It may be off topic, but reading this made me think that the ontological argument may have a similar problem to the cosmological argument. In the case of the Cosmological, when one says that God is the ground of all being, and then looks at the beings one finds in the world, one could just as easily say the cosmological argument proves some sort of devil as God. The attraction of the cosmological argument is that multiple worldviews allow for cause and effect. Thus, we have common ground to talk about First Cause. But, Christians want to talk about God as a society of divine persons with certain characteristics. And a bare first cause not only fails to prove this but opens up exact opposit conceptions of the divine nature. If we tell a nonchristian he can and should extrapolate from cause and effect, how do we limit him from making conclusions about who God is from the creation that he now witnesses?
So the ontological argument depends on the common ground that existence is superior to nonexistence. OK. But that’s an awful thin piece of common territory. Because what if I believe that no more perfect being can be conceived of than the feminine, or than a being who only does things in order to glorify himself. The reasoning of the ontological argument may say something is self-existent, but the argument seems to give permission to the unbeliever to feel free to conceive of God according to his own ideas of perfection. So again, we could end up with a Feminine or with a great glory-hound in the sky who uses others to his own ends rather than the divine Trinity.
I guess this all comes down to saying that these arguments are against atheism but aren’t so hot in dealing with idolatry.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the link to my post and for your post. Do I detact a no neutrality between the believer and unbeliever critique here? If so, I tend to agree.
Kind regards,
Cynthia
Mark, I’ve thought about the ontological argument a lot, due to its prominence in a philosophy course I took. I think the issue is that it isn’t that God is “that than which no greater being can be conceived by me. Rather it is that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.” If we subjectivize the argument, it fails. However, this means that the argument isn’t very good for convincing the non-believer. But, I don’t necessarily think Anselm had that in mind. I think that for the believer it can be quite useful in the same way that classical apologetics are. It helps them understand the reasonableness of ther faith (is that a word?). I would say, though, that this is an argument that really doesn’t have much to say to the postmodern mind. People aren’t so concerned with making sure that their faith achieves some sort of objective rationality, which I think is basically a good thing. Sometimes I think, objectivity is the grand illusion of modern western society. All that to say, that I think the ontological argument accomplishes its purpose, but its purpose isn’t especially usefull in contemporary culture.
Let me know what you think, or if I have misunderstood your point.