In a cartoon called “The Tao of Tommy: Budding Apologist Edition“, Reader Pliny the in Between presents a self-aggrandizing version of the familiar (and flawed) Ontological Argument:
I think that the kid, though, is really “Billy,” a budding William Lane Craig. However, there’s an unstated premise in the argument: “my happiness must necessarily be instantiated in this world.”
I’ve never understood why this argument for God ever got any serious consideration by actual grown ups. It’s nothing more than a definition argument.
1) Define God as Perfect
2) Define Perfect as requiring existence
3) Ergo God exists
It is stuff like this that makes me question the worth not only of theology, but also philosophy, both of which use contorted language to hide simplistic arguments. Sometimes I think that is major tenet of academic philosophy, to write in a way that is so confusing that people just assume it is profound.
It seems to have buffaloed some pretty smart people–Descartes, Leibniz, Godel, and even Bertrand Russell for a while.
Guanilo of marmoutiers saw right through it
Russell? I seem to recall him saying something like it’s easier to find the argument ridiculous than to say exactly what’s ridiculous about it. I don’t equate that to being buffaloed.
As for the rest, motivated reasoning.
Wikipedia
Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; once exclaiming: “Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!”[61] However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that “the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.”
I cannot recall which book or essay it was in, but Russell admitted to have found the argument convincing for a few hours.
Also, I think the difficulty in isolating “the fallacy” in the argument is due to it having more than one fallacy.
I found a fuller explanation of Russell’s belief:
https://escarpmentpress.org/russelljournal/article/viewFile/1462/1489
I gather his perception of the argument was vastly more nuanced than what we layman might perceive.
That was interesting. Thanks for posting.
Like Scote, I find the ontological argument so transparently circular that I find it hard to believe that Russell could be fooled, even for a short time.
As I’m sure Russell would’ve agreed, a sound argument is not necessarily a valid argument.
A sound argument one that is logically valid and has true premises. So, sound arguments are necessarily valid.
However, WLC has a fondness for “coherent” arguments, which are valid arguments that are logically consistent, but don’t necessarily have true premises – aka, aren’t necessarily sound.
I’d always thought that “sound” simply meant the conclusion was in fact supported by the premises, but the premises could be invalid.
Ah. Seems my memory swapped those terms for each other.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
It is a *bit* more complicated than that. You don’t define perfect as requiring existence, you assume that something existing is *more* perfect than something that does not. This requires an ordering on the perfection of properties, though, which is often omitted in discussions. Zalta and Oppenheim’s computer assisted reconstruction of the ontological argument does point this out. In their case, the argument goes through in a small model: the platonic number 0, the platonic number 1, the usual > relation on those numbers. (IIRC) Unfortunately, this should not convince us to be believers – as they point out – because *god is not a number*.
Yes, the form of the Ontological argument I posted is the simplest one I could think of, designed to highlight its vacuity once shorn of embellishment. The question is whether additional complexities actually improve the argument or just serve to obfuscate its flaws. Claiming that existence is a greater form of perfection is just another layer of argument by definition. It is an unproveable arbitrary claim.
I tried to read Craig’s piece on the ontological argument, but I could feel my brain cells shriveling and disintegrating. I had to stop to preserve my sanity. Wow, the make-believe hoops these religious jokers jump through is amazing — and sad.
Or, as medical blogger “Orac” might say, any one who read the WLC article “are probably in acute pain right now from a massive wave of neuronal apoptosis induced by blithering waves of stupid emanating from the passage”.
I prefer Kurt Gödel’s Ontological Argument and its formalization using modal logic “proven” by computer science.
See also: http://www.decodedscience.org/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801
Not that this is direct empirical evidence… just logic and axioms.
Applying logic and axioms to theological arguments is rather like solving a squirrel population problem by sterilisation withe sledgehammers.
Effective.
Well, that is interesting. But in the sequence of logic statements I see glossed over assumptions, and a big leap of faith in the middle. Maybe I don’t get it but I don’t see how it is a strong argument.
It slices Scote’s 3 steps slightly differently: defining God as ‘necessary’ substitutes for 1 (defining God as perfect) plus a little bit of 2 (saying perfection requires existence). However the problem is the same: just because humans can conceive of a perfect or necessary being doesn’t somehow conjure it into existence, either in this universe or any other.
Yeah, and I don’t get why some people are totally blown away by the logic. I think there was an Xkcd cartoon about the issue and the idea there was to basically imagine a perfect glass of beer in front of me. So… I am still waiting for the glass of beer.
My perfect glass of beer not only is cool and crisp with just the right amount of froth, but it never runs out nor changes temperature or freshness, sort of like how Jesus multiplied the bread and fish. Furthermore, it has the property of simultaneously raising my metabolism enough to burn the calories had from consuming it (as opposed to the few too many imperfect beers I had this past winter leading to some undesired weight gain). It should also allow me to obtain a sufficient level of intoxication without affecting my motor skills or coherence and never result in a hangover. Where is this beer? It simply must exist!
Of course God’s ways are “mysterious” and we cannot know anything about him, so it is rather amazing that we can formulate logic and axioms dealing with His properties.
It does seem odd, does it not, that theologians argue for a god who defies time and space, and the fundamental laws of the universe, but think that god remains constrained by logic.
– Julian Baggini
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/07/understand-my-religion-faith
There have been very few theologians who deny that their god is constrained by logic. However, this is a category mistake anyway, since *inferences* are constrained by a logic, not *things*. Axiomatizing one’s theology allows one to see where the errors are. For example, the Schaum’s Outline _Logic_ formalizes one version of the ontological argument and points out where the S3 axiom does all the work.
If any apologist presents a modal logic argument for *anything*, ask them which system of modal logic it is in. I have yet to find one (other than A. Plantinga, who knows better and acts the charlatan) who has any idea that there are many systems of modal logic, which validate different inferences.
See above. Zalta and Oppenheim can do it in less. This was an actual situation where the computer assisted proof was *surprising*.
How many times have I done a task for someone and they respond with, “Perfect!”. I must be God.
As for perfection, people would stop saying that if they ever studied surfaces on the atomic scale…Satan lives there and makes perfection an illusion.
Well, clearly, God was working His wonders through you. You were His instrument.
If God were really Perfect, it seems to me that there’d be no disputes about its existence. Nor would there be any disagreements on what it means to be Perfect. A Perfect God would be both absolutely undeniable and universally worshiped.
The fact that atheism is not only conceivable, but respectable– and ‘perfection’ breaks into a million different viewpoints the minute we try to agree on any details — is strong evidence against any such Perfect Being. Hell, even the existence of Hell and the people who ‘choose’ to be in it (or not) fairly screams ‘flawed deity.’ And ontologically speaking, a flawed deity is just no deity at all.
Indeed. A perfect God would perfectly inspire faith at the same time they provided perfect evidence for His existence. The God of modern human monotheisms does neither. 🙂
Who says existence is a necessary part of perfection? There are unwarranted assumptions just oozing out of the OA.
Yup, one big problem has always been the mushiness of what a “maximally great Being” would be. What are the essential characteristics, vs superfluous? This actually turns out to be a great problem for specific religions like Christianity.
So what properties are necessary for this necessary Being? Most versions don’t state it, but Plantinga at least tries – “omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good.”
Ok, but we can “imagine” all sorts of varieties of Beings with those three characteristics, but which vary in additional characteristics – e.g. the names can vary, we can think of such a being being outside the universe, or part of the universe, or in any number of alternate universes or in differently characterized “realms” that we can imagine. Unlike the Christian God, this Being may not be comprised of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but would be comprised of a single essence/identity….or many more, different than the Christian God.
One can go on and on varying the permutations of such Beings, and since such Beings are stipulated as being monotheistic, it leads to a paradox of all these Beings existing, yet only only one can exist.
This means the Christian God would be one of these paradoxical Gods, and can not be the necessary Being. Which leaves the Christian either abandoning the Ontological Argument OR having to argue that EVERY SINGLE attribute of the Christian God is somehow logically necessary…and good luck with that!
And it’s particularly problematic for the Protestant-variety Christian apologists/philosophers, because scratch the surface of many of their cumulative cases for God, and you’ll find them sitting atop the Ontological Argument. ESPECIALLY for morality. It’s the go-to answer for the question “Why is God good?” The Ontological argument purportedly answers “because God is NECESSARILY Good.” It’s all they’ve got, really, because any answers that seem contingent are too vulnerable, and so they have shoved their stakes into the hill of sand that is the Ontological Argument.
Eastern religions will sometimes posit a “perfect” god which is a harmonious balance of Good and Evil. Or, perhaps, true Perfection rises above low and petty concerns like good and evil.
What the hell do OA apologists think they can stand on if there’s a battle of dueling intuitions?
“my happiness must necessarily be instantiated in this world.”
Given that the world is actually totally indifferent, it surprising that there is, in fact, so much happiness.
Of course, we did evolve to live in this world. Maybe not *too* surprising.
Yet this is the very type of argument for which Dr Coyne is criticised for not being expert in, and therefore not a philosopher. Keith Parsons, an intelligent atheist himself, has distanced himself from ‘new’ atheists, because he says they don’t understand the philosophy of religion. Jeffrey Jay Lowder, another generally good writer, has said he’d rather read Edward Feser’s criticism of Faith vs Fact than the book itself.
I’m no expert in astrology, homeopathy, alchemy or necromancy, but I know they are all rubbish. Now just add religion to the list.
I call this the Argument From Empirical Evidence:
[insert picture of tumbleweed here]
I like that argument.
(Now, if you will excuse me, I must go and polish my Ferrari*)
cr
* The Ferrari which must logically be sitting in my driveway by now…
My nine year old stole it…he drove it to the undiscovered country.
He has destroyed my dream
🙁
cr
As I’ve noted in an earlier post on this argument, the word “being” can stand for anything. Therefore, substitute “unicorn” in the argument and, voila, we’ve created the perfect unicorn which must, by necessity, exist. Let’s get up a search party and go look for it.
(Apologies if this appears twice–I tried to sub by asserting that a perfect subscription must exist…)
If it does it was not a perfect subscription, but it does not so it was!
🙂
There exists a perfect scat…
Plato has a lot to answer for!
I think I escaped apologism, phew!
As a small child, perhaps 4 or 5 years old, I wanted a horse, a small one like a pony would have been fine, really. I had it all figured out, we were living on the 3rd floor, of course a pony could climb the stairs. It would have lived on the balcony, and I’d pick grass from a near by park to feed it.
No problem, right? I didn’t get one! *pout*