The ontological argument (OA) is, in my opinion, such an example of philosophical obscurantism and wish-fulfillment that I'm actually embarrassed for the famous, historical philosophers who (apparently) took it seriously.
Here are two examples of OAs:
Descartes' OA
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.
His argument basically says, "Whatever I define is true. I define that God necessarily exists. Therefore, God exists."
That's a FAIL. Do I need to explain why?
Saint Anselm's OA (paraphrase)
1. God is a being that which none greater can be imagined.
2. Existing in reality is better than to only exist in understanding.
3. If God exists only in understanding, He would be less great than one which exists in reality.
4. Since God is the greatest being, therefore God must exist in reality.
Again, I cringe. Kant pointed out that existence is not a trait, and a imaginary tree that is imagined to be identical to an actual tree is not less "great". Even if it were, Kant pointed out, the entire argument is premised on the definition again; if you reject the entire concept then the definition doesn't really matter. As an example, I define a shape called a "Squircle": squircles are square circles. It doesn't matter that I define Squircles to be so... they don't exist.Here's what I consider to be an even better example of why the ontological argument is stupid.
Iain's OA
1. A "Flarn" is an actual creature that is 100% dog and 100% human.
2. If Flarns were not wholly dogs, then they would not be 100% dog.
3. If Flarns were not wholly human, then they would not be 100% human.
4. If Flarns did not exist, they would not be an actual creature.
5. Therefore, Flarns exist and are 100% dog and 100% human.
As you can see, Flarns help themselves to several necessary properties. Apparently, that's okay when you're making an OA.
Is anyone else embarrassed by Ontological Arguments, too?
What do you think?
Do you know of an ontological argument form that you think is good?
Do you disagree with me and think either of the arguments presented above work?
Is philosophy a helpmate to religion or do you think they are incompatible?
7 comments:
Haven't read properly yet, but OA is one I never understood.
I do recall Alvin Plantinga wrote a book on it, arguing that although it's not an intuitive argument, it's quite strong. Unfortunately, Plantinga is not an easy read either :/
I think that Plantinga is the one who provided what I consider to be the "best" ontological argument formulation. By best, I don't mean good :) I just mean best of a bad bunch.
When philosophers talk about possible worlds they either mean (1) other causally distinct space-time manifolds i.e. metaphysically different universes, or (2) possible ways of THIS world being, once we find out about the kind of world we're actually in.
1. The supreme Being is that which, if it exists, exists in all possible worlds.
2. It is *possible* that the supreme being exists in some possible world. (to deny this, you'd have to rule out ANY possibility whatsoever which is too strong to defend)
3. If the supreme being exists in a possible world then it exists in this actual world (from 1).
4. Therefore, the supreme being exists.
Of course, this is just an extended way of saying, "God necessarily exists. The end." It hides that fact by extending the logic out to hypothetical possible worlds and places the burden of proof on atheists (be a strong atheist or go home). It also jibes nicely with Many-Worlds physics theories (to their chagrin, I'm sure). I still think it's rubbish :D
Still, it puts it nicely.
* To answer your questions:
Do you know of an ontological argument form that you think is good?
Well, you've shown why you think Plantinga's ultimately fails.
* Do you disagree with me and think either of the arguments presented above work?
Nope. But then I always found the OA hard to understand and it seemed kinda stupid. So I never put the effort in to understand it.
* Is philosophy a helpmate to religion or do you think they are incompatible?
Definitely helpful. To me, a spirituality that is not consistent is unsatisfying. I suppose I think that g0d loves logic, the warmth of reason is there to enlighten us.
This doesn't mean I think we have to have strong proof, but I do think reasonable evidence is helpful.
All I can say is when I first read of this ontological idea I laughed myself sick and called it philosophy on drugs. Reading your post twenty years later I am reminded and giggle again.
Mind you its lots of fun to play with with like-minded friends and a few bottles of red :).
Sartre - Being and Nothingness. Now THERE'S an argument.
Leesis, yes I like doing things like laughing with other philosophers about the "argument from degree" as we formulate arguments for the Perfect Coffee etc
Romy, in spite of my post title, I haven't actually read that one!
I remember little of my existentialism course but I have a crush on Sartre.
Post a Comment