What Philosophy Is

The Ontological Proof of God’s Existence

As you read the material for the next class, keep the questions below in mind. To answer these questions you will have to reflect critically on what you have read and possibly re-read important passages. Keep in mind that there are two basic kinds of information that you need to look for in the readings.

  1. What are the main points or conclusions that an author accepts with respect to a particular issue?
  2. What are the reasons or important considerations that lead the author to accept that conclusion?

For our purposes, it is information of the latter sort (2) that will be our primary concern since our most basic task is to evaluate the reasons that are offered to support accepting one possible conclusion about an issue, rather than another.

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to speak intelligently to these issues in the next class meeting. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the final exam’s questions will be drawn from these questions—particularly those in bold.

Readings:

  • Saint Anselm, “The Ontological Argument” from Stephen M. Cahn (ed.), Philosophy for the 21st Century, pp. 24-25.
  • Immanuel Kant, “Critique of the Ontological Argument” from Stephen M. Cahn (ed.), Philosophy for the 21st Century, pp. 27-28.
  • William L. Rowe, “Why the Ontological Argument Fails” from Stephen M. Cahn (ed.), Philosophy for the 21st Century, pp. 32-35.

Questions:

  1. Saint Anselm claims that (1) “there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality” and (2) “something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-though exists so truly… that it cannot be even thought not to exist”. What premises does Anselm assume in order to justify these claims and how do these premises entail these claims? Why must this “something-than-which…” be God and not something (someone?) else?
  2. What argument does Immanuel Kant make against Anselm’s argument? Which premise of Anselm’s is he denying?
  3. William Rowe (or at least his hypothetical opponent) is not impressed by Kant’s argument. How does Rowe’s example concerning “magicians”, “magicans”, and “magicos” show a flaw in both the “simple” Ontological Proof and Anselm’s version? Why does having existence in a things definition create confusions concerning “possible things”? Why is this relevant for Anselm’s proof?
  4. Given that they reach different conclusions, Anselm, Kant, and Rowe cannot all be right. Where exactly in their respective arguments do they disagree? Which position is supported by the strongest and most compelling argument?

 

I love Apache! So should you!