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.