The Ontological Argument and Modern Concepts of God

The ontological argument, one of the most intriguing and debated arguments in philosophical theology, seeks to prove the existence of God through reason alone. It is a topic that has captivated thinkers from Anselm of Canterbury to contemporary philosophers.

This argument posits that the very concept of God necessitates His existence. In an age where modern science and secularism challenge traditional beliefs, re-examining this argument provides valuable insights into how we understand divinity today.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument, first formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, is a fascinating exercise in pure reason. Anselm’s approach begins with the definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” From this definition, he argues that the very concept of God implies His existence. If God exists only in the mind, then a greater being could be conceived—one that exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, God must exist in reality, as existing in reality is greater than existing merely as an idea.

This argument has been revisited and refined by numerous philosophers over the centuries. René Descartes, for instance, offered a version of the ontological argument in the 17th century. Descartes posited that the idea of a supremely perfect being includes existence, much like the idea of a triangle includes the property of having three angles. For Descartes, the existence of God is as self-evident as the most basic mathematical truths.

In the 20th century, the ontological argument found new life through the work of philosophers like Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga introduced the concept of possible worlds to the argument, suggesting that if it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then such a being must exist in some possible world. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it must exist in every possible world, including our own. This modal version of the argument has sparked renewed interest and debate.

The Concept of God

The concept of God has evolved significantly over time, reflecting changes in philosophical thought, scientific understanding, and cultural context. In classical theism, God is often portrayed as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This traditional view sees God as the ultimate creator, a being wholly other yet intimately involved in the fabric of the universe. However, this portrayal is not static; it has been reinterpreted and challenged through various lenses.

In the medieval period, theologians like Thomas Aquinas integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine, portraying God as the “Unmoved Mover.” This conception emphasized God’s role as the foundational cause of all existence. Moving into the Enlightenment, deistic perspectives emerged, suggesting a God who created the universe but does not interfere with its workings. This shift reflected a growing emphasis on reason and empirical evidence, distancing the divine from the day-to-day operations of the world.

Modern interpretations often grapple with reconciling God’s attributes with contemporary scientific understandings. Process theology, for example, views God not as an unchanging omnipotent being but as one who is in process, evolving with the universe. This perspective aligns more closely with the dynamic nature of modern cosmology and quantum mechanics, offering a vision of God that is both relational and mutable.

The experiential dimension of God also cannot be overlooked. Mystical traditions across various religions emphasize personal encounters with the divine, suggesting that God is not merely an abstract concept but an experiential reality. These traditions often describe God in terms that transcend language and rational thought, pointing to a reality that is deeply felt but not easily articulated.

In contemporary discourse, the concept of God is also examined through the prism of existential and humanistic philosophies. Thinkers such as Paul Tillich and Martin Buber have explored God as the “ground of being” or as a presence encountered in deep, authentic relationships. These perspectives highlight the existential relevance of God, focusing on how the divine informs human experience and ethical living.

Criticisms and Responses

The ontological argument has faced a myriad of criticisms over the centuries, with many philosophers questioning its validity and soundness. One of the earliest and most enduring critiques came from Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm, who argued that the logic of the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect entity, such as a perfect island. This reductio ad absurdum aimed to show that conceptualizing a perfect being does not necessarily entail its existence.

Immanuel Kant provided another significant challenge to the ontological argument. He contended that existence is not a predicate or a property that can be attributed to a being. According to Kant, saying that something exists does not add to the concept of that thing; it merely posits the presence of the concept in reality. This critique suggests that the ontological argument fails because it treats existence as a quality that enhances the concept of God, rather than as a condition for the concept to be instantiated.

Modern philosophers have also engaged with the argument, often through the lens of linguistic and logical analysis. Bertrand Russell, for example, argued that the ontological argument conflates the use of language and logic. He suggested that the argument mistakenly treats the term “God” as if it were a name that inherently carries existence, rather than a description that needs to be substantiated by empirical evidence. This linguistic critique highlights potential flaws in the way the argument constructs its premises and conclusions.

Despite these criticisms, proponents of the ontological argument have offered various responses. Some argue that Gaunilo’s analogy of the perfect island fails because islands, unlike God, are contingent beings and do not possess necessary existence. In response to Kant, defenders like Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm have posited that existence, when attributed to God, is indeed a unique and necessary property, unlike the existence of ordinary objects. They suggest that Kant’s critique does not adequately address the specific nature of divine existence.