Philosophy
Page 5
The thought experiment at the beginning of this chapter is based on a legend concerning the French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623–62). Pascal was a child prodigy who scorned religion until he was involved in a carriage accident that nearly cost him his life. He experienced a revelation, joined a church, and was left with the awkward task of explaining his change of heart to his sceptical friends. The result was ‘Pascal’s Wager’ – the gamble for eternal life.
The view that we should believe in God without proof is known as fideism, from the Latin word for ‘faith’.
Of course, there are significant problems with Pascal’s Wager. Suppose that, based on your supernatural experience in hospital, you decide to believe in God. Then, that very night, you have another supernatural experience. This time, you hear a different voice saying it will condemn you to an eternity in hell if you believe the first voice!
Now what? Which voice should you believe?
Once you make up your mind which voice to believe, we’ll just add a third voice, and then a fourth, and so on. Before you know it, you’ll be ready for the loony bin.
While few people experience a supernatural conflict like this, the very possibility of such a conflict calls into question the idea of believing in order to earn a reward. That is, if you reason ‘I guess I should go to church and pray, just in case there is a powerful being who wants me to,’ you can just as easily reason ‘I guess shouldn’t go to church and pray, just in case there is a powerful being who doesn’t want me to.’ What makes one line of reasoning any better than the other?
Another criticism of Pascal’s Wager comes from the American philosopher William James (1842–1910), who argues that it provides the wrong kind of motivation for sincere religious belief. He doubts that any God would look kindly on someone who believes in order to gain eternal life. James writes:
‘We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted wilfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith’s reality; and if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward.’
William James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659.txt)
The ontological proof
Anselm was a Benedictine monk who became archbishop of Canterbury. He describes his entire philosophy as ‘faith seeking understanding’, insisting that he himself never felt he needed proof of the existence of God. His excuse for developing a proof comes from a Bible passage concerning a ‘fool who hath said in his heart that there is no God’. Anselm’s ingenious proof is addressed to this ‘fool’ – an atheist, someone who does not believe in God.
The proof is called ‘ontological’ from the Greek word for ‘being’ because it is based on a distinction between two different kinds of existence: mental and real. A painting provides a good example of this distinction: first it exists in the mind of the artist, and then, after the artist creates it, it exists in reality.
The issue between the theist and the atheist, according to Anselm, is whether God exists only in the mind or whether he exists both in the mind and also in reality. Each side of the debate should agree that God exists in the mind. After all, even the most die-hard atheists can think of God; if they couldn’t, then they wouldn’t understand what they didn’t believe in. Therefore, God certainly has ‘being-in-the-mind’.
But there are plenty of things that have ‘being-in-the-mind’ without having ‘being-in-reality’. Consider Santa Claus. Everyone knows who Santa Claus is. Close your eyes for a moment right now and think about Santa… You know just how Santa looks (the red suit, the white beard, the twinkle in his eye), and you know all sorts of things about him (the workshop at the North Pole, the sleigh led by Rudolf, the Christmas Eve gift deliveries). Yet (spoiler alert!) you also know that he doesn’t exist.
You might be thinking that, as long as you have an idea of God in your own mind, then he exists for you, regardless. But this is a confusion. After all, little children around the world have an idea of Santa in their own minds. This doesn’t mean that Santa exists for them. It means that they think he exists. And, of course, they’re wrong about that, as they will soon find out.
Now compare the case of Santa Claus to the case of Johnny Depp. Everyone knows who he is, too. Close your eyes and think about him right now…
You know what he looks like and you know all sorts of things about him. What’s more, if you could find his house and get him to answer his door, you could actually meet him. This is to say that Johnny Depp has ‘being-in-the-mind’ as well as ‘being-in-reality’.
Anselm’s question is this: Is God like Santa or is God like Johnny Depp?
Spotlight
Two goldfish in a bowl talking:
Goldfish 1: Do you believe in God?
Goldfish 2: Of course I do! Who do you think changes the water?
Defining God
The atheist argues that God is like Santa: everyone is going to find out some day that he doesn’t really exist. But can God have being-in-the-mind while lacking being-in-reality, as the atheist supposes? Anselm thinks not. In order to understand why, we must look closer at God’s being-in-the-mind.
When we think of God, what do we think of? God is supposed to be the supreme being of the universe. At the very least, he is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal. No doubt he has a great number of other characteristics, some of which we may not be able to imagine. One thing we can say for certain, however, is that God is that being than which no greater can be conceived. If you can think of a being that is greater than God, then you don’t understand what God is.
So, Anselm proposes that the theist and the atheist should agree to define God as that being than which no greater can be conceived. Admittedly, the grammar of this definition is a little awkward. For simplicity, we could substitute ‘greatest conceivable being’. But this would presuppose that the human mind can fully conceive of God, which may not be the case. Although we may not be able to fully conceive of God, we at least know that we can’t conceive of anything greater than God. Hence, the theist and the atheist should agree that this is how God exists in the mind: as that being than which no greater can be conceived.
Once atheists grant this step, however, the rest of the argument comes crashing down on them with alarming speed. Observe Anselm’s irresistible logic:
Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.
Anselm, Proslogium (www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.asp)
Existing in reality and in the mind is greater than existing in the mind alone. So, if God existed only in the mind, then it would be possible to conceive of a being that is greater than him. But it is impossible for there to be a being that is greater than the greatest being! This is a contradiction in terms. Therefore God must not exist only in the mind. He must exist both in the mind and in reality.
Gaunilo’s response
Anselm’s argument is still today considered one of the cleverest ever made. It has received a great deal of attention from philosophers of every stripe throughout history. So compact and powerful – it should make everyone think twice.
Nevertheless, it is not foolproof. In fact, another monk named Gaunilo of Marmoutiers wrote a reply to Anselm ‘on behalf of the fool’. In it, Guanillo points out that, if Anselm’s argument works for God, then it should work for a whole host of other beings that are completely imaginary.
For example, think of ‘Lost Island’ – that island than which no greater can be conceived. Surely this island must re
ally exist, because, if it didn’t have being-in-reality as well as being-in-the-mind, then it would be possible to conceive of an island that was greater than that island than which no greater can be conceived. Impossible! So Lost Island exists… along with the Best Mango, the Perfect Car, the Ideal Lover, and whatever else you like – which is absurd.
Guanilo’s argument is a parody of Anselm’s reasoning, indicating that something has gone dreadfully wrong. But it’s not easy to put one’s finger on the exact problem.
Two kinds of existence?
Perhaps the problem lies in Anselm’s twofold conception of existence. Anselm sets out to prove that God has being-in-reality in addition to being-in-the-mind – as though being-in-reality and being-in-the-mind are two different ways for something to exist. But, on closer examination, this is a strange proposal.
When you say ‘Santa Claus exists in my mind’, what you really mean is ‘I have an idea of Santa.’ And having an idea of something doesn’t necessarily mean that thing has mental existence.
Consider what happens in your brain when you think of Santa – certain neurons fire. It’s not as though a little guy in a red suit literally pops into your head. It may feel like that, especially if you have a vivid imagination – it feels as though you can ‘see’ Santa in your mind. But a thought is actually an action – it’s a tiny motion in your brain; it’s not a thing at all.
If there is no such thing as ‘being-in-the-mind’, then Anselm’s proof cannot get off the ground.
Of course, idealists insist that the physical world is not ultimately real. If Plato is right, then the apparent actions in our brains really are reflections of an eternal realm of Forms. Perhaps these Forms have being-in-the-mind, entitling Anselm to his twofold conception of existence, after all.
In the end, whether or not you are sympathetic to the ontological proof largely depends on your epistemology. Empiricists reject Anselm’s approach on the grounds that it posits a kind of being that is not empirically observable. Meanwhile, many innatists insist that Anselm’s argument actually works and is completely convincing.
Whether or not the ontological proof works, its concept of God as ‘that being than which no greater can be conceived’ highlights an important philosophical problem.
The problem of evil
In ancient times, before the rise of Christianity in Europe, the dominant religion was polytheism – belief in many gods. One of the great advantages of polytheism is that it enables you to explain why the world is so full of sorrow: the gods often fight among themselves and, when they do, human beings pay the price.
War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, the Ice Capades… This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being.
George Carlin
In the Middle Ages, polytheism was replaced by monotheism – belief in a single, supreme God, which Anselm so famously defined. While simplifying faith, belief in one God makes our sorrowful world hard to understand. If God is ‘that being than which no greater can be conceived’, then why is his creation so full of trouble?
This question was especially vivid during the European Middle Ages when even basic survival was so hard. War, famine, plague, bitter cold, poor sanitation, abject poverty and rampant crime made life almost unbearable for the vast majority of people – and the situation is similar today in many places around the world. It may be understandable for God to punish bad people by letting them suffer. But why do bad things happen to good people? This is known as the problem of evil.
If something especially tragic has ever happened to you, you may have pondered the problem of evil yourself. For some, the inordinate amount of suffering in this world provides proof against the existence of God. In fact, the problem of evil is probably the most influential argument for atheism. Philosophers make the argument this way:
1 If God exists, then he is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving.
2 If God is all-knowing, then he knows about all the evil in the world.
3 If God is all-powerful, then he is able to banish it.
4 If God is all-loving, then he wants to banish it.
5 Yet evil has not been banished.
6 Therefore, God must not exist.
Defence of God
Of course, theists have presented many possible responses to this argument. A defence against the charge that evil is inconsistent with God’s existence is known as a theodicy. Theodicies usually attack step 4 of the above argument, saying that, although God is all-loving, he doesn’t want to banish all the evil in the world. On the contrary, he has good reasons for allowing it.
The Roman Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE), who was greatly influenced by Plato and a great influence upon Anselm, was deeply concerned about the problem of evil.
At first, Augustine thought that God allowed evil in the world in order to protect human free will. If God prevented us all from making bad choices, then we would be robots rather than human beings. Augustine soon realized, however, that this explanation cannot account for natural evils, such as birth defects, tornados or random accidents, which don’t involve bad choices.
In order to account for natural evils, Augustine developed the idea that the goodness comes in degrees.
And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?
Augustine, Enchiridion, Ch. 11 (http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augenchiridion/enchiridion01-23.html)
In this passage, Augustine asserts that evil is necessary in order to appreciate goodness. If God had made a perfect world, human beings would take it for granted – like a bunch of spoiled rich kids.
The main problem with this argument is that it doesn’t account for the unequal distribution of evil. Think of a child born in Africa with sickle cell anaemia. She is sick from the day she is born, grows up in poverty, never learns to read, and dies before reaching adulthood. Another child born as healthy as can be in Canada has loving parents, laughs and plays happily every day of her life, receives an excellent education, marries well and raises a beautiful family. This seems extremely unfair. If a mother treated her own two children in such an unequal way, we would declare her unfit for motherhood. Yet God is supposed to be the wisest parent of all.
Augustine considered this problem and concluded that God must store up special rewards in heaven for those who experience undue suffering during life on earth. Maybe we should feel sorry for the Canadian child instead, because her happiness is only temporary.
This is an interesting proposal. Would it be acceptable for a mother to shower one of her children with benefits while allowing the other to suffer, provided she later gave a special reward to the one who suffered? Which child would you rather be: the child who neither suffers nor receives the special reward or the one who suffers and then receives the special reward? Should one be given a choice in the matter?
These are rather outrageous questions – questions that some religious believers would regard as inappropriate. According to tradition, it is not for human beings to question God’s mysterious ways. But, according to philosophers, there is no such thing as an inappropriate question. It’s no wonder they’re always getting into trouble.
Key ideas
Atheist: Someone who does not believe in God
Epistemology: An approach to the search for knowledge
Fideism: The view that we should believe in God without proof
Monotheism: Belief in a single, supreme God
Ontological proof: Anselm’s argument for the existence of God based on a distinction between two different kinds of existence: mental and real
Pascal’s Wager: The gamble for eternal life: you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God without proof
Polytheism: Belief in many gods
Problem of evil: Why do bad things happen to good people?
That being than which no greater can be conceived: Anselm’s definition of God
Theodicy: A defence against the charge that evil is inconsistent with God’s existence
Fact-check
1 The view that we should believe in God without proof is known as…
a Epistemology
b Teleology
c Ontology
d Fideism
2 Which of the following provides a criticism of Pascal’s Wager?
a The Easter Bunny could give an eternal reward to all and only those who believe in him
b One should have a choice about whether or not to believe in God
c Everyone has the right to believe what they want
d The world is not ultimately real
3 Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God is based on which of the following?
a A distinction between two different kinds of existence
b The design we observe in nature
c A gamble for an infinite reward
d The problem of evil
4 Which of the following is an epistemological question?
a Why do bad things happen to good people?