09b. Anselm and the Argument for God. Part 2/2.
{Video: 04:07}
Well Anselm thought so too. And from there, he believed he could prove God's existence. Because if we define God as the greatest thing that we can conjure up in our minds, the only thing that could possibly greater than Him would be a real version. And since we're already imagining the greatest thing possible, there can't be anything better. Therefore, God has to exist, both in my imagination and in reality.
Anselm was sure he had done it, deductively proven God's existence in a way that was immune to error. Here it is, one more time, laid out as a philosophical argument:
God is the greatest thing we can think of. Things can exist only in our imaginations, or they can also exist in reality. Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist only in our imaginations. If God existed only in our imaginations, he wouldn't be the greatest thing that we can think of, because God in reality would be better. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm thought this was a tiny little argument. But one of his contemporaries, a fellow French monk named Guanilo, wasn't satisfied. He suggested that we could run the same line of reasoning to prove the existence of literally anything we can imagine. He came up with an argument with the exact same formal structure as Anselm's, to prove that a mythical Lost Island exists. He proposed, the best island I can imagine is one where I can swim and relax on a tropical beach and ski down snow-covered mountains all in one after noon. I can imagine it, so it us exist. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the best island there would be one better. And that one would have to be real! Basically, Guanilo said, you could make the same kind of argument to prove the existence of whatever you most wanted, but it wouldn't make it real. Anselm responded to Guanilo's criticism by saying he'd missed the point, that the argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one, God. Folks, what we have right here is a classic example of the fallacy known as begging the question. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, something that weakens or destroys an argument. And when you beg the question, you assume the very thing you're trying to prove with your argument. By adding this idea of "a necessary being" to his definition of God, Anselm makes God's existence a part of the definition of God. A necessary being is one that must exist, so Anselm's response assumes the very point of contention to be true, that God exists. Other philosophers since Anselm have tried to save his argument by tweaking it in various ways, and dissenters have continued trying to deflate them. One of the most famous objections came hundreds of years after Anselm's time, from the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant offered the point that, as he put it, "existence is not a predicate." A predicate is just something that's said of another object. And Kant thought Anselm's mistake was thinking that existence is something that can be predicated upon a thing, or be used as a defining characteristic. For example, if a triangle exists, it necessarily has 3 sides. But it could be that no triangle exists at all. Because the idea of existence isn't part of how we define a triangle. Likewise, Kant would say, if God exists, then he must be the greatest being we can imagine, but that does not mean that he does exist. Predicates add to the essence of their objects, Kant explained, but they can't be used to prove their existence. British philosopher John Wisdom came up with a thought exercise that sounds a lot like a debate over an ontological argument. It's called The Parable of The Invisible Gardener, which brings us to this week's Flash Philosophy. Let's go to the Thought Bubble. Person A and Person B return to a garden after a long absence, and notice that a few of its plants are still thriving. Person A says, a gardener must have been tending the garden while they were gone. Person B doubts this is true, so they agree to wait and see if a gardener shows up. After some time passes, they see no one, so Person A says: "The gardener is invisible!" So, They put up traps and bring in bloodhounds to catch him. When no one is found Person A says the gardener must be intangible as well as unsmellable. To which B replies: "What's the difference between an invisible, intangible, unsmellable, entirely undetectable gardener... and no gardener at all?" Thanks Thought Bubble!
Can you guess who A and B are really talking about? To give you a sense of how long this back-and-forth has been going on among philosophers, trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God, John Wisdom came up with this parable in 1944, nearly a thousand years after Anselm and Gaunilo.
Today we introduced a new area of philosophy, a philosophy of religion. And we learned about Anselm's argument for God's existence, while also considering objections to that argument. An important point to note here is that both Guanilo and Kant agreed with Anselm's conclusion, they also believed in God's existence. They just thought Anselm's argument didn't prove it. So remember, you can think an argument fails, even if you accept the conclusion. When this happens, you should look for a better argument in favor of your conclusion. This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas did, and we'll consider him next time. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless of skill level, no coding required. Try Squarespace at Squarespace.com/CrashCourse for a special offer.
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out some amazing shows like Shanx FX, Its Okay to be Smart, and The Art Assignment. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
