Evaluation of Aquinass Criticism on Gods Existence and Self-evidence - Term Paper Example

of the of the Concerned Philosophy 19 July 2009 Great Works of Western Philosophy 2 Introduction The problem of evidence as for the existence of a supreme entity or God has baffled the Western theologians, thinkers, scientists and philosophers since times immemorial. Various theologians and philosophers have extended ontological and theological arguments as for the existence of God. The objective of this paper is to delineate Anselm's ontological argument about the existence of God and Thomas Aquinas' criticism and refutation of the view that God's existence is self-evident. The paper intends to establish that both Anselm's and Aquinas' arguments are not primarily concerned about validating and establishing the existence of God, but are fundamentally a quest for self-validation. There is no denying the fact that though both of them were believers, yet in their theological and philosophical confabulations, they seem to be more concerned about establishing the relevance of their approach rather then proving the existence of God. Anselm, an Italian philosopher tends to rely on pure logical catechism. Aquinas, hailing from an aristocratic background, being the son of Count of Aquino, tends to extend a more refined version of the Averroists' view of 'double truth, which believed that the Catholic faith has two dimensions, one based on reason that emanates from philosophy and the other based of revelation, ensuing from theology. However, Aquinas while refuting the ontological argument seems to divest religion of its inherent need for faith and mysticism. In doing so, both the luminaries reduce God to a concept, much unlike the alive and awesome God of the scriptures. Yet, the interesting thing is that this approach of Aquinas towards faith evolved into a living influence that cleared the way for the proliferation and sustenance of a scientific temperament in the West amidst the surrounding theological constraints. Anselm's Ontological Argument Anselm was a theologian who commanded a considerable influence in the 11th century. In 1078, he propounded his famous ontological argument for the existence of God in his well-known book 'Proslogium'. Anselm was both repudiated and acclaimed by some of the most noteworthy philosophers and theologians. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant challenged this ontological argument for the existence of God, while it was acclaimed and built upon by Leibniz, Descartes and Spinoza. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God proceeds somewhat like this: 1. God stands to be the greatest entity that can be conceived by human mind. (Axiom) 2. If God is not the greatest entity, then definitely something greater then God ought to exist. (Axiom) 3. Yet, it is impossible to conceive an entity greater then God. (Axiom 1, repeated). 4. As axiom 2 is in contradiction with axiom 1, thus 2 is certainly false. 5. Hence, God Exists. To put the argument of Anselm in simple words: 1. Even if an individual doubts the existence of God, still one knows that God is the greatest entity that can be conceived by human mind. 2. There is no denying the fact that the capacity to exist in the mind and outside the mind stands to be greater then the capacity to exist merely in the mind. 3. Thus, the individual who denies the existence of God, in a way declares that it is possible to conceive something that is greater than God is. 4. This premise stands to contradict the definition of God and hence cannot be true. 5. Thus, God exists. In a personal perspective, Anselm intends to validate a synthetic argument by pretending that it is in fact an analytic argument. He is trying to prove the existence of something without trying to correlate its existence with the real world. Grave doubts tend to mar the assumption that concludes that it is possible to validate or deny the existence of something by merely resorting to its definition. As per Encarta, it is next to impossible to validate the extramental existence of an entity by simply analyzing its definition alone. Anselm argues that the fundamental definition of God incorporates within its ambit the privilege of being the greatest conceivable entity. Therefore, it becomes feasible to grasp the fact that anything, which exists both within the mind and outside the mind, undoubtedly stands to be greater then any concept, which exists merely in the mind. Hence, the very definition of God validates the existence of God, as the concept of God by its very definition has the prerogative to exist both within the mind and outside the mind. Anselm bolsters his argument with the simple premise that: "When a painterthinks outwhat he is going to paint, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand that it existsonce he has painted it, he both has it in his understanding and understands that it exists." (Cahn 381). However, the ontological argument of Anselm stands to be utterly facile in the sense that a mere definition of an object or an entity cannot be taken to be a proof of its existence. For example, take the definition of a straight line. A straight line is the shortest distance that exists between two points. However, even a beginner in Euclidian geometry can testify to the fact that this definition of a straight line cannot be taken to be a proof for its existence. An argument for the existence of a straight line calls for a little more sophisticated line of reasoning. Hence, the ontological argument of Anselm not only dilutes God into a facile concept, but also divests the existence of God of all its magnanimity and awe. To define God is to degenerate Him into a graspable form, something that is akin to idolatry. Moreover, any attempt to validate the existence of God based on any such definition is positively impious, if not blasphemous. Aquinas' Criticism Aquinas blatantly tends to invalidate and reject Anselm's ontological argument in his acclaimed work 'Summa Theologiae' or 'Summary of Theology'. However, the irony is that Aquinas while repudiating Anselm's argument, in a very sophisticated way extends forth a line of thought, which is even more dry and desiccated in spiritual verve and substance, though being logically magnificent. Aquinas begins by attacking Anselm's premise that God is self-evident. According to Anselm, the very realization of the significance of God on the part of an individual leads to the recognition of the existence of God. An entity that exists actually and mentally, undoubtedly qualifies to be greater then any entity, which has a mere platonic existence. Therefore, as soon as an individual mentally ponders on the existence of God, it extends a mental existence to the concept of God, which automatically establishes the actual existence of God. Aquinas attacks the quantitative element in Anselm's ontological argument. In his argument, Anselm refers to the "greatness of God". However, some of the salient Catholic attributes of God like love and benevolence deny any intrinsic maximum. Hence, if one goes by Anselm's argument, the 'greatness' of God is something that can be always improved upon, no matter how great God becomes. Not only this, but Aquinas proceeds to lean on Frege to repudiate Anselm. As per Aquinas, a first order predicate throws light on the essence of a subject. A simple example would be, "horses have legs." This predicate stands to be self-evident, as in this case all know the attributes of the subject and the predicate. Aquinas further extends this argument by propounding that there exist second order predicates, which are mostly in the nature of meaningless statements like "God exists". Such statements add nothing to the meaning of the talked about concepts. According to Anselm, existence of God contributes to His greatness. However, existence being a second order predicate adds nothing to the essence of God. Aquinas defines self-evident as: "A proposition is self evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject." (Cahn 418). Aquinas' Cosmological Argument Aquinas not only denied Anselm's ontological argument, but also proceeded to validate the existence of God through the premise of cause and effect. He extended five proofs in favor of the existence of God, the summom bonum of which stands to be as follows: 1. The mere existence of an entity necessitates a cause. 2. Thereby, the existence of everything necessitates a cause. 3. Hence, nothing exists on its own, but depends for its existence on some external cause. 4. Therefore, there exists some first cause called God, which accounts for the existence of everything. Though, the arguments of Aquinas are taught in all the Catholic institutions, more so since the rescript of 1879 by Leo XIII, still they stand to be mere offshoots of Aristotelian dogmas and are grossly philosophical in their perspective. Conclusion The arguments of Anselm and Aquinas do not tend to differ much in the sense that while trying to strengthen belief, they do deduct something from faith, which is much magnanimous a reality to be grasped by human intellect only. In the times of Anselm and Aquinas, it was possible to be an orthodox and a logician at the same time. However, in a contemporary scenario, such freedoms qualify to be anachronistic and obsolete. The harmonious coexistence of faith and logic ushered in by Aquinas once again stands asunder and apart. Total Words: 1,536 Works Cited Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Read More