the proposition is not self-evident to us - Thomas Aquinas
Immanuel Kant
After Descartes proposed his Cartesian ontological argument, Immanuel Kant attempted to analyse the flaw in the logic. Kant's objection to the ontological argument is that you can't define something into existence. I could define my bank account as containing millions of pounds but no amount of analysing my definition of ‘my bank account’ would make me a millionaire. I have to go to an ATM and check the balance of my account and see if it is accurate. Similarly, a definition of God must be checked with reality to see if it is correct. Kant shows this in a number of ways: |
1. Negation is not contradiction
Kant argues that you don't contradict the definition of something by denying it exists. He uses Descartes' example of a triangle. Descartes had said that denying God's existence was like denying a triangle had three sides. Kant agrees that you cannot deny the predicate (no three-sidedness) and keep the subject (a triangle). However you can deny the predicate AND the subject both at once (no three-sidedness AND no triangle). It would be self-contradictory to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles, but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle TOGETHER WITH its three angles - Immanuel Kant |
All this talk about triangles makes me want to hear James Blunt sing "My Triangle" on Sesame Street. Enjoy!
|
Anselm's point is that what exists and cannot not-exist is greater than that which exists and can not-exist - Charles Hartshorne
you and I do not possess necessary existence: we should never have existed if our respective sets of parents happened never to have met … even an object that has, by everyday standards, a really impressive grip on existence – Mount Everest, say – lacks necessary existence: Mount Everest would not have existed if the Indian subcontinent had not drifted into contact with Asia. …These reflections make it clear that necessary existence is a property - Peter Van Ingwagen
is it relevant to the ontological argument? Couldn't Anselm thank Kant for this interesting point and proceed merrily on his way? - Alvin Plantinga
not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise - that the existence of a maximally great being is possible - will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise - Alvin Plantinga Plantinga concludes that the ontological argument shows that belief in God isn't "contrary to reason" (irrational, deluded, foolish) and he thinks this is enough. If religious belief is reasonable, then it's up to a posteriori arguments (Design, Cosmological) or religious experiences to show that it's also true.
|