A2 - Lesson - 'The OA does not build faith.' To what extent do you agree with this statement?28/11/2014
21 Comments
kp
29/11/2014 11:21:49 pm
The view that the ontological argument does not build faith is one that is often debated by philosophers, most adopting the view that the argument does not go on to do anything other than to define God. Although it can be said that the argument helps people with faith think more deeply about their God, it does not provide an atheist with reason for believing in God. The main question surrounding the ontological argument for religious faith is whether it presents valid reasons for believing in God. This brings forth the question as to whether faith is grounded in reason or reason is governed by faith. In Proslogion Anselm wrote “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe […], but rather I believe so that I can understand” By this Anslem reveals his belief in the relationship between reason and faith and how they work together to bring about awareness of God. In the quote Anselm is saying that reason alone can lead to error and therefore it must be supported by faith, as it is only though faith that we can achieve a greater understanding of God, “unless I believe I shall not understand”.
Reply
kp
29/11/2014 11:39:01 pm
It could be said that the ontological argument has no real value for building faith as it does not shake off atheists opposing views, despite the view that the argument results in believers being able to have a more attainable concept of God. It can also be said that because the ontological argument allows the believer to consider God’s attributes in a form that uses logic and reasoning the argument could perhaps weaken faith as it goes against the very foundations of religion. The literal definition of religion is “belief in” God, this belief is meant to derive solely from fideism in God, and therefore an argument that is logically untouchable even to the likes of Bertrand Russell who said that the argument is rationally “sound” rules out reason for having faith. This however contrasts the Christian view on what faith is, as they believe that faith without reason leads to superstition, however it can still be argued that absolute reason, in the case of modern interpretations of the ontological argument still rules out this Christian view, thereby being useless to religion, and even being cause for failing faith through the use of reason. This is as we have a “bullet-proof” example that may have once concerned faith when Anselm first wrote it, but now is logically possible to those without faith, therefore this argument could result in weakening faith. This view on the effects on the argument concerning faith also contradicts the views of those who believe that faith and reason go hand in hand.
Reply
kp
29/11/2014 11:57:11 pm
From this it is palpable that the effects of the multitudes of opposing views on Anselm’s argument result in a very unclear understanding on what the argument was initially trying to communicate, and perhaps Anslem did not realise the effects this piece of work could have if it was taken seriously, in terms of it acting against what he initially created it for despite the views of Karl Barth and others who share similar opinions. It can be supposed that Rene Descartes’ “Argument from the Origin of the idea of God”, provides support for the ontological argument and its use in strengthening people’s faith as it provides a similar proposition in which God is the only logical answer. Overall, the only logical conclusion that could arise from the arguments surrounding Anselm’s proposition is that it does not weaken or strengthen faith in any significant way. This is because even if the argument is proven entirely false believers will still have faith, similarly as it is logical and could be seen to share some truth believers will consider it, however it will not be a determining factor to them having faith, as a result not strengthening it to any significant amount.
Reply
PersianPrince
30/11/2014 12:30:20 am
The OA was first proposed by St.Anselm in his book the Proslogian in the 11th century, and then developed by Rennes Descartes during the 16th century. The deductive argument uses language that is analytic to explain God’s existence during a period where his existence was almost never questioned.
Reply
PersianPrince
30/11/2014 12:31:44 am
The ontological argument that was initially proposed by Anselm was only intended to explain God’s existence for those that already believe. However when it was later redeveloped by Descartes, a mathematician, it was intended to prove the very existence of God. Therefore for believers and non-believers alike, it could have been used to develop faith following the logical statements of the argument; God is the greatest conceivable being, existence is perfection, therefore God must exist. Using the analogy of the triangle to demonstrate that if one were to not have 3 sides, it wouldn’t be a triangle, he uses a form of empiricism to demonstrate his argument; hence the OA can indeed be used to build faith for anyone. Conversely, some people may agree with the statement due to the criticisms put forward by various scholars. Kant criticised the assumption of existence being a predicate, made by Descartes and Anselm for existence is a perfection – i.e. they had all claimed that it is better to exist than not to exist and thus that the most perfect being would have to exist. Kant rejected this because he argued that existence is a necessary ground for any other perfection to be meaningful rather than just another in a list of perfections. E.g. saying a cow is in a local field does not tell us about the qualities of the cow, whether it’s big, small or black etc.
Reply
PersianPrince
30/11/2014 12:39:02 am
Because Descartes argument was ultimately found to be flawed, it is not possible for the ontological argument to build faith in a way which proves the existence of God to someone that had never previously acknowledged his existence. Therefore in that aspect, the statement is correct in saying that the OA does not build faith. However as initially intended by Anselm, it could still be used to perhaps reaffirm faith in the case of a believer in God.
Reply
GR
1/12/2014 01:45:11 am
The Ontological Argument was proposed by Anselm which provides an explanation of God and builds an understanding of His definition. The argument was written in a time where God's existence was never doubted and it can be said that it is written on behalf of Anselm's faith as he wrote it to God in his book the Proslogian.
Reply
GR
1/12/2014 02:03:38 am
It can be said that the Ontological Argument does build faith, however only for those who already have faith and belief in God. As the argument was written in the 11th century where most people already had faith in God's existence, the argument did not intend to prove God's existence, instead it wanted to provide knowledge and an understanding of God.As said by Augustine, the ontological argument 'reconciles faith and reason to bring them together, they work together' with this, it is clear that the argument already consists of faith, particularly as it is written by Anselm who was a strong believer.Therefore, the argument uses the bases of faith and provides reason to build on those who already have faith, because those who do will instantly have a greater understanding of the argument which will provide them with great value. As stated by Iris Murdoch, the ontological argument has anti-realist meaning and is particularly meaningful to those who understand what the definition of God is; ultimately giving their faith and beliefs more value through the support that the argument provides for who God is.
Reply
GR
1/12/2014 02:07:59 am
Overall, it is clear that the Ontological Argument is successful in building the faith of those who already have strong faith and belief in God. However, the Ontological Argument fails to provide those who are athiest or agnostic with faith, but this does not stand as a criticism of the argument as Anselm's purpose was never to prove God's existence instead he wanted to provide knowledge of who God is. Ultimately, the Ontological Argument does build faith on those who already have a greater understanding of God and as a result gives each individual's faith more value.
Reply
TB
1/12/2014 06:11:28 am
The ontoloical argument was proposed by Anselm to provide an explanation of God in a time where His existence was not questioned. It is based on faith. The ontological argument was later developed by Descartes.
Reply
TB
1/12/2014 07:43:39 am
The ontological argument has an anti-realist meaning. This means a statement is true or false depending on the situation the person understandss it. As the ontological argument is built on faith, all talk of God will only make sense to those who already believe. Iris Murdoch supports this as she says that it is "meaningful to the individual or group who understand what the definition of God means". And therefore, all talk of God to non-believers will make no sense. This is because they may not understand what the definition of God is.
Reply
TB
1/12/2014 07:49:44 am
In conclusion, the ontological argument strengthens the faith of those who already believe, but fails to build faith in non-believers. This does not act as a criticism to the ontological argument though, as Anselm's purpose was not to provide non-believers with faith, but to provide an explanation of God and strengthen the believers faith.
Reply
The cosmological argument is a priori argument devised by Anselm, the purpose of this argument was not to prove the existence of God because in the time it was brought forth the idea that God existed was an innate belief. Meaning that it did not have to be proven therefore was not debated because it was a brute fact that God existed, and the faith of believers reinforced this belief.
Reply
It could be said that the ontological does build faith but only for a believer, because faith is"the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:39. Therefore, empirical evidence is not necessary for God to exist for a believer because as Dawkins states "religious beliefs depend on myth and faith". As a result, the ontological argument will build faith for a believer because Anselm referring to God as "that which nothing greater can be conceived" reinforces his omnipotence and Omni-benevolence and reminds the religious of why they consider him to be God. Nevertheless, it could be said that it fails to build or produce faith for a non-believer because atheists,rationalists and those who uphold secular beliefs would base the existence of God on rationality. Therefore, if there is no empirical proof for the existence of God he does not exist, as scientists do not believe an assertion to be a fact until it is empirically proven. "scientific beliefs are supported by scientific evidence and are reliable" Although within the Ontological Argument, Bertrand Russell did acknowledge that God is the "greatest being", hence why he is referred to as God, he refuted the fact that he exists because the Ontological Argument failed to demonstrate this by presenting existence as a predicate and this is a philosophical mistake. As a result, the argument would fail to build faith for a non-believer because not only does the argument fail to do so by making existence a predicate and presenting an anti-realist view, but within the world where there is evil and suffering. If God did exist a non-believer would believe that a being who obtains all power and "is love" would prevent it, but through a rational mind-set, because evil and suffering still exists, God cannot exist, because if he did and evil and suffering was still present this will diminish and tarnish the concept of God.
Reply
To conclude, it could be said that the ontological argument only builds faith for a believer because they already have faith. Therefore, they are not expecting the existence of God to be proven. The same with Anselm. However, it cannot produce or build faith for a non-believer because they have no faith therefore they would be relying on evidence and because the ontological argument does not seek to prove the existence of God, and does not prove the existence of God. Those without faith in the concept of God and his necessity in the world will not develop faith.
Reply
It could be argued that the ontological does build faith but only for a believer, because faith is"the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:39. Therefore, empirical evidence is not necessary for God to exist for a believer because as Dawkins states "religious beliefs depend on myth and faith". As a result, the ontological argument will build faith for a believer because Anselm referring to God as "that which nothing greater can be conceived" reinforces his omnipotence and Omni-benevolence and reminds the religious of why they consider him to be God. Nevertheless, it could be said that it fails to build or produce faith for a non-believer because atheists,rationalists and those who uphold secular beliefs would base the existence of God on rationality. Therefore, if there is no empirical proof for the existence of God he does not exist, as scientists do not believe an assertion to be a fact until it is empirically proven. "scientific beliefs are supported by scientific evidence and are reliable" Although within the Ontological Argument, Bertrand Russell did acknowledge that God is the "greatest being", hence why he is referred to as God, he refuted the fact that he exists because the Ontological Argument failed to demonstrate this by presenting existence as a predicate and this is a philosophical mistake. As a result, the argument would fail to build faith for a non-believer because not only does the argument fail to do so by making existence a predicate and presenting an anti-realist view, but within the world where there is evil and suffering. If God did exist a non-believer would believe that a being who obtains all power and "is love" would prevent it, but through a rational mind-set, because evil and suffering still exists, God cannot exist, because if he did and evil and suffering was still present this will diminish and tarnish the concept of God.
Reply
EJ
1/12/2014 05:48:26 pm
The OA is an a priori argument proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury. It was not to prove the existence of God, yet, to build a better understanding of God’s attributes. However, after the enlightenment period in which the OA was written, philosophers and mathematicians such as Rene Descartes had alerted the argument to prove God’s existence. The adaptation of a new argument was influenced by a new era, an era in which everyone began to question the existence of God.
Reply
EJ
1/12/2014 05:48:57 pm
“The OA does not build faith” this claim is true to a certain extent. If a believer was to approach the argument, then it is likely it will consolidate their belief on God’s existence. Essentially, it will provide an individual with a better understanding to God, and why they perceive Him as “than that which nothing greater can be conceived”. Iris Murdoch would support this concept by arguing that the argument complements human Meta cognitive; helping them understand why they have these though processes. However, the OA does very little in attempting to convert an atheist to believe in God. There is a sense of absurdity attached to the argument; Immanuel Kant would support this as he states one cannot simply define something into existence. If this were to be true, the possibility of anything and everything existing is ludicrous. This could also apply to a believer as well, as a person believing in God may have a different concept of God and “than that which nothing greater can be conceived” may not be acceptable for one. Ultimately, this damages the structure of the argument all together. Nonetheless, the objective aim in this argument is to be significantly remembered – to seek understanding and not proof.
Reply
EJ
1/12/2014 05:49:32 pm
Overall, the OA succeeds more in building the faith of an individual who already has faith in God. Despite the lacking in evidence and explanation, Anselm presents this argument through logical reasoning. Analytically, God is the greatest being, if one was to deny this, then they are going against the facts. The OA will only build faith depending on the person, and how willing they are to believe in something with no empirical evidence.
Reply
Banter
1/12/2014 07:43:43 pm
The Ontological argument is an argument not designed to build faith or to prove anything, therefore, upon inspection, it is easy to conclude that it does not build faith of a non-believer, something that is hard to do, it instead does build the faith of those who do believe because anything that provides logical proof, something the OA does, even the stark atheist Russell agrees that it is logical to conclude God exists from looking at the OA. This provides a significant proof that the OA does build faith, however, only for the believer as it is impossible to convert a non-believer using the OA.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
This is for our A2 lessonsAny questions or thoughts? Archives
March 2015
Categories |