Bertrand Russell is an important British philosopher of the 20th century who championed atheism. He wasn't specifically interested in disproving the ontological argument, but he was interested in the logic of language, which led him to comment on the argument on different occasions.
Russell writes in his Autobiography about how, as a young philosophy student, he was deeply impressed by the ontological argument and found it persuasive. He recalls a moment in 1894 when the ontological argument struck him as true: |
I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back with it along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed: ‘Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!’ - Bertrand Russell
it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies - Bertrand Russell
It is possible to use predicative statements to describe something, but that something does not have to be an existential statement. Russell argued that everyday use of language makes it possible to talk about non-existent things with apparent meaning. For example, we can talk about unicorns in the same way we talk about cows, even though unicorns don't exist. This is because we often ignore existential statements and concentrate on predicative ones. Although we should say "are there things which match the description of cows?" before talking about cows, in fact we just start talking about cows.
Russell uses the example of describing the current King of France being bald (in reality, France is a republic and it has no king or queen, just a President). Russell's descriptions of the bald King of France may be understandable, but they do not correspond to an actual state of affairs. Therefore the statements have no real meaning. |
Imagine a scientist comes up with a hypothesis that on another planet somewhere, with an atmosphere and a gravity similar to ours and with similar elements, there might be intelligent life forms like ours too. Then one day we build a rocket and travel to another planet just like this and, lo! and behold!, we meet intelligent aliens just like the scientist predicted.
It makes sense to agree with Russell and say the hypothetical aliens proposed by the scientist have been instantiated. It seems wrong to agree with Descartes and say that the aliens encountered on this world are more perfect than the aliens imagined by the scientist because they possess the predicate of existence. |
YES
Bertrand Russell analyses the language of the ontological argument and shows it to be "bad grammar". In order to show that God is instantiated in the world of time and space, you need to do more than describe him. "God exists" is not a predicative statement; it is an existential statement. Therefore it doesn't contradict the definition of God if it isn't true.
Russell clarifies Kant's argument (he's a much better, wittier writer than Kant). He's not inventing new words; he's pointing out that we use words very carelessly in ordinary English and his new terminology is to help us appreciate the differences between words we commonly treat as the same, such as "existence" and predicates like "invisible" or "perfect".
|
NO
Russell's criticism is no different from Kant's: he is arguing that existence isn't really a predicate. But by coming up with new terms like "instantiate" and "existential statement", Russell is doing a version of what he accuses the ontological argument of doing: he's trying to define God out of existence.
Even if Russell is right about predicates, he only succeeds in refuting the Cartesian ontological argument and Anselm's first version of it. If Hartshorne and Malcolm are right, Anselm's second argument doesn't involve existence as a predicate. Plantinga's modal ontological argument has been described as the 'Victorious' ontological argument.
|