Introduction to Humanities Lecture 12 Anselm

1
Introduction to HumanitiesLecture 12Anselm
Aquinas

• By David Kelsey

2
Saint Anselm

• Saint Anselm of Canterbury lived from 1033-1109.
• He was a monk and later Archbishop of Canterbury.
• Wanted to see how far argument and reason could
  substantiate the central doctrines of
  Christianity.
• He invented the ontological argument for the
  existence of God.

3
A priori vs.A posteriori arguments

• A Posteriori Arguments
• An a posteriori argument has at least one premise
  which is contingent. It has at least one premise
  that is a question of fact.
• Examples the Cosmological and Teleological
  arguments for the existence of God
• A priori arguments
• Have absolutely no premises that are a question
  of fact.
• Composed entirely of a priori claims.
• An a priori claim true or false in virtue of the
  meaning of its words alone.
• The ontological argument is an a priori argument

4
Defining GOD

• According to the Judeao-Christian-Islamic
  tradition God is the greatest or most perfect
  possible being.
• What can we infer about God from this?
• If God is perfect, he has every perfection.
• Thus, God is
• Omnipotent maximally powerful
• Omniscient maximally knowledgeable
• Omnibenevolent is perfectly good
• Omnipresent is everywhere
• What other perfections might there be?

5
A Reductiofor Gods omnipotence

• An argument that God must be omnipotent
• Suppose God wasnt omnipotent.
• Then there could be a being more powerful than
  God.
• That would be greater than God.
• But God is the greatest of all possible beings.
• So God must be omnipotent.
• This argument has the form of a reductio ad
  absurdum.
• Reductios always assume the negation of the
  conclusion they are out to prove.
• The argument then derives a contradiction
• A contradiction
• Asserts that something both is and isnt the case
• cannot possibly be true
• The contradiction above
• The argument then concludes by asserting what it
  was to prove

6
The form of the Reductio

• So here is the form of our reductio
• 1. God isnt omnipotent.
• 2. Thus, there could be someone more powerful
  than God.
• 3. Thus, there could be someone greater than God.
• 4. But, by definition, God is the greatest
  possible being there couldnt be someone greater
  than God.
• 5. Thus, there both can and cant be someone
  greater than God.
• 6. Thus, (1) is false God is omnipotent.

7
AnselmsOntological Argument

• Anselms concept of God
• Anselm uses the notion of God seen in the
  Judeao-Christian-Islamic tradition.
• For Anselm God is something than which nothing
  greater can be conceived.
• This is not the same concept as the greatest
  being we can conceive. Such a concept would be
  limited by the way us humans conceive of things.
  
• Anselm is assuming the Great chain of being here.
• If you run up and down the chain you find it easy
  to conceive of beings both lesser and greater.
• Your mind is carried to greater and greater
  things

8
Anselms Reductio

• Anselms argument is a Reductio Ad Absurdum. The
  basic form of the reductio
• Assume God doesnt exist
• But then God isnt the being than which nothing
  greater can be conceived.
• But God is the being than which nothing greater
  can be conceived.
• Thus, God exists.

9
The form of Anselms argument

• Anselms argument
• 1. God does not exist.
• 2. By God is meant that than which nothing
  greater can be conceived, (or NGC).
• 3. NGC does not exist (from 1 2)
• 4. So NGC exists in the understanding but not in
  reality. (from 2 3)
• 5. NGC can be conceived to exist in reality as
  well as the understanding.
• 6. If NGC were to exist in reality as well as the
  understanding, it would be greater.
• 7. NGC is not NGC (from 4 6)
• 8. NGC cannot exist in the understanding alone.
  (from 7)
• 9. NGC must also exist in reality (from 6 8)
• 10. God exists (from 2 9)
• 11. God does not exist and God exists (from 1
  10)
• 12. Premise 1 is false (by 1-11 and reductio ad
  absurdum)
• Thus, 13. God exists

10
Evaluating Anselms argument

• Evaluating Anselms argument
• Is Anselms argument valid?
• Is Anselms argument sound?
• Which premises might be false?
• Premise 1
• Premise 2
• Premise 5
• Premise 6

11
Denying premise 2

• Denying premise 2
• Some argue that premise 2 is false.
• They say that such a definition of God is
  incorrect.
• Thoughts

12
Denying premise 5

• Challenging the fifth premise
• Can you conceive of God as existing in reality?

13
Denying premise 6

• Can we deny premise 6
• We can do this by claiming that existence in
  reality is not a perfection.
• Thus, a being that existed in both the
  understanding and in reality is not more prefect
  than a being that existed just in the
  understanding.
• Anselms reply would probably go like this
  existence entails the ability to use all of ones
  perfections
• Counter Is existence the kind of thing that can
  even be a perfection at all?

14
Defining God into existence

• Defining God into existence
• Note that this argument attempts to move from the
  essence of God to Gods existence.
• It moves from our grasp of what God is, to the
  fact that God is.
• Seems to be claiming that the existence of God is
  self evident
• But can Anselm really define God into existence?

15
Refutation bylogical analogy

• Refutation by Logical Analogy
• Many people think that Anselms argument just has
  to be wrong for it just shows too much.
• Cant we give an argument of the same form as
  Anselms, but for an obviously false conclusion.
• Since the new argument isnt sound, neither is
  Anselms.
• This move is called Refutation by logical analogy.

16
Gaunilos parody

• Here is the argument
• Assume 1. The island than which no greater can
  be conceived (GPI) does not exist.
• 2. So GPI exists in the understanding but not in
  reality. (from 1)
• 3. GPI can be conceived to exist in reality as
  well as the understanding.
• 4. If GPI were to exist in reality as well as the
  understanding, it would be greater.
• 5. GPI is not GPI (from 2 4)
• 6. GPI cannot exist in the understanding alone.
  (from 5)
• 7. GPI must also exist in reality (from 4 6)
• 8. GPI exists (from 7)
• 9. GPI does not exist and GPI exists (from 1 8)
• 10. Premise 1 is false (by 1-9 and reductio ad
  absurdum)
• Thus, 11. GPI exists

17
Anselms reply

• Anselms possible replies to Gaunilo
• He could give up or bite the bullet.
• Gaunilos argument isnt valid
• A premise from Gaunilos argument is false

18
Anselms best reply

• Anselms reply
• Can the greatest possible island even exist in
  reality?
• Although the greatest possible being could have
  all the perfections to the greatest degree, could
  an island really have them?

19
Aquinas

• Saint Thomas Aquinas
• Lived from 1225-1274.
• A monk whose writings have been deemed
  authoritative by the Catholic Church.
• In 1244 became a friar. Later he became a priest
  and in 1323 was made a Saint.
• Heavily influenced by the works of Aristotle.
• In his work Summa Theologica he gave 5 different
  arguments for Gods existence.
• He called these the 5 ways.

20
Aquinas on Aristotle

• Aquinas on Aristotle
• Aquinas was greatly influenced by the works of
  Aristotle.
• But Aquinas thinks there is a fundamental mistake
  in Aristotles metaphysics.
• Aquinas thinks Aristotle overlooks the notion of
  existence.
• Aristotle on existence
• Form is what actualizes a potentiality, matter,
  into an actually existing thing.
• And efficient causes are what bring a particular
  substance into being.
• But the world, existing eternally, has no
  efficient cause. Existence is just born in its
  form.

21
Aquinas on existence

• So for Aristotle, Form brings existence along
  with it. But for Aquinas, a things existence
  differs from its essence.
• The essence of any substance is both matter and
  form for such an object is different from
  something purely formal
• For something imaginary like a phoenix, its
  essence being form and matter, it lacks
  existence.
• So existence is something added to those
  substances that do in fact exist.
• Likewise for spiritual substances, they are
  composed of pure form and existence.
• It is this new understanding of existence which
  leads Aquinas to rethink Aristotles notion of
  efficient causation and subsequently Gods
  existence as unmoved mover.
• We now turn to Aquinas famous 5 ways

22
Theism

• There are 3 general argument patterns for Theism.
• Theism, Atheism Agnosticism
• We have so far seen one of these argument
  patterns the Ontological argument.
• Ontological Arguments
• Argue that by an analysis of the very concept of
  God he must exist.
• Cosmological Arguments
• The form of the argument is roughly this
• There must be a first cause of all things and
  this first cause must be God.
• Teleological Arguments
• Argue for Gods existence via premises about the
  design or goals or purposes of things.

23
The 5 ways

• The 5 ways
• The first way about things causing change in
  other things.
• The second way about efficient causation
• The third way about things causing others to
  exist
• The fourth way about things causing others to be
  good or noble.
• The final way about purposes.

24
Aquinas 5 ways

• The first 4 ways
• Different versions of the Cosmological argument.
• Each way uses a different sense of the word
  cause.
• In each case Aquinas wants to show that there is
  an uncaused cause
• All Cosmological arguments have a form like this
• 1. There is something that causes everything
  else, I.e. a first cause.
• 2. Only God could be a first cause.
• 3. Thus, there is a God.
• The final way a version of the teleological
  argument.

25
The first way

• The form of the first way
• 1) Things change.
• 2) Change is an alteration in which something
  becomes actually what it was only potentially
  until then.
• 3) Everything that changes must be made to change
  by another thing.
• 4) But if one thing causes change in another,
  either the cause is a first cause of change or it
  is caused to change by another (from 3)
• 5) There couldnt be an open causal chain of
  changing changers going back forever into the
  past.
• 6) Thus, there is an unchanging changer, a first
  cause of change. (from 1 5)
• 7) And this first cause is God.

26
Aquinas argument for the 3rd premise

• The third premise 3) Everything that changes
  must be changed by another thing.
• A change from potentiality to actuality can only
  be brought about by something that is already
  actual.
• The ball and batter
• Nothing can be both potential and actual in the
  same respect.
• So nothing can change itself.
• Thoughts on this argument? Can you think of
  anything that could change itself?

27
Aquinas argument for the 5th premise

• The 5th premise There couldnt be an open causal
  chain of changing changers going back forever
  into the past.
• In this case there is no first cause of change
• Open causal chain an infinite number of things,
  one causing change in the other
• Ball and Batter
• But then there couldnt be any intermediate
  causes either
• Such causes could only cause change if actualized
  themselves by some prior cause.
• Ball and Batter again
• But if there werent any intermediate changers
  there would be no change at all.
• Thoughts on this argument?
• Is it possible that we have intermediate causes
  of change without a first cause?
• Maybe there is another possibility a closed loop
  of intermediate changers

28
Evaluating the first way

• The first premise
• says simply that things change.
• Change Aquinas means the kind of change we see
  in the ball when it is hit by the bat.
• The fourth premise
• Assuming that everything that changes must be
  changed by another thing, if one thing causes
  change in another, either the cause is a first
  cause of change or it is caused to change by
  another.
• The fifth premise
• There is an unchanging changer, a first cause of
  change.
• This thing isnt changed by anything else. It
  can cause change though.
• Dominos
• Question why suppose that there is just one
  unchanging changer?
• The conclusion
• This first cause is God
• Question why suppose this first cause is God?

29
The Second Way

• The Second way
• 1) efficient causes come in series
• Something cannot be the efficient cause of itself
  for to be so it would have to preexist itself,
  which is not possible.
• And if you take away a cause you take away its
  effect
• 2) Such series of efficient causes could not go
  on to infinity
• If the series were infinite there would be no
  first cause.
• If there were no first cause there would be no
  intermediate causes...
• 3) So there must be a first efficient cause
• 4) this everyone gives the name God

30
Evaluating the Second way

• Challenging the Second way
• Some things to notice
• Notice the similarity between the first and
  second ways
• The second way is focused on a specific kind of
  causation, efficient causation.
• An efficient cause causes something to come to be
• Example the hammer, the spark and the explosion
• Evaluating the premises
• Premise 1
• Questions?
• Premise 2
• Questions?
• Premise 3
• Questions?
• The conclusion
• Questions?

31
The Third Way

• Two ways in which a thing can exist
• Necessary things cant fail to exist.
• Contingent things come into and go out of
  existence.
• The third way
• 1. Some things must exist of necessity.
• 2. There cant be an open causal chain of
  necessary things each causing the next to be
  necessary.
• 3. Thus, something must be necessary per se.
• 4, And this is God.

32
The first premise

• The first premise
• Says that something must be necessary.
• So not everything can be contingent.
• His argument
• 1) consider if everything existed contingently.
• 2) All contingent things must start to exist at
  some time.
• 3) So all contingent things must fail to exist at
  some time. (from 2)
• 4) But then there must have been a time at which
  nothing existed. (from 1 3)
• 5) But if there had been such a time nothing
  would exist now.
• From nothing you get nothing
• 6) But things do exist now.
• 7) Something must exist of necessity. This thing
  caused contingent things to come to be.

33
Finishing the 3rd way

• The second premise
• says that there cannot be an open causal chain of
  necessary things each causing the next to be
  necessary.
• His argument
• In this case there is no first cause of change.
• But then there couldnt be any intermediate
  causes and so no change at all
• Question?
• The third premise
• says that something must be necessary per se
• Necessary Per Se
• Something that owes its necessity to nothing
  else
• it can cause the necessity of other things
  though.
• Question?
• The conclusion
• Questions?

34
The Fourth Way

• The fourth way
• 1) Some things are good (noble and true).
• 2) Some things are better (or more noble or
  truer) than other things.
• 3) These better (more noble and truer) things
  have more good (are more noble and are truer) in
  accord with their distance from a maximum.
• Comparative judgments
• 4) if something that is maximally true, good and
  noble were not in existence then there would be
  no things possessing truth, goodness and nobility
  to a lesser degree.
• So whatever is maximally good (noble and true) is
  the cause of whatever else that is good
• 5) Thus, something is maximally good and causes
  everything else that is good (from 1 4)
• 6) This maximally good thing we call GOD.

35
Finishing the argument

• Something to notice
• Notice the appeal that this argument makes to the
  great chain of being
• The first 3 premises
• The fourth premise
• Question This seems to imply that the maximally
  good thing is the cause of whatever else is good.
• Questions?
• Premise 5
• The conclusion

36
The fifth way

• The fifth way
• 1) Everything has a design, acts for a purpose.
• 2) Something can only have a design or act for a
  purpose if it is directed to do so by a designer.
• Ex arrows and archers
• 3) Everything has a designer, which we call God.

37
The first premise of the Design Argument

• The first premise
• 1) Everything has a design, acts for a purpose.
• Goal-directed behavior is observed in all natural
  substances
• Their behavior hardly ever varies and is almost
  always turning out well
• Just like we plant and harvest and store food for
  the winter, intention and design is pervasive
  throughout
• Examples...

38
Understanding the fifth way

• The fifth way
• is a teleological argument for the existence of
  God.
• Teleological Arguments
• Most are arguments by analogy.
• They usually rest on some analogy between things
  we know to be designed by humans and things we
  know not to be designed by humans, such as the
  universe as a whole.
• The analogy is then made if the first has a
  designer so does the second, which is God.

39
Thoughts aboutthe fifth way

• Thoughts about the fifth way?
• Finding a relevant difference
• Anyone see a relevant difference?
• Things vs. universes?
• Could something besides God be the designer of
  the universe?
• Other possible designers
• Gravity?
• Evolution?
• Aquinas reply