Ontological Arguments and Belief in God - Assignment Example

?Answer Anselm of Canterbury proposed the first ontological argument. His proposal suggested that God is the greatest possible being anyone can think of. His suggestion was that the greatest possible being has to be present in real form: someone who actually really exists is surely much greater than the one of whom a person can only think of in his head. His argument, however, was wholly rejected by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s suggestion was that there is no way that mere mortals can conceive what God’s nature is, and thus we surely cannot conceive God like Anselm has said we can (Oppy 122-3). Therefore, this argument can be used only by the ones who can understand the true essence of God and that cannot be anyone but God Himself. David Hume was another philosopher who went against Anselm’s argument. His criticism was that it has no evidential reasoning. His argument was that the existence of a being cannot be proved simply through a priori reasoning. Cleanthes has proposed this argument in the following words: ...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable (Fieser 232). Yet another proposal was made by Pascal regarding the existence of God; he stated that His existence cannot be decided upon by means of reason and that a logical person should consider that God does exist since there has to be one being who can only gain and not lose anything. However, Pascal’s suggestion was solely for the Christian God and he said there is a possibility of certain people not believing in God in spite of receiving enormous benefits after acknowledging God’s presence, even if for a bet. William Paley was a Christian apologist, utilitarian and philosopher and had his own belief in God. His book Natural Theology presents the proof regarding God’s existence. Paley, like Aquinas, felt that we cannot know about the qualities of God, even if He exists. The fact he argued for was that there are much more evidences for the statement that God exists than objections against it. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author, has written a book regarding the existence of God. His latest book deals with natural theology which suggests that proof for the existence and nature of God is possible to be derived from the reflection we make of the natural world. Davies has used the latest discoveries and scientific facts from physics and cosmology to come to a conclusion regarding the classical theological queries. Answer 2: Anselm has provided certain reasoning in favour of the existence of God. His proposal was that God is the greatest being. And He is perfect. His perfections themselves prove that He exists because perfection requires existence. If He is perfect he definitely exists, no arguments about that for sure. Pascal said that even if one does not have any proof of God’s existence it is better to believe in one rather than risk his afterlife and lose everything later, while having the time of his life in the world. Pascal talked about the super-dominance argument which states that in case it is true that God really exists the theists would be able to have eternal paradise and atheists, on the other hand, would go through eternal damnation. However, if there is no God the theists would have complete but finite happiness before dying. Atheists would be the same except that they would not have the comforts of religion. Thus, whether God exists or doesn’t, it is the theists who are better off than the atheists. Another argument in favour of the existence of God was by Aquinas, and it was cosmology based. According to his argument the objects that we find to be moving are not moving by themselves but there is a cause behind their movement. There has to be someone moving them and this someone happens to be God. It is a very simple and comprehendible argument since it is common sense that movements all over the earth cannot be taking place themselves and there has to be a Supreme Being controlling those movements. Besides that, it is reasonable to consider that objects cannot just appear out of nowhere; there has to be someone creating them and bringing them into existence, and again that is God. David Hume has tried to prove the nonexistence of God. His argument was that the evil of this world could not have existed if there was a God and that He cannot be both almighty as well as good. He has to take responsibility for all evil since if He created the entire universe then obviously He also created evil, and if He did not then someone else. If someone else can also create something then how can God possibly be the One? Such are the arguments that a lot of atheists have used to prove their point. However, it is to be noted that God did not create human being like a programmed computer. He gave us brains and a mind to think and be responsible for our actions. This world is a test for us humans and since we have a free will we hold responsibility for everything we do, whether good or bad. And it is not for nothing that we are supposed to be pious while avoiding evil; God has indeed promised rewards for the former and punishment for the latter. It will not do any harm to anyone by believing in God but if they do not there is a possibility that they would risk their afterlife. Answer 3: Pascal said that even if one does not have any proof of God’s existence it is better to believe in one rather than risk his afterlife and lose everything later. However, this does not seem to be a real reason for believing in God. If a person does not believe in something he does not believe in it. End of story. There is no way he can be forced into it. Besides that, surely God would not favour hypocrisy. That is, a person posing to believe in Him just because he does not want to risk his afterlife does not make sense; this simply means he does believe in Him otherwise he wouldn’t care about his afterlife. Aquinas argued that movements all over the earth cannot be taking place themselves and there has to be a Supreme Being controlling those movements, and this being is God. However, one thing that can be argued against this statement is that since everything needs to be moved, there must be something that is moving God too; and if that is the case that means there is a higher being than God Himself, thus absolutely refuting the existence of God. David Hume has also argued against the existence of God and his argument was that the evil of this world could not have existed if there was a God. The objection raised here is that God has made us such that we can think for ourselves and distinguish between right and wrong. We are human beings, not computers that we conduct actions that have been programmed in our brains. This objection will surely not make sense if we find out the reason behind God creating us like this. He could have avoided evil by instilling in us the means of doing just the right thing, like He has done with angels and this is not the case. If God exists, it makes sense that He would prevent any evil from happening. However, evil does happen. Fieser has questioned why God, if He exists, permits suffering. Such is the case in all approaches; when the free creatures as well as those whose actions have already been determined suffer. Since their actions are determined already it is God who has determined them and thus He is responsible for the suffering. If it is a free creature who brings suffering upon himself on his own, again it is God who is responsible since He can control the person. The objection raised here is that God has made us such that we can think for ourselves and distinguish between right and wrong. Since a person has enough brains to avoid something that does not harm him he should avoid it rather than holding the bulls by its horns. However, many times a person gets sick although he has not exposed himself to any viruses. What is the argument in that case and why is he suffering when he did no such thing that illness should befall him? Answer 4: “Doing the right thing” means to be virtuous and right in every way. Supposed a person is in a situation and he has to take a step; could perform rightly or commit a wrong act. If the right action suits his own interests he would definitely go for it. But the decision would become difficult if the right action is against what he desires and that is where he would need to control his temptation and do the right thing. And why exactly should he forego the happiness he would get from doing the wrong thing? Because it would probably make him feel good and people would think good of him. Also, by doing wrong it is probable that he might be hurting someone and that is not acceptable at any cost. Besides this, there is always a punishment for wrong acts and he would prevent himself from that. Plato has discussed this issue and has talked about how we should live. He has written a fictional dialogue by the name of Republic in which a character by the name Glaucon gives a reason for doing good: it is in our interest. If a person has been doing good and been honest from the very beginning everyone would appreciate him, befriend him and do business with him. However, as Glaucon says, an ethical life is very difficult to lead, not to mention that there are also no pleasures or happiness in it. It is to say, thus, that the only time when a person does the right thing is when he does not have another choice. Aristotle has talked about achieving happiness. He has said that happiness is our highest good. Thus, doing the right thing will give us happiness and that is what everyone wants. Human beings are different from other beings in that they have a sense of logic and reason; they can distinguish between right and wrong and act accordingly. Therefore, our highest good has to have reasoning within it. Epicurus, another philosopher, has not instructed man to be good or try doing the right thing. According to him it is not necessary that a person has to be concerned with how good he is or how willing he is to follow the right path; this is not related to the happiness he would get. In fact, Epicurus said not to concern oneself with such matters if he truly wishes to be happy. Kant has specified that “doing the right thing” should be only when the person actually intends to do right, and not just for the sake of it. He needs to be willing for it. If we consider human psychologically it cannot be assumed that people would actually want to do the right thing with a good intention thus it is just good will that can be said to be the only morally good thing. Answer 5: Any government would be considered unjust that does not give its citizens what they deserve. It is the responsibility of the government to provide its people with the basic necessities of life such as electricity, clean water, gas, shelter, healthcare, security and so on. Government takes taxes from its people and thus it is responsible for providing them with all this. If it doesn’t the government is taking advantage of the masses and not fulfilling its obligations towards them. This is injustice. Another case of injustice is when the government does not take care of the criminals; they are not punished and thus the common people are at risk of being looted, tortured and killed. Once caught the government has to punish/imprison them in order to keep its citizens safe. Otherwise it would be doing injustice to them. Plato feels virtue and goodness to be behind a good and just government that keeps every person’s interest in consideration. According to Plato justice is required for the whole of the society to live in peace and not just a particular community. Presence of justice makes a city united and thus healthy. Where there is injustice there is war, hatred, fights, something which can be avoided in the presence of justice. Aristotle claimed that in perfect situations a human being is the best animal while in the absence of law and justice he becomes the worst. This means that we should have law and order if we are to lead a good life. And for there to be rules and regulations there has to be someone to implement them, which is obviously a ruler or a government. Aquinas believes a king to be someone who rules over a community and, according to him, the best kind of ruling is by kingship. A government is meant to make sure about the unity of a community, and kingship can fulfill that purpose. On the other hand Aquinas quotes tyranny to be the most unjust. However, from these two statements is brought forward the argument that it is kingship only which causes tyranny. Besides, those under a king have no purpose or aim to do good since they believe they would not be getting anything positive out of it. Hobbes founded modern political philosophy and presented how political rulings affect our lives. Hobbes believed that in case there exists no political authority whatsoever it is the right of the masses to just look after themselves by whatever means they can. In case there is an authority the people should obey the ruler. Also, it was his view that it is better to have any kind of a government than to have to go through a war. Rawls considered the whole community to be designating particular political communities, not all human beings irrespective of their political connections. Rawls’s theory of justice applies to the basic structure of particular societies. Justice between societies is a different, though related, matter. Unlike Hobbes and Rawls, Marx criticized the individualism which gave a shape to the political theory. Marx has defined the state according to what it does rather than its functioning. He has claimed that the state organizes the economically dominant class into a ruling class. Works Cited Fieser, James. Early Responses to Hume: Early responses to Hume's writings on religion, Volumes 5-6. 2. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. Oppy, Graham. Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Read More