Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century

The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.

The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.

Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.

Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.

The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.

Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.

During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.

The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.

Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).

Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.

Cosmological Arguments and Rebuttals

(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 13)

Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument

Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments

The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:

1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.

Avicenna's First Cause Argument

1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.

Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.

The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.

He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.

Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence

Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new

1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument

Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.

He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause

Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility

John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:

1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes

Duns Scotus' arg.

1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent

Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument

William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.

Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God

Descartes' Proof

1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.

Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.

Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:

1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.

Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.

1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.

Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.

The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.

Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:

1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.

Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation

1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible

Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:

1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe

Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.

Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation

Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.

The first conceptual argument:

1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.

His second, causal argument:

1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists

Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.

Ross' argument based on Explanation

James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation

First:

1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.

Craig's Kalam Argument

William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:

1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration

Premise 2 is completely questionable.

The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.

Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.

The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.

The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.

The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.

The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.

9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated

Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.

The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.

The Cosmological Argument Restated

1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.

Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?

Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.

Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.

The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.

No potential actualizes itself.

There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.

Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.

An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.

An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.

A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.

A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.

To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.

A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.

There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.

The first Cause is the efficient Cause.

The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).

The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.

An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.

God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.

The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.

The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.

The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.

An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.

The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.

Ontological Arguments and Objections

(Originally written March 7, 2007 in Book 13)

Anselm's Debate with Gaunilo

Gaunilo objected to Anselm's argument on a few grounds:

1. It is built on the false premise that whatever exists in the mind must exist outside the mind.
2. If God's non-existence were really inconceivable then no one could doubt his existence.
3. We cannot even form the concept of the most perfect being possible.
4. The existence of God cannot be inferred from the idea of a perfect Being anymore than the existence of a perfect island can be inferred from the idea of a perfect island.
5. God's nonexistence is no more inconceivable than my own nonexistence. I can conceive of my own nonexistence so I can conceive of God's nonexistence too.
6. God's existence must be proved before we can discuss his essence. Otherwise there is no basis for saying he is the most perfect Being possible.

Anselm's replies:

1. The argument only applies to an absolute perfect Being.
2. God's nonexistence is affirmable, but not conceivable.
3. We do understand the word because of 6 facts:
- It is a common word
- It is a familiar word
- Our faith and conscience provide content for it
- Conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images
- God can be understood indirectly
- Those who deny that they can have a conception of God must have a conception of what they cannot conceive
4. The idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything, especially being; whereas, the idea of anything else can lack being.
5. If it is possible for a necessary being a necessary being must exist. It's nonexistence is inconceivable.
6. We can compare ideal characteristics prior to ascertaining their reality.

Anselm charged Gaunilo with misunderstanding the argument as:

1. God is the greatest of all Beings
2. It is greater to exist in reality then merely in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Anselm states this argument confuses the greatest actual Being with the greatest possible being.

Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument

Aquinas understood Anselm to mean:

1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. What exists actually and mentally is greater than that with exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually.

Aquinas had 3 objections to the argument:

1. Not everyone understands the term "God" to mean that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Even if everyone did understand that the term God meant this, it does not follow that God exists actually.
3. The proposition "God exists" is self-evident, but not self-evident to us.

Descartes' formulation of the Ontological Argument

Descartes' argument (2nd form)

1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
2. Existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.

"If God by definition cannot exist, then he must exist" (128).

Descartes' argument (1st form)

1. Whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive of something is true.
2. We clearly and distinctly perceive that the conception of an absolutely perfect Being necessitates the existence of that Being.
3. Therefore, it is true that an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack existence.

Descartes qualified his argument in three ways:
1. This argument applies only to an absolutely perfect or necessary being.
2. It is not necessary for anyone to think of God, but if and when he does he must conceive of God as necessarily existing.
3. To conceive of God as a necessary Being is not imaginary, but necessary. The concept of a necessary being must be what it is and cannot be any other way. Thus, the concept of a necessary Being cannot be the product of one's imagination.

The debate between Caters and Descartes

Caters the priest agreed with Thomas Aquinas in that he felt the Ontological Argument proved only a conceptual and not a real existence of God.

Caters contended that the words "existent lion" is conceptually necessary, but it does not prove that a lion exists.

Descartes stated that Aquinas refuted an argument that stated existence is concluded from the meaning of God, not his own argument.

Other reactions to Descartes' proofs

Other 17th century philosophers reacted negatively to Descartes' arguments. They restated his argument this way.

1. If it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that He exists.
2. It is not contradictory that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is certain that God exists.

They objected to Descartes' argument in two ways:

1. The minor premise can be doubted or denied.
2. Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate and thus unclear. By Descartes definition of truth as "clear and distinct" then it is untrue.

Descartes' replies:

1. God's nonexistence is noncontradictory in either of two senses of the word:
- Whatever does not disagree with human thought (God is noncontradictory)
- What cannot be known by the human mind (no one could know anything, thus God's existence is noncontradictory)
2. Even if our concept of God is inadequate it does not follow that it is contradictory. God's necessary existence is a clear concept, thus the argument is unaffected by lack of clarity in other aspects of God's nature.

The debate between Gassendi and Descartes.

Pierre Gassendi, a skeptic, contended that Descartes confused existence with a property. He argued with 7 points:

1. The essence of a thing can be thought of apart from its existence.
2. Existence is not a property.
3. Essence and existence can be distinguished only in thought, not in reality.
4. We are just as free to think of God as not existing as we are to think of Pegasus as not existing.
5. We need demonstration that God exists, not merely the assumption that it does.
6. Descartes did not really prove that nonexistence is incompatible with God.

Descartes replied to Gassendi with four points:

1. Existence is a property in that it is attributable to something. Necessary existence is a necessary property of a necessary being.
2. We cannot compare the existence of that which is contingent to the existence of what is necessary.
3. It is not begging the question to include existence among the attributes of a necessary Existent.
4. God's existence and essence are inseparable.

Leibniz's Consideration of the Ontological Argument

Leibniz held that the ontological argument was valid but sensed that it was necessary to demonstrate the concept of God was not contradictory.

He stated

1. If it is possible for an absolutely perfect Being to exist, then it is necessary that it exists.
2. It is possible (noncontradictory) for an absolutely perfect being to exist.
3. Therefore, it is necessary that an absolutely perfect Being exist.

To support his minor premise Leibniz argued that:

1. A perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limitations.
2. Whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvably simple qualities (they differ in kind).
3. Whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it.
4. Therefore, it is possible for on Being (God) to possess all possible perfections.

Three objections to Leibniz's arg.

1. It assumes that some qualities are essentially positive and others negative, but this may not be the case.
2. Leibniz assumes that some qualities are intrinsically simple, but Wittgenstein showed that what is simple in one conceptual system may be complex in another.
3. It depends on the principle of the actual identity which is conceptually indiscernible.

Spinoza's Ontological Proof

Like Descartes, Spinoza held that God was mathematically demonstrable.

Spinoza's argument:

1. There must be a cause for everything, either for its existence or for its nonexistence.
2. A necessary Being (God) necessarily exists, unless there is an adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
3. There is no adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being, necessarily exists.

One may object to Spinoza's insistence that there must be a cause for nothing because it appears contradictory.

Spinoza's second form:

1. Something necessarily exists.
2. This necessary existence is either finite or infinite.
3. It is possible for this necessary existence to be infinite.
4. There must be a cause as to why this is not an infinite existence.
5. No finite existence can hinder this being (an infinite existence).
6. Therefore, this must be an infinite existence

Spinoza's arguments borrow from the premise that something exists from the cosmological argument.

Spinoza's God is not the theistic God of Leibniz or Anselm, it is a pantheistic God.

The Objections of Hume and Kant

Hume's Objection:

1. Nothing is rationally demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradictory
2. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
3. Whatever we conceive to exist we can conceive as nonexistent
4. There is no being whose existence implies a contradiction
5. Therefore, there is no being whose existence is rationally demonstrable.

Hume argues that no argument for God is rationally inescapable because it always contains premises that are logically deniable.

Kant's critique of the Ontological proof

Kant objected to the fact that we have no positive concept of a necessary Being (that which cannot be).

He also contended that necessity applied only to propositions, not existence.

Also, what is logically possible is not always ontologically possible.

Existence (Kant held) is not a predicate of a thing. It is not a perfection.

Supposed Causes of the Ontological Mistake

Opponents of the Ontological argument have blamed many sources of the ontological 'mistake'

1) Platonic Philosophy - Platonic epistemology holds that one can directly and intuitively know essences.
2) Metaphysical thinking - some argue that "is" or "exists" is only logical, not ontological.
3) Confusion of cause and reason - Causes need something outside of itself where a reason can be itself (Schopenhauer)
4) Use of a proper name - the use of a proper name implies existence (Russell)
5) The use of the English conditional. Alvin Plantinga claimed that "If Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" does not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. Likewise, "If God exists, then he Necessarily exists" does not imply "God exists" There may be no God at all.

Linehan - Unfair analogy!

"IF Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" may not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. But there is a bachelor. Likewise, "If God exists, then he necessarily exists" may not imply "God exists" But, there is a necessary existence which must be filled by a necessary Existent, which is God.

Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God.

The ontological argument has been widely rejected in modern times.

J. N. Findlay used the ontological proof against itself:

1. God must be thought of as a necessary Being, for anything else short of this would be unworthy of worship.
2. But existential necessary propositions cannot be true for necessity is merely a logical characteristic of propositions, not of reality.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

A simpler, proper form of this argument:

1. The only way a necessary Being could exist is to exist necessarily.
2. The proposition "God exists necessarily" is an existentially necessary proposition.
3. No existentially necessary propositions can be true.
4. Therefore, the proposition "God exists necessarily" cannot be true.

A theist can object to this in 4 ways:

1. Change the proposition "God exists necessarily" to "God exists". Then holding the proposition "God exists" as a logically necessary proposition to hold.
2. Deny that necessity applied to existential propositions makes them untrue. (Existentially necessary propositions can be true). Examples of existentially necessary propositions: "I am I". "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". "Square circles do not exist".
3. "God necessarily exists" is a special case (Anselm and Descartes).
4. Findlay's statement "there are no existentially necessary propositions" is an existentially necessary proposition.

Hartshorne's Restatement of the Ontological Proof.

Charles Hartshorne is one of the most ardent defenders of the ontological argument and states it like this:

1. The existence of a necessary being is either:
a) Impossible, and there is no example of it
b) Possible, but there is no example of it
c) Possible, and there is an example of it

2. Possible, but there is no example of it is meaningless because a necessary Being cannot be a possible being.

3. Impossible, and there is no example of it is not eliminated by the ontological argument, but the meaningfulness of the term 'necessary Being' is a justifiable assumption that may be defeated on other grounds.

Hartshorne's Argument:

1. All thought must refer to something beyond itself which is at least possible
2. The necessary existence of a necessary Being is at least possible.
3. With a necessary Being an "at-least-possible" existence is indistinguishable from a "possible and actual" existence. A necessary Being cannot have a "merely possible" existence.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily has both a possible and an actual existence.

Hartshorne's view of God is neither theistic and pantheistic. It is panentheistic.

Hartshorne states, "Either God is a meaningless term or there exists a divine Being" (141).

All versions of the ontological argument contain the implicit premise that what is rationally inescapable is the real.

Malcolm's restatement of the ontological proof

Malcolm believes that Kant invalidated Anselm's first form, but the second form is immune to all criticism.

Malcolm's restatement of Anselm's 2nd form:

1. The existence of a necessary being must be either:
a) a necessary existence
b) an impossible existence
c) a possible existence

2. The existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence
a) No one has ever shown the concept of a necessary being to be contradictory
b) there is a basis in human experience for "a greater than which cannot be thought"
c) Leibniz's attempt to prove that there is no contradiction fails. We cannot show that there cannot be one.

3. The existence of a necessary Being cannot be a possible being because:
a) it is contradictory to the very nature of a necessary being
b) a possible being is dependent, a necessary Being is independent

4. Therefore, A necessary Being Necessarily exists

Plantinga's Critique of the Ontological Argument

Plantinga argues that God could exist without his existence being a necessary one. His existence could be logically contingent but not ontologically so.

Planting states that it is logically possible that God never existed at all. It is logically possible that nothing ever existent including God.

All that proponents of the ontological argument have to do invalidate Plantinga's objections too.

Planting offers an ontological argument that is very cosmological. It has left the a priori realm and moved into the a posteriori realm.

Planting uses modal logic in his argument:

1. The property "has maximal greatness" entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world"

2. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.

3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.

4. There is a world "W" and an essence "E" such that "E" is exemplified in "W" and "E" entails the property "has maximal greatness in W"

5. For any object X, if X, exemplifies E then X exemplifies the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".

6. E entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".

7. If W had been actual, it would be impossible that E fail to be exemplified.

8. What is impossible does not vary from world to world.

9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.

10 Therefore, the being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.

Plantinga's argument is tight and compelling. It avoids many of the traditional criticism of the ontological argument. However there are a few criticisms:

1. The use of modal logic assumes existence of an actual world. Thus, it is a posteriori, not a priori.

2. Defining a perfect being in theistic terms is gratuitous.

3. The essence E is supposed by Plantinga to havre a real existence.

The ontological argument to be valid must assume that something exists and thus it rests on a cosmological principle.

The ontological argument has not proven God exists by itself. It has in fact yielded four types of God and a possible atheistic conception:

1. Leibniz & Descartes - theistic God
2. Spinoza - pantheistic God
3. Hartshorne - panentheistic God
4. Henle - polytheistic gods
5. Atheism - the universe is necessary, but does not include God

Cosmological Proofs

(Originally written March 7, 2007 in Book 13)

8. Cosmological Argument

The teleological, moral and ontological argument for the existence of God must borrow from the cosmological argument to be valid.

Even if the cosmological argument fails (an thus all theistic proofs fail) belief in God may still be credible, but it will not be philosophically demonstrable.

Plato is credited with the first cosmological argument or etiological argument (argument from a cause).

Plato's Argument for a World Soul

1. Things move
2. Whatever moves, is moved by another or is self-moved
3. Self-movers (souls) are prior to non-self movers, for the antecedent is logically prior to the consequent.
4. Self-movers must be eternal or else there would be no motion.
5. There is motion
6. There must be at least two self-movers:
- good - accounts for regular motion
- evil - accounts for irregular motion
7. Therefore, there is a supreme soul (God) who is the self-mover of the good in the universe.

Aristotle's unmoved mover

1. Things do change
2. All change is a passing from potentiality to actuality
3. No potentiality can actualize itself
4. Therefore, the must be an actuality that actualizes everything, that passes from potentiality to actuality.
5. An infinite regress of actualizers is impossible.
6. The first actuality actualizes everything by final causality
7. There are 47 or 55 of these pure actualities
8. Ultimately, there is only on heaven and one God.

The God of Plato and Aristotle was not the theistic God. It took much refinement to move the cosmological argument to a theistic proof.

Plotinus, a neo-platonist had a cosmological argument

1. Many beings exist.
2. All multiplicity is based on prior unity
3. There must be an absolute unity that is the basis for all multiplicity.
4. This absolute union cannot be a being
5. Therefore, there is an absolute unity (the One) beyond being which is the source of all being and multiplicity.

Plotinus' God was different from the Christian God in a number of aspects

1. Plotinus' God created ex deo (out of himself), not ex nihilo
2. Plotinus' God was beyond all being and positive description
3. It possessed no perfections or characteristics in intel.

Augustine's Argument from Truth

Augustine retooled the Platonic and neo-platonic argument this way:

1. There are timeless and immutable truths
- Absolute doubt is impossible (we know we are doubting)
- We know that we exist

2. Immutable truth cannot be caused
- by sensible things
- by finite minds

3. Therefore, there must be a timeless and immutable mind causing these immutable truths.

Augustine held that God causes truth in every person's mind. Thus, whenever a person affirms truth, he implicitly affirms the Truth (God).

Anselm's Three Cosmological Type arguments

While Anselm is most famous for his ontological argument his earlier work, The Monologian, offered three a posteriori proofs for God's existence

Arg. 1

1. Good things exist
2. Their goodness is derived either from many different goodnesses or from one goodness.
3. It cannot be derived from many goodnesses, for then there would be no way to compare goodnesses and all things would be equally and unequally good (which is absurd), but as a matter of fact some things are better than others.
4. Therefore, all things derive their goodness through one good.
5. This one good is the supreme good, since:
- it is the good through which all other goods derive their goodness
- it is good through itself alone

2nd Form

1) Some beings are more nearly perfect than others
2) Things annoy be more nearly perfect unless there is a wholly perfect.
3) Therefore, there must be a most perfect being.

3rd Form:

1) Something exists (the denial of this is contradictory)
2) Whatever exists, exists either through something or through nothing.
3) Something cannot exist through nothing.
4) This something through which something exists is either one or many.
5) If many, then they are either mutually dependent or all dependent on one for their existence.
6) They cannot be mutually dependent for their existence, for something cannot exist through a being on which it confers existence.
7) Therefore, there must be one being through which all other beings exist
8) This one being must exist through itself
9) Whatever exists through itself, exists in the highest degree of all.
10) Therefore, there exists a supremely perfect Being that exists in the highest degree of all.

Anselm's theistic proof combined at least three elements:
1) The efficient causality of Plato's Timaeus argument
2) The identification of God with the Good of Plato's Republic
3) The Hebrew-Christian concept of God as the cause of the very being of everything

Anselm's Ontological Arguments

(Originally written March 6, 2007 in Book 13)

Ontological Arguments

The ontological argument is supposed to leave the realm of experience and enter the realm of pure reason.

Some proponents of the ontological argument have stated that the existence of God is more necessary than the conclusions of mathematics.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) authored the argument as a "proof from prayer". Kant labeled it the ontological argument.

Anselm's First Ontological Proof

1. God is by definition that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another thing to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4. Therefore, God must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding. If he did not, then we could conceive of One who did, which would be greater. But God by definition is the greatest Being conceivable. Hence, God must exist.

Another way of stating it:

1. Whatever can be predicated of the most perfect Being possible must be affirmed of it.
2. It is possible to affirm a real existence of the most perfect Being possible.
3. Hence, a real existence of the most perfect Being must be affirmed.

Negative Form:

1. Nothing possible can be denied of the most perfect Being possible.
2. Real (extramental) existence is possible for the most perfect Being possible.
3. Therefore, real existence cannot be denied of the most perfect Being possible.

Anselm's second form of the Ontological Proof

1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a necessary existent what is logically necessary to the concept of such a Being.
2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Hence, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent really exists.

Negative form:

1. It is logically impossible to deny what is necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically impossible to deny real existence of a necessary Existent.

The first form is based on predictability of existence to an absolute perfect Being. The second form is based on the inconceivability of the non-existence of a Necessary Being.

Ontological Argument: Anselm & Modal Logic

(Originally written February 22, 2007 in Book 13)

Arguments on behalf of the Ontological argument

1) It is conceivable that a being could exist in all possible worlds; If God didn't, he wouldn't be God.
2) Existence is predicated in the definition of God
3) There must be a cause for everything's existence or non-existence, so there is no reason why a necessary being couldn't exist.
4) Simpler hypothesis for God to exist in either all possible worlds or none
5) If God exists in all possible worlds, there is an answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing. This is best answered by a necessary being.
6) If God can exist, he has to exist, or he wouldn't be God.
7) If we have any idea of perfection, there must be actual perfection, which is God.

The Ontological Argument

Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109)

1) God is, by definition, that which nothing greater can be conceived.

Gaunilo

Objection 1: It does not follow that what exists in the mind exists in reality.
Objection 2: The mental formulation of the most perfect being is impossible.
Objection 3: If the ontological argument is valid then the existence of a perfect island can be inferred.

Latin word for being? Does it imply essence or existence? Does have multiple uses for the word as the word "being" does in English?

"Absolutely perfect" - refers to the essence of something.

Anselm: by definition all great-making qualities is in the absolutely perfect. All intrinsically great-making properties, not extrinsically.

The ontological argument is supposed to be completely a priori. But, you cannot have the ontological argument without presupposing the cosmological argument.

Modal Logic

If something is necessary it must be true in all logically possible worlds.

If something is possible, then it is true in at least one possible world.

If something is necessarily true it must be true in the actual world.

If something is possibly true then it may or may not be true in the actual world.

If it is possible that God exists, He necessarily does.

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 2 (B)

(Originally written January 14, 2007 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Ch. 2 (continued)

Criticisms of the Argument

Gaunilo, a French monk posited the first criticism of the ontological argument. He sets up the (supposedly) parallel ontological argument for the most perfect island argument. He states that if we can conceive of the most perfect island it must exist, because 'most perfect' implies existence.

Anselm's response is that God's existence alone has this quality because of God's existence being the only necessary existence. Thus, Anselm's argument, in its second form stands up to the criticism.

Rene Descartes reformulated the ontological argument. Rene Descartes argues that existence is a predicate (attribute or property). He argues that existence is a necessary property of a supremely perfect being. "God without existence would not be God" (Hick, 18).

Immanuel Kant challenged the Cartesian version of the ontological argument. Kant stated that if there is a supremely perfect being it must exist, but that the ontological argument proves only that if God exists, existence is an attribute of his supreme perfection. Kant denied that existence is really an attribute of something.

Bertrand Russell claims that the word 'exists' functions as a grammatical predicate, but not a logical one.

If existence is not a predicate, it cannot be a defining predicate of God.

"A definition of God describes one's concept of God but cannot prove the actual existence of any such being" (Hick, 19-20).

The First-Cause and Cosmological Arguments:

Thomas Aquinas offered five proofs for the existence of God.

The ontological argument focuses on the idea or concept of God; Thomistic proofs start from a general feature of the world and argues that this feature could not exist without the existence of a supreme being.

Thomas' second proof is the first-cause argument: everything that happens has a cause, this cause has a cause, thus there must be an infinite regress of causes or a first cause. An infinite regress is absurd and thus, God exists necessarily.

The difficulty of this lies in the denial of an infinite regress.

CL - If one can prove that infinitude is merely an adjective and not a property it would be possible to show that infinitude is merely a thing which people have created in their minds to clarify and thus it has no substance or reality, apart from a human mind.

Two major difficulties:
1) The argument makes reality a dilemma: either there is a first cause or the universe is unintelligible. But the argument does not show why we should pick either.
2) The argument rests upon casualty, which is challengeable.

Aquinas' third argument, the cosmological argument states: everything in the world is contingent, but if everything that existed, existent contingently, then there would be a time when nothing existed and if nothing existed,nothing could have come into existence. Thus, there must be  necessary being: God.

A major criticism of this is the notion of 'necessary being' is unintelligible. It is a misuse of words to call a being necessary because only propositions can be logically necessary.

This objection is groundless because in theological arguments (especially Anselm and Aquinas) 'necessary' is not seen as logically necessary, but as factually necessary. This factual necessity is equivalent to 'asceity' or self-existence.

"The idea of God's necessary being should not be equated with the view that 'God exists' is a logically necessary truth" (Hick, 23).

One last objection still lies in wait for the cosmological argument. The argument rests on the dilemma that either there is a necessary being or the universe is unintelligible. The universe as being unintelligible has not been ruled out and remains the skeptic's position.

The Design (or Teleological) Argument.

Plato posited this argument in Timaeus. St. Thomas Aquinas used it in one of his five proofs.

William Paley (1743-1805) posited one of the most famous versions of it in modern times. Basically Paley stated that the complexity and intricate nature of the universe demands a creator and rules out sheer chance. David Hume criticized Paley's position. (Despite Hume's criticism coming before Paley's book). Hume points out that any universe is bound to have the appearance of being designed. It also states that the universe is not very much like a machine, so analogies between God making a machine universe and man making a machine are weak. Lastly, he states that even if we could state that the world was designed it does not follow that the all-good, all-powerful, personal God of Christianity exists.

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 2 (A)

(Originally written January 11, 2007 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion
John Hick

Ch. 2 Grounds for belief in God

The Ontological Argument
-First developed by Anselm of Canterbury

In the Ontological argument the concept of God is "a being that which nothing greater can be conceived" (Hick, 16).

First form of the argument

Does God (as Anselm's concept) exist in the mind or in reality? Perfection in the most perfect form must exist in reality because if it only exists in the mind we can conceive of something more perfect as that it exists.

Second form of the argument

God is infinitely perfect and this is not limited in or by time. Since he is unlimited in this way he could never have come into or cease to exist. Thus, God's existence is necessary.

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 1 (B)

(Originally written December 29, 2006 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion 3rd Edition
John H. Hick
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
1983

Little Bobby's Birth Date

It's about 6:30 AM and Kathi ought to be being prepped. It won't be long until there will be a new member added to the Thornton family. Luckily, this one will add some testosterone. Maybe it'll balance this house out.

(Philosophy of Religion continued)

Infinite, Self-Existent

Monotheistic faith finds its primary expressions in the commands, prayers, Psalms, prophecies, parables and teachings of the Bible.

The basis of Christianity has been philosophically elaborated throughout the history of Christian thought.

Christianity is more theological articulated than Judaism.

God is infinite or unlimited.

Paul Tillich stated that we ought not to state that God exists because existence is a limitation. The question of God's existence can neither be asked or answered. He held that God is being-itself, not a being.

Tillich maintains that God has a reality that is not the first or the highest, but a completely separate one that gives birth to all other reality.

The Medieval theologians (echoed by Tillich) stated that the creator and the created cannot be stated to exist in the same sense.

The Christian God is and has unlimited being and the divine attributes are ways in which the divine reality has being.

The 1st attribute is self-existence (aseity).

The concept of self-existence has two elements:
1) God has complete and absolute ontological independence
2) God is without beginning or end

Anselm pointed out that God's divine eternity is more than existence without beginning or end. "Indeed you exist neither yesterday nor tomorrow but are absolutely outside all time" (Hick, 8).

Creator

God is the creator of all things. He created everything ex nihilo.

The notion of creation ex nihilo contains two important corollary ideas:
1) The creation can never become the creator.
2) The created realm is absolutely dependent upon God

Aquinas held that the idea of creation does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the created universe may be eternal. But that the Biblical revelation rules out an eternal universe.

Augustine asserts that creation did not take place in time, but time was likewise a creation of God. If Augustine is correct then the relativity theory, which holds that space-time is internally infinite, is correct.

The Creation story is not regarded as a scientific description by "responsible religious thinkers". "It is seen rather as the classical mythological expression of faith that the whole natural order is a divine creation" (Hick, 10).

Origen saw the creation account as figurative.

Personal

God as a personal deity is deeply rooted in Jewish and Christian tradition. God is not an it. He is a divine thou.

Loving, Good

God's goodness, love and grace are virtually synonymous in the New Testament.

Love of God must be understood, but first the notion of the Greek eros and agape (types of love) must be understood.

Eros - desiring love, love evoked by the desirable qualities of the beloved. This love depends on the lovableness of its objects.

God's love for man in the New Testament is agape love.

Agape love is unconditional. It is not dependent upon the lovableness of the objects.

The ultimate of grace is the ultimate of power.

Notes on John Scotus and Abelard

(Originally Written December 13, 2006 in Book 11)

Medieval Realism

John Scotus Erigena was a medieval realist in that he believed universals to be real in their own right.
Erigena distinguished between 3 real entities:
1) The independently real universe
2) The sense object
3) The Memory image

Erigena's solution seemed plausible for the 11th and 12th century thinkers like Odo of Tournai, Anselm of Canterbury and William of Champeaux. It helped solve problems like Original Sin in Christian doctrines. But it has a pantheistic element that is incompatible with Christianity.

Nominalism

Extreme nominalism is no solution to the problem of universals. Nominalism has difficulties explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. Either there are three Gods or God is one in nominalism, which is heresy.

Conceptualism

Neither realism (independent universals) nor nominalism (no objective of universals) was adequate.

Aristotle was a compromise between the two and the medieval compromise was strikingly similar to Aristotle.

Abelard

Peter Abelard devised conceptualism, which is the nominalist theory that universals are mental concepts, but have objective value because they are conceived by multiple human minds.

Abelard was born in 1079 in Nantes, France. He was educated in Paris by the realist of William of Champeaux.

Abelard became a rival and set up a rival school of William of Champeaux.

Abelard had an affair with he daughter of the Canon of Notre Dame. The affair led to Abelard's de-nutting and he retired to St. Denis.

But Abelard continued to stir up trouble wherever he went. He was finally condemned in 1142. He never fell out of love with Heloïse, the Canon's daughter.

Abelard was a prototype for the scholastic method.

Abelard would attack and ridicule his rival's views and philosophically beat them into submission or frustration.

A universal is an abstraction and it is real as it is abstracted.

Abelard shifted the emphasis of the problem of universals from metaphysics to logic and psychology.

A universal exists in two ways:
1) It exists in the individual particulars as a common likeness.
2) It exists in the human intellect as a concept formed as a result of the intellect's shaving focused it attention on the likeness.

The Faith-Reason Controversy

At first faith and reason can be supposed to not be in conflict, they yield the same results.

John Scots Erigena held their optimistic view, but the churchmen began to see faith as being threatened by reason.

Final Exam Study!

Augustine
1. Epistemology and philosophy of mind

Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Universals

(Originally written December 7, 2006 in Book 7)

History of Philosophy I notes

Duns Scotus (1265-1308)

-Prefers univocal regarding language applied to God

Scouts maintained that not only does God's essence play a role in his existence, but individual men's essences play a role in their existence.

Principle of individuation
-Aquinas claimed that matter was what gave individual things their individuality
-Scotus believed it was an individual essence or a "haecceity" that distinguished us from all other things, not mere matter

Natural Theology
- Far less confident in the power of reason to teach us about God then Aquinas was
- Scotus' standards of proof are much more rigorous than Aquinas' standards

Problem of Induction
-First to identify the problem
- His solution was to focus on the cause and effect and state that there is a certain necessity in causal relations
-His solution was satisfactory until David Hume

Freedom of the Will
-Aquinas held that the intellect was primary, not the will
-Scotus held that the will is primary

The will is:
1. Contingent - has the power of contrary choice
2. Self-caused - the will has no other cause than itself (like God

The self-caused will is an early version of the libertarian doctrine of the will

William of Ockham (ca. 1285 - 1349)

-Born in London
-Franciscan, just like Scotus
-Even more negative regarding natural theology than Scotus
-Faith contradicts reason, but we must follow faith
-Regarded omnipotence as God's power to do literally anything
-God could produce the world in such a way that he made it without any matter
-The object of our knowledge is particulars, but we use universals
-Generally he is regarded as a nominalist, but he could be called a conceptualist
-What is explained on X number of principles is needless explained by more (Ockham's razor)
-Other things being equal, the simpler explanation is better or preferred (Ockham's razor)
-Ockham's Razor was useful in the history of Philosophy and the history of Science

Summary of the thoughts on Universals

Schools of thought on Universals

1. Realism (Plato, Anselm, Augustine) - there are eternal ideas, otherwise we couldn't know general things.
Problem: Where are the ideas

2. Nominalism (Stoics, Sophists) - there are no universals, only particulars
Problem: Can't account for use of general terms or general ideas

3. Conceptualism (Peter Abelard, Locke, Berkeley) - Universals exist as mental concepts

Metaphysics - Ch. 5

(Originally written July 30, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Ch. 5 - Necessary Beings - The Ontological Argument

Part 2 - Why the World Is

Why is there anything rather than nothing? This seems a completely absurd and a difficult question?

Anselm came up with the ontological argument. Descartes puts it into an easier to follow form. Descartes claims that we can imagine a being that is perfection in every way. Perfection demands existence. Thus, if a being is absolutely perfect it must exist because to exist is better than not to exist.

One argument against the ontological argument was put forth by Kant: A perfection must be a property. Existence is not a property. This argument against the ontological argument was standard for 200 years, but it is not satisfactory. Necessary existence is an existence of a thing that would have existed no matter what. A thing necessarily exists if its non-existence is impossible. While mere existence is not a property, necessary existence is. If a thing is not a property it cannot be part of a concept. Necessary existence is a property of God and thus a part of the concept of God (some philosophers and theologians deny this).

Descartes' ontological argument when necessary existence is substituted for mere existence.

Pt. 1
A perfect being has all perfections.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being has necessary existence.

Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, a perfect being has existence.

Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists.
Therefore, a perfect being exists.

This argument is invalid because it can be used to state an obvious falsehood. It is also ambiguous and two arguments wrapped into one. Instead it should read:

Argument 1:

Pt. 1
Anything that is a perfect being has all perfections
Necessary existence is a perfection
Therefore, anything that is a perfect being has necessary existence.

Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, anything that is perfect being has existence.

Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists.
Therefore anything that is perfect being exists.

Argument 2:

Pt 1
There is a perfect being that has all perfections.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore anything that is a perfect being has necessary existence.

Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, there is perfect being that has existence.

Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists
Therefore there is a perfect being that exists

Linehan - I am struggling to stay interested in this topic. It is very dry and technical and while I don't mind difficult topics, when it is leading to a question like "why does anything exist?" (a pretty useless one in my view) it is hard to stay focused.

The first argument proceeds from an obvious premise to a trivial conclusion. The second argument has an important conclusion but it is basically restating the first premise. The ontological argument is basically a failure in persuasiveness.

Linehan - I think that the ontological argument could be valid fi a necessary being is proved to exist. But then what would be the point of restating the truth?

The philosophy of modality has produce an ontological argument that does not fail in the way of Descartes' or Anselm's. Modality is the philosophy of necessity and possibility. The modal ontological argument uses the 'possible worlds' concept. The 'possible worlds' concept is the idea that this world could be different in any way.

The possible worlds demands the concepts of 'truth in' and 'existence in'. 'Truth in' means that in world X, Y is true in X. It doesn't matter if it is false in the real world or false in world Z. 'Existence in' means that in world X, Y exists. From these concepts we can arrive at something being 'possibly true' vs. 'necessarily true'.

A proposition is possibly true if it is true in at least one world. A proposition is necessarily true if it is true in all worlds.

The actual world is the possible world that we exist in.

In order to state the modal ontological argument we need two notions:
1) The notion of a necessary being
2) The notion of something having a property essentially

A necessary being is a being that exists in every possible world. Beings that are not necessary are contingent.

The notion of essential possession of a property is that the property is inextricably entwined with a beings's nature in such a way that if a being did not posses that property it could not exist at all. An essential property will exist in any being that exists in any possible world that that being could possibly exist.

If a thing has a property that it does not possess essentially, it possess it accidentally.

Linehan - what is an essential property that I possess? My name? No, it is possible that I could have a different name in another world? My loves? No, it is possible that I could love other things or enjoy what I actually dislike in this world in other possible worlds? My looks? No, it is possible that I could look different in other possible worlds. My existence? No, I could possibly not exist in other possible worlds. If it is not anything I am defined by (name, title, etc.) or anything mental (loves, passion, likes, etc.) or anything physical (looks, size, etc.) or my very existence, what, if anything do I possess essentially?

van Inwagen asks if the property of humanity is possessed essentially? I would say yes to this one, but not from a mere physical standpoint. What is humanity or what differentiates humans from other beings?

Could I theoretically exist as an ape or a parakeet in another possible world? No, the rationality and faculty of mind demands that I be something of intelligence. This means I cannot be anything that exists in the actual world. What's left then? God, Angel, Demon, Unknown Species? I could not possibly be God in any world because a contingent being cannot be a necessary being. I could not possibly be an Angel because a sinful being cannot be sinless. I could not possibly be a demon because a redeemable being cannot be unredeemable. Thus, I could only be a human or some unknown species. But that unknown species would necessarily possess the same type of soul as a human being and thus could only be physically different than a human being.

Necessary existence is a perfection is a premise of modal ontological arguments. The other premise is a perfect being is not impossible. The modal ontological argument:
A perfect being (a being that possesses all perfections essentially) is not impossible.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being exists.

This argument is logically valid, in that its conclusion follows logically from its premises.

Premise two, necessary existence is a perfection, can be accepted without much arguing. It is very plausible. Premise one, a perfect being is not impossible, is not as easily accepted.

The best way to prove the existence of a perfect being is to look for instances of it. But, we cannot show any instances of a perfect being. (We can show the existence of dogs by pointing at a dog. An individual dog is an instance of dog).

Leibniz offered a method of abstract metaphysical argument. Leibniz knew that any successful version of the ontological argument would necessarily include proof that shows a perfect being is not impossible. Leibniz's argument:

A perfect being is a being who has all perfections and thus is possible if all perfections are consistent with one another.

Every perfection is a "single positive property.

(A simple property is one that is not complex, i.e. a color, a shape but not a color and a shape)
(A positive property is one that is not negative, i.e. X or Y, but not not-X or not-Y)

Leibniz continued that all simple positive properties are consistent because to be inconsistent they would have to be negations of each other.

Thus, if every perfection is a simple positive property then it is possible for a perfect being to exist.

There are many problems with Leibniz's argument; one is the the concept of simple-positive properties doesn't make any sense.

Some things can be disproved by showing that a concept is impossible. J. N. Findlay claimed that an impossible could be derived from the concept of a perfect being. His argument stated: a perfect being must be a necessary being and an impossibility occurs in the concept of a necessary being. Findlay claimed that in order for there to be a necessary being there must be at least one necessarily true existential proposition. Necessarily true existential propositions are impossible.

An existential proposition is a proposition that asserts the existence of something. Necessary true existential truths are impossible because necessary truths are truths that owe their status as truths to the meaning of words (i.e. all nuns are females because the definition of 'nun' demands that for a person to be a nun they must be female)

Here is Findlay's argument:

There is no such thing as a necessary existential truth.
Thus, there is no such thing as a necessary being.
Thus, there is no such thing as a perfect being.
Thus, the modal ontological argument is invalid because it has a false premise.

The problem with Findlay's argument is that there are necessary existential truths. Mathematics provides many.

The ontological argument throughout its history is at best inconclusive.

Linehan - I am so glad that I wasted my entire afternoon on something that is at best inconclusive. I don't understand why philosophers waste their time on inconclusive evidences and arguments. (Yet, here I am studying it. Irony.)

The 12th Century (C)

(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)

Roscelin recanted the heresy at Rheims then fled to England. While in England he attacked Anselm, then fled to Rome.

Roscelin's writings are all lost except for a letter to Abelard on the Trinity. Roscelin mocks Abelard in the letter.

Ueberweg describes Roscelin as not a very nice man.

Roscelin's teachings are known through the writings of Abelard and Anselm.

Anselm states that Roscelin believed universals are "breath of voice" or that they physically occur when we speak them. Russell contends that Roscelin would not have believed something so foolish. Anselm states that Roscelin also believed man is not a unity, but a collection under a common name. Anselm stated that Roscelin believed reality is what is sensible. Roscelin believed (according to Anselm) that a whole is merely a word, but reality rests in the parts of a whole. He was led by this view to extreme atomism and troubles in dealing with the Trinity.

He held that the Godhead was three distinct substances and thus there are three Gods. He stated this because if they are one substance then all three had been incarnate in Jesus Christ. He couldn't accept that. But this is what he recanted in Rheims.

Abelard was Roselyn's pupil. He was born near Nantes in 1079. He first studied under the realist William of Champeaux in Paris. He taught at the Paris cathedral school where he argued against William's realism and compelled his former teacher to change his views. He left Paris to study theology under Anselm of Leon then returned to Paris in 1113. Upon returning he became widely popular as a teacher and became the lover of Heloïse, niece of Canon Fulbert. Canon Fulbert castrated him and he joined the monastery at St. Denis.

Abelard was vain, disputatious and tempts. After being castrated he was angry and humiliated. (Linehan - what a shock!)

He was condemned for an unorthodox book on the Trinity in 1121.

He then became the abbot of Saint Gildas in Brittany for four years. He hated it because he saw the monks as uncivilized.

In 1141 he was again condemned at the insistence of St. Bernard. He retired to Cluny and died in 1142.

Abelard's most famous book is "Yes and No". It is a dialectical argument for and against many theses. It did not however produce any conclusions.

Abelard held that, apart from Scriptures, dialectic is the sole road to truth.

He considered logic to be the chief science.

He is best known for logic and theory of knowledge.

Universals - "what can be predicated of many different things" (Russell, 430).

Abelard held that we do not predicate a thing, but only a word. He was a nomalist in this sense.

He fought realism.

He regards Platonic Ideas as the pattern of creation in the mind of God.

St. Bernard charged him without fully understanding Abelard's teachings. The heresies Bernard charged him with are:
1) Treating the Trinity like an Arian
2) Treating grace like a Pelagian
3) Treating the Person of Christ like a Nestorian
4) Being a heathen by making Plato to be a Christian
5) Destroying Christianity by maintaining that God can be understood through reason alone.

In all reality it was his hostile disposition towards clergy that caused his heretical label and not his teachings.

Abelard was more dialectical than any others at his time.

1) The school of Chartres was a humanistic movement
2) Abelard of Bath translated Euclid due to a renaissance of mathematical learning
3) There was a strong mystical movement headed by St. Bernard.

St. Bernard was not an intellectualist, but was extremely influential.

1) His father was a knight in the first Crusade
2) He was a Cistercian monk
3) He was the abbot at Clairvaux
4) He was influential in ecclesiastical politics
5) He fought antipopes
6) he combatted heresy in Northern Italy and Southern France
7) He brought philosophers down with the weight of orthodoxy
8) He set into motion the second Crusade

"Although a politician and a bigot, he was a man of genuinely religious temperament" (Russel, 439).

Bernard's reverence of the Papacy increased the power of the Pope.

Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen

(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen

The Franciscans and Dominicans were bitter rivals. The Franciscans were less orthodox. They were disinclined to accept the authority of Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican).

The Franciscans produced Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Saint Bonaventura and Matthew of Aquasparta.

Roger Bacon lived from 1214-1294. Bacon was a philosopher and a man of science. Science was mixed up with black magic and alchemy at the time so Bacon was in constant danger of being labeled a heretic. He was placed under a no-publish edict by the head of the Franciscans, but commanded by the papal legate to England to write his philosophy for the benefit o the Pope. He wrote three books in a very short time:
1) Opus Majus
2) Opus Minus
3) Opus Tertium

He was imprisoned for condemning clerics for ignorance. He was imprisoned 14 years and died shortly after being released. He was experimental by nature; encyclopedic but not systematic. He was a good geographer and a good mathematician. He thought logic was useless and wrote on alchemy.

He believed there were four causes for ignorance:
1) frail and unsuitable authority
2) influence of custom
3) the opinion of the unlearned crowd
4) the concealment of ignorance by apparent wisdom

All ignorance produces the evils that plague mankind. The fourth is the worst.

He considers Aristotle to be the chief philosopher and Avicenna the price.

He sees no fault in finding truth from the heathen and quotes Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi and Albumazar.

He sees mathematics as the only unrivaled source of certitude.

He believed that the intellect is separate from the soul.

Modern times praise Bacon because he places experimentation as a source of knowledge in higher esteem than argumentation as a source.

He believed in magic and astrology.

He is more respected now than he was in medieval times.

St. Bonaventura (1221-1274) was the General of the Franciscan order. He believed in the ontological argument for God. He believed in Platonic Ideas and saw Aristotelianism as in opposition to Christianity. He quoted Augustine extensively but ignored Pagan and Arab philosophies.

Matthew of Aquasparta (1235-1302) was a follower of Bonaventura. He opposed Aquinas from an Augustinian point of view. He quotes Aristotle, Avicenna, Anselm, the pseudo-dionysius and chiefly, Augustine.

He believed that Plato's ideas produce wisdom, but not knowledge and Aristotle produced knowledge but not wisdom. He sought to sync the two.

Duns Scotus (1270-1308) was Scottish and joined the Franciscans at Oxford University. He fought Aquinas on the immaculate conception and won the argument. He was Augustinian but less severe than other Franciscans.

Franciscans often disagreed with Aquinas because he was Aristotelian and the Franciscans were Platonic (through Augustine).

Scouts was a moderate realist, believed in Free Will and leaned somewhat to Pelagianism.

He held that there was no difference between being and essence.

He focused on evidence, things knowable without proof. There were three kinds of evidence:
1) Principles known by themselves
2) Things known by experience
3) our own actions

Without divine illumination no one can know anything.

He held the the principle of individuation (what makes one thing not identical with another) was due to form, not matter.

William of Occam is the second most important scholastic philosopher next to Aquinas. He lived circa 1290-1350. He was a pupil, then a rival of Scotus. He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII and took refuge with Emperor Louis (who was likewise excommunicated).

Dante (1265-1321) was an influential commentator in this age. Marsiglio of Padua (1270-1342) was a friend of William of Occham and a great political force of the time (in theory, not action). Marsiglio and William sought to preserve the Catholic faith, but fought against papal absolutism.

William's political works are done in a philosophical disputation style. William is best known for Occam's razor "it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" (Russell, 472).

In logic, William of Occam was a homilist.

He set to free logic and theory of knowledge from the basis of metaphysics and theology.

He holds that there are six metaphysical terms:
1) being
2) thing
3) something
4) one
5) true
6) good

He holds universals are things that can be predicated to many.

William of Occam believed perception to be the definition of knowledge.

His work encouraged scientific research.

After William of Occam there were no great scholastic philosophers.

Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century

(Originally written July 23, 2006 in Book 5)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter IX - Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century

The progress of the 11th century began with monastic reform.

The Church sought to consolidate its power but it had to clean up itself first by ridding themselves of two great evils:
1) Simony
2) Concubinage

Simony was the practice of selling a position in the Church for a sum of money.

Celibacy in the clergy was more for political reasoning then Biblical. Priests who had sons passed Church property onto them. The Church did not like this. Celibacy set men apart from others. For priests to be revered in the highest esteem they necessarily had to be celibate. The Church demanded them to be set apart from the laity. Celibacy was a means to this end.

William the Pious, Duke of Aquitaine, founded the Abbey of Cluny and the Cluniac reform movement in 910 AD.

The Camaldolese Orderwas founded by Romuad and the Camaldolese produced Peter Damian.

Bruno of Cologne founded the Carthusians in 1084.

In 1098 the Cistercian Order was founded. St. Bernard joined them in 1113.

The reform of the Papacy began with a simony Pope, Pope Gregory VI. Gregory VI was deposed for simony by the Holy Roman Emperor Henry III in 1046. Henry III continually deposed popes and appointed new ones. Pope Leo IX was then appointed by Henry III in 1049.

Leo IX was a reformer. He claimed independence from Henry III and the Papacy claimed superiority over the Emperor.

The college of Cardinals was set up to select the Pope, depriving the Romans and the Emperors of power.

Pope Nicholas II played a large part in reducing simony. Nicholas II also fought with the archbishop of Milan, who thought he was independent of the Pope.

Saint Peter Damian was crucial to the Milanese clerics repenting of their simony and pledging allegiance to the Papacy.

Pope Gregory VII became Pope in 1073. He was one of the most eminent Popes of all time. Gregory VII enforced clerical celibacy more than any other previous pope. Gregory VII dealt with the Investiture controversy, excommunicating Emperor Henry IV and thus causing civil war in the feudal Holy Roman Empire.

The 10th century was almost devoid of philosophers except for Pope Sylvester II (999-1003).

The 11th century produced a number of philosophers:
1) Anselm
2) Roscelin
3) Peter Damian
4) Berengar of Tours - a semi rationalist
4) Lanfranc

Anselm came up with the ontological argument for the existence of God. The ontological argument states:
1) God is the greatest possible objet of thought
2) If an object of thought does not exist, another, exactly like it, which does exist is greater.
3) The greatest of all objects of thought must exist. Otherwise another object would exist and be greater.
4) Thus, God exists.

The ontological argument has been rejected by theologians, but has faired better among philosophers. Descartes used an amended formed. Leibniz used it to prove the possibility of God. It underlies the Hegelian system. Bradley used it.

Anselm believed in Platonic ideas. He used Neoplatonic arguments to prove the existence of the Trinity.

Anselm considered reason subordinate to faith.

Christianity & Philosophy, Proofs and nature of faith

(Originally written February 1, 2006)

The Christian Theology Reader

Clement of Alexandria on Philosophy and Theology

Clement argues that God gave the Greeks philosophy in order to prepare them for the coming of the Lord. He parallel this with God giving the Jews the law.

Philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness before the incarnation.

Post-incarnation philosophy assists people who come to faith by way of demonstration. It is a preparation for true religion.

Clement states all good things come from God. Some come directly (like Jews receiving the law from God through Moses) and some come indirectly (the Greek's philosophy).

"Philosophy, acted as a custodian to bring Greeks to Christ, just as the law brought the Hebrews" (6).

Philosophy is not antiquated or made obsolete by Christ's coming. It is a way for some people (lovers of truth) to come to the Lord.

Clement views Christ as both the perfection and fulfillment of the Old Testament and of philosophy.

Biblical parallels Galatians 3:23-24. The Greek word Paul uses for "custodian" is the same word Clement uses to describe philosophy for the Greeks.

Tertullian on the Relation of Philosophy and Heresy

Tertullian was avidly opposed to the fusion of philosophy and theology.

He held that philosophy had a pagan outlook on life.

He contacted the differences between Athens and Jerusalem, symbolic of the differences between pagan philosophy and God's revelation of the Christian faith.

He held that Christian minds were completely on a different wave length than their pagan counterparts.

Philosophy provides worldly wisdom by "boldly asserting itself to be the interpreter of the divine nature and dispensation" (7)

Heretics and philosophers often accept or deny similar viewpoints, i.e. Marcion came from the Stoics.

Tertullian holds that it is necessary to seek God in the simplicity of the heart. Philosophy completes it too much.

There is no need for curiosity after discovering Jesus Christ.

After believing in Christ "there is nothing else which we are obliged to believe"

Tertullian uses historical evidence to connect heresies and philosophy. He felt this was enough to justify the exclusion of philosophy from theology.

Since Philosophy has, at its core, values which are contrary to Christian principles, the fusion of the two would lead to the erosion of Christian integrity.

Augustine on Philosophy and Theology

Augustine advocates using all of the good philosophy in theology and disregarding the bad. He parallels this with the Hebrews casting of the burdens of the Egypt, but taking its treasures with them.

What the Plutonists have said which is true should be claimed by Christians for their own use because the Plutonists posses it illegally.

"Pagan learning is not entirely made up of sales teaching and superstitions. It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values"

Philosophy can neither be totally rejected or uncritically accepted.

Augustine points to person who were raised pagans, converted, then brought some of their values (now spun through truth) into the church and made a great impact.

Anselm of Canterbury's proof for the existence of God

God is "that than which no greater thing can be thought". Knowing this definition of God, Anselm states that without God the idea of God would still exist. Then (since God does not exist) the greatest thing that can be thought of is the idea of God. This contradicts the definition of God, therefore, it cannot be true. Since it is not true, the only option we have left is that God exists.

This argument is often referred to as the "ontological argument". (Ontological philosophy refers to the branch of philosophy dealing with being)

This is not a purely logical argument, nor was it intended to be. It is more of a statement of how obvious it was to himself that God exists and the implications that that entails.

The important part of this theory to remember is that the idea of something is inferior to the reality of that something.

Thomas Aquinas on Proofs for the existence of God

Aquinas postulated 5 "proofs" for the existence of God.

The term "proofs" cannot be taken in the strictest sense of the word here. It instead demonstrates the consistency of Christian theology with what is known of the world.

Aquinas' work "the Totality of Theology is" widely regarded as the greatest work of medieval theology (17)

The first argument for the existence of God, is the argument from change.

"Everything that is in the process of being changed is changed by something else" (18).

It is impossible for something to be the cause of change and be changing itself.

There must be a first cause to effect change. The first cause of change must be God.

The second argument for the existence of God is based on the nature of an efficient cause.

There is a sequence of efficient causes in the observable world, but nothing is the cause of itself. This would require something to exist prior to itself, which is impossible.

If there were no first cause there would be no effect. We can see that then are causes and effects, therefore there must have been an initial cause. This initial cause is God.

The third argument for the existence of God is the nature of possibility and necessity.

"If nothing ever existed, it would have been impossible for anything to begin to exist" (19).

Since we exist and we see other things that exist, there could never have been a point in time that nothing existed because then nothing would have begun to exist.

All things that exist must, by necessity, have been brought into existence by something. Therefore something must exist free of necessity to begin the existence of all other things (directly or indirectly). This existence free of necessity of being brought into existence is God.

The fourth argument for the existence of God is from the gradation that occurs in things.

Things are known to be more or less because they approximate in varying degrees to that which is greatest.

There must be something that is greatest, truest, best and noblest. This is God.

The fifth argument for the existence of God is based on the governance of things.

Because things, like natural bodies, work towards a goal without any knowledge of that goal with amazing precision and accuracy makes it obvious that they achieve this goal by design and not chance.

There is no way things without knowledge can reach goals consistently without a designer. Therefore, there is an intelligent being who designed all natural things to reach their goals. This being is God.

God's existence is proven 5 ways:
1) The world is in motion. Something had to start that motion: God
2) The world is full of causes and effects. There must have been a first cause: God
3) Things exist in this world that we are not necessary (humans are one of them). The fact that humans exist means something exist that is necessary to bring what is our necessary into existence: God
4) Values, truth, and morals must come from an ultimate source of values, truth and morality: God.
5) The world shows obvious traits of intelligent design. There must have been an intelligent designer: God.

Martin Luther on the theology of the Cross

Luther draws a distinction between theologians of glory who seek God apart from Jesus Christ and theologians of the cross who know that God is revealed through Jesus Christ.

John Calvin on the Nature of faith

Calvin establishes a direct relation between faith and the merciful promises of God.

Faith is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which is founded upon the truth of the gracious promise of God in Christ.

Faith should be certain and secure but doubt and anxiety are natural.

Calvin states believers have a "perpetual struggle with their own lack of faith, and are far from possessing a peaceful conscience, never interrupted by any disturbance" (26).

Faith is not believing God exists, it is trusting in the promise of a benevolent God.

Blaise Pascal on Proofs for the Existence of God

Pascal places an emphasis on the heart, rather than reason, in the knowledge of God. He also stresses the limitations of reason.

Knowledge of God comes through the heart. Reason vainly attempts to discredit that knowledge. The inability to prove this knowledge of God does not affirm the uncertainty of this knowledge; it demonstrates the weakness of our reason.

Reason must recognize there are many things which it cannot comprehend.

The metaphysical proofs for God have little impact on men because their reason is incapable comprehending them.

Knowledge of God must be accompanied by the acknowledgement of our depravity and of acceptance of Christ as the redeemer to be effective.

John Calvin on the Natural knowledge of God

A full knowledge of God can only be achieved through Scripture, but a partial knowledge of God is possible apart from scripture which makes it impossible for humans to plead ignorance at the judgment.

God's existence can be recognized by all mankind. They are condemned by not worshipping God to light of their awareness.

A sense of divinity is "inscribed in the hearts of all people" (98).

A faith for all seasons

Ch. 1 our knowledge of God

Faith and Knowledge

If faith has nothing to do with knowledge, then theology (study of interactions between man and God) is reduced to anthropology (a study of man's interaction with man).

A lot of modern Christian theology is based on the assumption that faith has nothing to do with knowledge. This makes God impossible to know. We can only know about our experiences with God.

This theologies based on the Enlightenment which states that man is the ultimate measure of everything.

The rationalists came out of the Enlightenment. They believed that knowledge could only come from empirical or scientific evidence. However, God is above any empiricism or scientific method.

"Faith finds its basis in non rational elements of human experience" (2). This is a modern view of faith. A historic view of faith believes it is a part of knowledge.

Augustine says that you first have to believe in God, then knowledge of God will follow.

Faith also looks to the future. Hebrews 11:1 states, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen"

While knowledge of God comes directly through Scripture, it can also come indirectly through creation.

General revelation is what God has revealed to all humanity through creation.

Special revelation is what God has revealed to a limited number of people through redemptive history: Scripture and Jesus Christ.

Knowledge of God through General Revelation

All men in all times know God to some extent even if they don't have access to the Bible.

There are two types of General revelation
1) Outward general revelation is reality around that points us to God
2) Inward general revelation is reality within our moral and spirituality that points us to God

Creation reveals the power of God and His divine nature

Conscience dictates our morality. It is included in inward general revelation.