In the year 1078, St. Anselm of Canterbury (England) proposed an "ontological argument" for the existence of God:
It is possible to conceive, Anselm said, of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the real world. But, goes the argument, a being that doesn't exist in the real world is, by that very fact, less than perfect. Therefore we have a contradiction and, hey presto, God exists! [courtesy Richard Dawkins, p. 80, The God Delusion]
A contemporary of Anselm, one Gaunilo had, reports Dawkins, "suggested a similar
reductio." And a contemporary of Dawkins, "the [philosopher] Australian Douglas Gasking, made the point with his ironic 'proof' that God does
not exist:
- The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
- The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
- The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
- The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
- Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.
- An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo: - God does not exist."
[p. 83, The God Delusion]
Morris:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads-up on this post. I can't be everywhere, though I would sometimes like to be, so I like when you call attention to posts I may enjoy.
I'm afraid that neither Dawkins rebutal, nor the Anselm argument itself, interests me much. I hesitate to mention that to you online because I fear with all the philosophical arguments you have weighed you might say "well, the reason Sheepandgoats doesn't appreciate either argument is that he is a dunce." Of course, you are too charitable to say it, but will you think it?
Well, so be it. It all strikes me as unnecessarily recondite reasoning. Perhaps at another time and in a different mood, I might feel differently.
Tom, I see that you did have the courage (or the faith in me) to mention online your reservations about ontological arguments!
ReplyDeleteBe comforted that you are in good company: David Hume (1711-76) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) both thought that they had successfully refuted ontological arguments. And Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) may have thought briefly as a young man that Anselm's argument was conclusive, but he soon saw through it. And Dawkins agrees. He points out that the Australian philosopher's counter ontological argument was offered in jest. He (Dawkins) says (p. 82 of The God Delusion): "My own feeling...would have been an automatic deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world."