© Shutterstock
When you were in your school’s chemistry lab, did you ever attempt to prove the production of hydrogen gas with your eyes closed? If you tried it, there’s a chance you would have received a restraining order from the chemistry lab. However, there was one such experiment, or conceptual argument, that solely relied on our minds without the need of any empirical evidence. The ontological argument for God’s existence which was first proposed by St Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, essentially tried to prove God without our eyes and ears, relying solely on the strength of unaided human reason; this is what we call an a priori argument, an argument that is independent of sensory experience. On the other hand, an a posteriori argument is one which draws from empirical observations, other arguments for God’s existence rely on empirical data such as the cosmological and teleological arguments. But is Anselm’s dependence on the mind alone enough to prove that God exists or is our human reason inherently incapable of grasping God’s existence when left unaided? This analysis of the ontological argument will show exactly what goes wrong when empiricism, rationalism and revelation are not working symbiotically.
Anselm first made the case for the ontological argument in his short philosophical 11th century work, Proslogion. The argument is a huge philosophical gamble and something that stood distinct from the other arguments for God’s existence that in some way relied on empirical evidence. Anselm makes the case that the very concept of God carries with it the conceptual truth that God is a being than which nothing greater can be imagined. Since such an idea can be imagined and conceived in the mind, existence of such an idea, in this reality, would make that being greater than the concept solely conceived in the mind. Therefore, God exists. Anselm asserts through his argument that to exist is better than not to exist, therefore, if God is the greatest possible being then His existence is what predicates His perfection.
However, Guanilo of Marmoutier, an 11th century Benedictine monk who was known for his influential critique of Anselm’s ontological argument, voiced his renowned perfect island critique. It goes that if the most perfect island can be conceived in the mind, then an island that is given existence in this reality is greater than the conception of the perfect island in the mind, which means that this conceived perfect island exists.
There are logical inconsistencies in Gaunilo’s critique, he makes a brazen categorical error in that the metric for perfection of a physical island cannot be used to describe the perfection of God. God, according to Anselm, has properties which have something called intrinsic maximums – qualities which can reach a maximum level of perfection, such as His omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection. However, an island’s perfection could always be outdone or contested by different requirements or ideas of what a perfect island could be. Additionally, an island depends on something for its own existence, it cannot explain its own existence which is contrary to the maximally great God that Anselm is arguing for, which is a God that is eternally existing. Therefore, according to the God being argued for, it is impossible for God not to exist as the maximally great being, whereas it is possible for the perfect island to have not existed, the two are in completely different ontological categories which cannot be compared.
However, it can be argued that it is quite of a difficult conceptual venture to jump from mind to existence by abstractly adding existence as if it was some quality or characteristic like the ripeness of an apple or the kindness of a friend. This is exactly what Immanuel Kant found wrong with Anselm’s argument. He argued that existence is not a predicate, basically existence is not a quality that can be added to something, but rather existence is the requirement for qualities to be added on in the first place. The apple needs to exist before its ripeness can be described.
However, there is a second version of the ontological argument in the Proslogion which attempts to conceptually reconcile such a critique. Anselm slightly shifts the focality of his premise, rather than asserting that the ascription of existence is perfection, he shifts to say that necessary existence is perfection. He argues that, since it is possible to conceive of a being for whom non-existence is impossible, and this being is better than a being for whom non-existence is possible, there must then be a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist (who cannot just not exist); therefore, God exists. To put it simply, Anselm essentially argues that a being whose existence is necessary is logically greater than a being whose existence is not necessary. This formulation of the ontological argument is a little more bulletproof to Kant’s critique in that existence is now inextricably tied to the very essence of the God that is being conceived, it no longer is an additional property that is added on, the essence of God is existence itself.
The discussion and back-and-forth that ensues from the ambitiousness and audacity of the ontological argument shows just how fragile burdening our human reason, without any aid or support, with the task of arriving at the truth, is. Just as we would never burden our sight alone to differentiate between salt and sugar, burdening our minds alone with the task of discovering the existence of God can only result in uncertainty. The ontological argument, even without the aid of empirical data sets, proves effective at directing our rationale towards the existence of God however, it stops abruptly at its premises. Critics are indeed right to be sceptical about such a philosophical feat to provide the intellectual bases for our beliefs and actions, so what shifts our intellectual journey from one of logical assumptions and their derived conclusions to a categorical certainty of God’s existence?
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the holy founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, explains in The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, that experiential knowledge of God, which can only be received through His Grace in the form of revelation, dreams and answered prayers, is what constitutes a categorical certain knowledge of His existence. Much like one would be sceptical of the actual existence of a fire if he solely relied on the premise of seeing smoke rising from beyond a hill, relying solely on human reason, which is scattered by doubts and weakness, certain knowledge of God can only come once one actually experiences God, or, in the case of the smoke and the fire, when one touches and feels the effects of that fire.
So, can you really prove God with your eyes closed? You can certainly try as Anselm did, but you’d have to spend the rest of your life guessing and dodging scepticism and doubts, because what natural theology fails to achieve is certain proof and settles instead for doubtful indications. I would never try to guess the sugar from the salt when sweetening my tea with just my eyes, in the same way I would never attempt to find God with my just my reasoning, because in this experiment, the stakes are certainly higher.
About the author: Hazeem Arif graduated from Jamia Ahmadiyya UK in 2024 with a Shahid degree in Islamic Theology and Modern Languages. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of The Review of Religions while pursuing further studies in Religion, Philosophy and Ethics at King’s College London
Add Comment