Religion has always been the guiding or conditioning force of the human race across geographical boundaries or cultural differences. Although the world has not registered a unified religious belief, still the different religious beliefs too have somehow acted as amalgamating force for the people along the timeline of human history. Scientific advancement and the modern man have questioned the infallibility of religion and the existence of God now is left to be proved to the mammoth civilization that dwells across the globe in the present day.
One of the most relevant proofs which is provided for God’s existence is given by St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and also a Doctor of the Church. His Ontological argument has hogged the attention of philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Hegel. The proof depends on human reason and relies on the definition of God who is considered to be perfect.
According to the argument, the existence of God is in our comprehension. The concept of God is actually in the minds of the human beings. Moreover, God might exist in reality as the concept of God in no way has internal contradictions. Something which does exist in reality is great or perfect. The concept of God which is there in our minds could actually transcend the perfect things which already are there by existing in reality. The argument then takes as a hypothesis that God only exists in the understanding of human beings and is not present in reality. In case this were correct, then God would be greater than he actually is. This in turn leads to the argument that God is a being with greater possibility.
Now, this last argument is obviously absurd as God in reality is a being in which no more great is possible. Thus, a contradiction arises and what follows is the inference that it is false for God to exist in the understanding of the human beings only. It is hence proved that God actually exists in our comprehension and reality. This strong argument proves that God must be existent in all circumstances as he is perfect.
This argument was criticized by Gaunilo as he opined that that the notion of God cannot be conceived. In his argument, many theists would also comply with the reality that God cannot be comprehended. Thus, if God cannot be conceived by human beings, the ontological argument loses its credibility.
Thomas Aquinas also objected to Anselm’s logic on the basis of the fact that the nature of God is unknown and one cannot conceive of God in the proposed way.
According to David Hume, utilization of only a priori reasoning was insufficient to prove the existence of anything.
In addition to all this, Immanuel Kant objected to the proof in Critique of Pure Reason and put to question its intelligibility. According to him, “God exists” can either be synthetic or analytic. If it is analytic, as is taken by the ontological logic, the statement can be taken as correct due to the meaning attributed to the words. Kant opined that it is only a tautology. The ontological argument does not stand its ground if the words are synthetic.
It can be concluded that St. Anselm's opinion that God perceives devoid of physical senses is erroneous. If one says that God perceives as everything is known to him, then the meanings of the words are being confused. Also, seeing and hearing are actually temporal experiences which lie at loggerheads with God’s eternity. The greatest logical flaw of the ontological argument lies in the fact that it takes for granted that as God exists in conception, He also exists in reality. It can also be critiqued that the ideas and general methods of Anselm’s arguments are at fault.
The advancement of human race over the gazillion years and the gradual enlightenment of the mass along with the innumerable scientific discoveries have brought in an era where the people have started questioning the age-old beliefs that have existed in the human society from ancient times. These beliefs had previously been seen as infallible and no one dared to put them to question. The world did see the inception of uncomfortable questions from learned philosophers who doubted the validation of the axioms which had crept in to the deepest layers of the human civilization.
Works Cited
Hick, John. Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990. Print.
Quinn, P. L., and Kevin Meeker. The Philosophical Challenge Of Religious Diversity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
