Apologetics and Anselms Ontological Argument - Essay Example

Apologetics and Anselm’s Ontological Argument s Religion and Theology Department 26th January In conditions of rivalry between religions, Christianity needed strong and plausible protection, which would imply convincing supportive arguments and eliminate any doubts concerning veracity of the doctrine. Our world “exhibits a law-governed regularity” (Frederick, 2013, p.269), and establishing a new religion is a matter of convincing people in plausibility of the way it explains all world’s regularities as not just accidental but controlled by an ultimate power or entity. Therefore, the discipline systematizing and reinforcing the religious doctrine is needed. Such discipline is apologetics, a branch of theology dedicated to defending of Christian faith’s credibility through the use of rational devices. Apology was originally the speech of defense in the court, being used by Socrates in his trial and recorded by Plato. Later, in the second century AD, when Christianity was at its dawn, apologetics acquired a new function, being applied not only as a defense instruments in the court, but also a line of defense for Christian doctrine (Jacobsen, 2009, pp. 6-12). Early Christian apologists tried to illustrate advantages and value of Christianity without rejection of Greek philosophical views, which dominated in society before Christian tradition was founded. At the same time, apologetics illustrated superiority of divine revelation over rationalism of human reason. Apologetics became the defense line against those, who attacked and criticized Christianity and an instrument influencing people, who were forming their opinion about the new religion, including potential converts and authority figures. Therefore, the task set before apologist implied profound rationalization of Christian belief in the face of the pagan society and defense against cavils and heresy. Moreover, according to Bergjan (2014, p35), “in the second century, Christians defended themselves against accusations by providing information about Christianity. But more than just informing, apologetic writers were advertising Christianity”. Thus, early Christian apologetics was aimed at converting people and defending truthiness of the faith. As apologists of early Christianity had completed their task brilliantly, convincing pagans and Rome in particular in veracity of the new doctrine, further development of Christian apologetics was ensured and supported by a great number of prominent philosophers, theologians and scholars. With development of rational thinking ad sciences, the need to provide reasonable argumentation emerged. Thereby, Thomas Aquinas described five ways of God’s existence in his Summa Theologica. According to Blaise Pascal (1973, p.187), people’s scorning of religion is rooted in their fear, thus, it is crucial to show that religion doesn’t go against reason and prove to good people that it is true and venerable. Apologetics continued its development through centuries being represented by numerous authors (for example, Francis Schaeffer, Ronald Knox, Norman Geisler, Gordon Clark and others) and evolved to the modern times. Christian apologetics manifests itself in various guises, with the following among them: presuppositional apologetics, moral apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, scientific apologetics, legal evidentialist apologetics, and biblical apologetics. Each of the branches deals with the specific aspects of Christian doctrine, from justification of miracles to issues of prophetic fulfillment of the Holy Scriptures. In particular, the focus of biblical apologetics is biblical canon and books, and moral apologetics emphasizes people’s sinfulness and need to redeem (moreover, it stresses that people are originally created to do good) and deals with the issues of inquisition’s justification. Among these areas, philosophical apologetics is undoubtedly the principal area, as it focuses on the core issue of Christianity – existence of God, though it does not deal with the issue of general veracity of the religion. Different approaches and types of apologetics are related to a range of critical issues the discipline deals with and focuses on. Generally, the issues faced by apologetics can be divided into two schematic groups: metapologetic and apologetic. The principal difference between the issues lies in the fact that metapologetic issues are basic questions about the attitude of apologetics towards human experiences and knowledge, and apologetic issues are represented by the typical objections and questions of non-believers or Christians, who experience doubt, to the Christian doctrine. Within the area of metapologetic issues, certain foundation and controversial topics are dealt with. Here, apologists face the task of defining the basis, which would allow them to argue for the truthiness of Christian faith: according to different approaches, this basis can be developed either from facts or from revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Secondly, there are the issue of relation between theology and apologetics (the latter is viewed either as a preparation stage for theology or a discipline equal to theology) and the role of philosophy in defense of the faith (as far as stances of different philosophers concerning truthiness of Christianity vary from support to refutation). Similar controversies are dealt with in terms of use of historical enquiry and scientific knowledge for defense of the faith: in both areas, both refutation and supporting arguments for Christianity can be seen. And, finally, metapologetic issues include the question of connection between the Christian truth and human experience: apologists seek to consider reliability of human experience in terms of cognition of Christian truth. Moving on to apologetic issues, one comes across most common questions about Christianity and faith demanding explanation. These are such questions and objections like the ground for believing in what is written in the Bible, credibility of miracles described in the Hole Scriptures, truthiness of what is known about Jesus Christ. Another controversial issue is that all religions are claimed to lead to God in a certain form, and thus the ground for believing specifically in the Christian truth is sought. And, apologetics seeks to provide reasonable and plausible grounds for believing in existence of God: people need to know why existence of God is a universal truth. This question has been a bone of contention for apologists since the dawn of Christianity, as different views on the reasonable explanation emerged. However, the first full-fledged argumentation of God’s existence was developed by Anselm of Canterbury and is now referred to as the ontological argument. Anselm’s argument for existence of God The necessary feature of ontological arguments is that they are a priori and lead to the conclusion based on the premises, which are extracted from sources not related to empirical observation and experience. In other words, the ontological argument is purely analytic in its nature and supported by nothing but reason alone (Oppy, 2014). Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), the prominent theologician of the Middle Ages, was the first one to lay foundations of the ontological argumentation that would explain and underpin existence of God. The argument was presented in his illustrious “Proslogion” and belongs to the earliest arguments, which later gave rise to numerous improvements and criticisms. As it has already been mentioned, Anselm’s argument resrs upon logical relations and concepts, without any reliance on experience and empirical evidence (in this aspect, it is similar to the matemathical proof). In his work, the theologician seeks to prove existence of God via driving the argument with help of reductio ad absurdum strategy and asserts, “that the nature of God is ultimately unknowable to man” (Sultana, 2012, p.277). Moreover, along with reasoning the idea of God’s existence, Anselm states that Gos is inaccessible and human perceptions of him and his nature are indirect. The core of the argument is the idea that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived (Anselm, 1965), and starting with this idea, the author provides reductio ad absurdum, reasoning that if this being (which is embedded in human mind as God) seizes to exist, another being, which is even greater and which exists can emerge. However, this supposition is absurd, as no being can possibly surpass a being than which no greater can be conceived. Therefore, the being than which no greater can be conceived exists, and this is the God. The argument presented by Anselm can be divided into two conceptual fragments: he first reasons that God really exists, framing the idea of God as that of a Supreme being, better than which cannot even be imagined, and then proceeds with logical reasoning to show that God exists both in mind and in reality. Deploying a sequence of logical statements interconnected with each other, Anselm approaches the conclusion that God – due to its nature and the definition of it – exists not only in human mind, but also in reality. Many scholars attempted to interpret and systematize the argument, for instance, Plantinga (1967), who transformed the reasoning into a sequence of logical assumptions and premises. Based on the strategy of reduction ad absurdum, Anselm assumed that God exists only in human understanding, but not in reality. According to Plantinga’s adaptation, one sees that existence both in mind and in reality is much greater than existence in mind (or understanding) alone. Supposing that a being possessing all of God’s features and also existing in reality can be apprehended and is thus greater than God, Anselm drives us to the conclusion that the current statement absurd: due to God’s nature and definition of it, nothing can be greater than God, because God is a supreme being. Therefore, God as a Supreme being exists both in mind and in reality. “The main implication of the argument for those that mentally apprehend God’s supremacy is that they cannot deny He exists in reality, since the thought of His supremacy entails His reality” (Schumacher, 2011, p.92). Considering the fact, that certain hierarchical order is present in constitution of objects and living beings (e.g. from insects to humans), it is easy to conclude that the world is subject to perpetual aspiration towards perfection. Therefore, an absolutely perfect entity must exist, which will be the source of all perfection. This is God. The mechanism of argumentation is fairly transparent and simple; however, some scholars assert it to be based on metaphysics rather than on logical thinking (Grzesik, 2012, p.248). Rene Descartes and development of Anselm’s argument Although the ontological argument of Anselm was criticized by his contemporary Gaunilo, Rene Descartes took the argument as a carcass for development of less formal and more plausible explanation: existence of God results from his nature, similar to the way nature of geometric shapes precondition various ideas about geometry. Based on the statement that God is perceived as a supreme being possessing all possible perfections, Descartes suggested that God’s existence is a predicate of his perfection. Reformulating the position of Anselm, Descartes “claimed that existence is one among the defining predicates of God” (Angeles, 2009, p.7). Thereby, the conception of the God, who is “supremely perfect”, but doesn’t hold such perfection as existence, is proved to be simply illogical, because the God deprived of the predicate of perfection wouldn’t be perfect and supreme. Drawing a parallel to geometry, Descartes provided an example of a triangle lacking the core predicate of having three angles. Therefore, as having three angles is a necessary part of the triangle’s essence, so existing is an integral part of God as a supreme entity. In fact, Descartes as the founder of modern philosophy “invited a widespread attention” to the ontological argument of Anselm (Angeles, 2009, p.7). The argumentation of God’s existence received numerous supportive responses as well as criticism. Along with Descartes, such philosophers as Gottfried Leibniz and Kurt Gödel supported and contributed to development of the argument. For instance, Leibniz emphasized importance of the Supreme being’s coherence demonstration in order to prevent the argument from failure. As far as perfection cannot possibly be analyzed, one cannot assert all perfections to be incompatible. Therefore, they can coexist in a single being, which is God. Criticism Anselm’s argument reinforced by Rene Descartes was a target for constant criticism and reconsideration in the following centuries, as many scholars saw fallacies in reasoning. One of the brightest philosophers to criticize it was Emmanuel Kant, who expressed rather reasonable objections at claims presented in Anselm’s argumentation. Kant cast doubt at the idea that existence is a necessary predicate of perfection. He partially accepted the claim of Descartes that existence is analytically implied in the notion of God (similar to having three angles implied in the notion of the triangle), however, according to Kant, this doesn’t form the ground for concluding that God – with his predicates – actually exists. This identifies one of the key weaknesses of Anselm’s argumentation. In other words, existence is seen as a predicate, but not as a property, which is applied to the subject “outside of thought” (Wilson, 2010, p.38). Another scholar, who objected to Anselm’s argument in the twentieth century – from the viewpoint of the postmodernist society, is Norman Malcolm, who published a response to Anselm’s ontological argument in 1960. Although the author supported the idea of God as a being so great that we can hardly imagine, he also criticized the idea of existence as perfection. Illustrating the fallacies of Anselm’s approach in the examples of the house and the son, he showed that – from logical point of view – perception of existence as of perfection is weak, because it is simply a property. The statement that God is “more perfect”, if he exists than if he doesn’t is incomprehensible (Malcolm, 2009). On the other hand, Malcolm assets that perfection is necessity of existence rather than existence itself. Among the modern scholars identifying weaknesses of the argument, there is Peter Millican, who systematizes nine typical to the argument objections – varying from weak conceptual basis to insufficiency of logical moves - and gives his own understanding of the fallacy implied in it developing the theory of natures (Millican, 2004). The author, in his turn, criticizes objections of Kant and his followers concerning the way Anselm treats the concept of existence; he asserts that the argument’s “fatal flaw, so far from being metaphysically deep, is in fact logically shallow, deriving from a subtle scope ambiguity in Anselm’s key phrase” (Millican, 2004). All these arguments are knitted together by the fact that all of them are logically correct and their conclusions are, in fact, inevitable from the standpoint of logic; however, only in terms of conceptuality. A conception, which has no inner controversies, doesn’t necessarily become relevant. However, in case of this conception, it is necessary that it is immediately relevant due to reasons implied in it. At the same time, even this statement is a mere conception, which isn’t true by all means, though it is necessary. Here, we can trace a pattern, which lies in foundation of each ontological argument (not only the discussed one): everything that is logically reasoned is true and objective and this can be considered a strength of Anselm’s argumentation, because it appears generally logical. However, regarding his argument, the only reason for claims about God’s existence in reality is logical necessity of his existence, but this condition can hardly be proved, as it would require approach of formal logic. As ontological argument has a priori nature, it cannot be proved from the standpoint of formal logic. On the other hand, this condition cannot hardly be refuted either, because it will be impossible to speak about truthiness of any logically reasoned statement. God must exist, because it is required by logic – this is the essence of Anselm’s ontological argument. Apologetics in postmodernist society Despite of alleged plausibility of the arguments, ontological arguments and apologetic approaches in general are evaluated in a different way in the postmodernist society. Classical apologetics is aimed at proving the truthiness of the doctrine’s aspects (existence of God in particular), but the system of values has shifted and changed in the recent decades. As Siniscalchi (2011, p.768) asserts, “many postmodernists do not see truth as an objective description of reality”, absolute truth has lost its authority over people. Therefore, as truth has lost its significant role, basic religious claims don’t bind and influence people in the way they used to, moreover, they are considered onerous. In such conditions, apologetics faces new complex challenges and assaults on the part of non-believers. To my thinking as that of a person that believes in God’s existence, such effect of postmodernism is devastating as it shifts the issues of apologetics to the more pragmatic dimension, making the idea of God and religion lose its value. Today, “the real function of postmodern apologetics is phenomenological in structure insofar as it renders inconsequential the very question of the verification of the existence of God» (Rivera, 2014, p.48). Modern theologicians focus on phenomenological perspective and seek to give plausible answers for the new types of questions – rather practical ones - including issues related to “experiencing” God, modes in which he can manifest himself to a person and effect this revelation is likely to produce. References ANGELES, M. T. (2009) St. Anselm on the Being of God. Philippiniana Sacra, 44, 130, pp. 5-20. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] ANSELM, ST., (1965) Proslogion. In CHARLESWORTH M. (ed.). St. Anselms Proslogion, Oxford: OUP. BERGJAN, S. (2014) Christian Apologetic Literature as Source from Antiquity in Grotiuss De Veritate Religionis Christianae. Grotiana, 35, pp. 32-52. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] FREDERICK, D. (2013) A puzzle about natural laws and the existence of God. International Journal For Philosophy Of Religion, 73, 3, pp. 269-283. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] GRZESIK, T. (2012) Faith and Conscience -The Surest of Arguments for the Existence of God. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal For Philosophy, 17, 2, pp. 245-268. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] JACOBSEN, A. (2009) Apologetics and Apologies - some Definitions. In ULRICH, J., JACOBSEN, A., & KAHLOS, M. (eds.). Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics. Peter Lang. MALCOLM, N. (1960) Anselms Ontological Argument. Philosophical Review, vol. 69, no. 1, 41-62. MILLICAN, P. (2004) The One Fatal Flaw in Anselms Argument. Mind, 113, 451, pp. 437-476. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] OPPY, G. (2014) Ontological Arguments. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). [Online] Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/ontological-arguments [Accessed January 26, 2015] PASCAL, B. (1973) Pensées [Thoughts]. Harmondsworth, England, Penguin Books. PLANTINGA, A. (1967) God and Other Minds, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. RIVERA, J. (2014) Postmodern Apologetics? Arguments for God in Contemporary Philosophy. Reviews In Religion & Theology, 21, 1, pp. 48-51. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] SCHUMACHER, L. (2011) The Lost Legacy Of Anselms Argument: Re-Thinking The Purpose Of Proofs For The Existence Of God. Modern Theology, 27, 1, pp. 87-101. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] SINISCALCHI, G. B. (2011) Postmodernism And The Need For Rational Apologetics In A Post-Conciliar Church. Heythrop Journal, 52, 5, pp. 751-771. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] SULTANA, M. (2012) Anselms Argument: On the Unity of Thinking and Being. New Blackfriars, 93, 1045, pp. 276-291. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] WILSON, E. (2010) The Ontological Argument Revisited: A Reply To Rowe. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal For Philosophy, 15, 1, pp. 37-44. [Online] Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Available from http://www.ebscohost.com/ [Accessed January 26, 2015] Read More