The Flaws and Fallacies of the Ontological Argument

The ontological argument, first formulated by Anselm of Canterbury, has long been a subject of philosophical debate. This argument, particularly its modal version by Alvin Plantinga, has gained attention for its logical structure. However, it is essential to critically examine the argument's validity beyond its formal logic to assess its soundness.

Validity vs. Soundness: A Technical Analysis

Validity and Soundness: Alvin Plantinga's version of the ontological argument is considered valid in the strict logical sense. This means that if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. However, the argument's soundness hinges on the truth of its premises. Plantinga argues that a being as described exists in the mind, and it is greater for this being to exist in reality as well. However, there is no external evidence to prove that such a being exists.

The argument faces circular reasoning, as the premise of a being's existence is assumed to be true. If one accepts the existence of the being, then the argument is sound. Conversely, if one rejects the existence of such a being, the argument is unsound. This inherent circularity undermines the argument's cogency and makes it less convincing.

Philosophical Critiques of the Ontological Argument

Historical Context and Critique: While Anselm's original argument gained popularity among Christians, modern critics have challenged its validity. One such critique comes from Immanuel Kant, who argued that the ontological argument assumes that existence is a predicate or property, which it is not. Existence is a relation rather than an attribute, and thus cannot be added to a being's greatness.

Plantinga's Modal Argument: Alvin Plantinga's modal argument attempts to resolve this by defining a being that cannot exist in a logically possible world. If such a being can be conceived, then it must exist in some logically possible world. However, the argument still hinges on the concept of a "greatest conceivable being," which he argues must exist.

Logical and Semantic Flaws

The Greatest Being: A Question of Conception: The argument's premise that a being is "the greatest conceivable being" raises several logical and semantic issues. Firstly, there is no such thing as a single, universal "mind" to which all conceptions must conform. Minds are individual and often diverse in their conceptions of greatness.

For example, suppose we conceive of a being as having the ability to speak to prophets from a burning bush, grant them tablets, and intervene in the natural world. Another person might conceive of a being as a physicist waiting for the natural laws to reveal their true nature. These differing conceptions of greatness illustrate the problem with anchoring the argument in a single, abstract concept of the greatest being.

Circularity and Logical Soundness: The argument's conclusion that “the greatest being must exist” relies on the premise that it is better to exist in reality than in thought. However, this premise is not logically derivable from the previous concepts. Anselm's made a value judgment that existence in reality is better, which is a subjective claim. This introduces circularity and undermines the argument's soundness.

Theological and Ethical Implications

Theological Critique: From a theological perspective, accepting the ontological argument solidifies a specific conception of God, primarily that of the Christian God. However, this does not account for other possible conceptions of greatness. For instance, Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism have different understandings of the divine. Additionally, the argument's focus on a being that appears to humans raises questions about the nature of divine intervention and ethical responsibility.

Ethical Relevance: Critiques of the ontological argument also touch on ethical considerations. For example, the argument does not address ethical issues such as the existence of evil, the justice of divine judgment, or the moral obligations of a religious figure. A being that tests faith by not appearing directly, as hypothesized by the Catholic God, may seem less virtuous or just than other conceptions of greatness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the ontological argument presents an interesting framework for philosophical inquiry, its logical and semantic flaws, combined with the theological and ethical implications, render it unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence. The argument's reliance on circular reasoning, individual conceptions of greatness, and value judgments make it a less compelling form of argumentation.