Ontology 2

Proof of God

While the great souls have been blessed to travel to the holy places on pilgrimage to Vrindaban and Govardhana, I have been asked to develop a series of articles giving philosophical backing for for some of the ideas found in Vaiṣṇavism.  I hope these musing may be useful in developing faith.  While these arguments are not conclusive, they may help bolster conviction in the divine reality as a foundation for faith in our journey to surrender.

One of the early arguments that makes a claim as a "proof" for God's existence is called the ontological argument. It was first forwarded by St. Anselm. Anselm felt, as did Augustine, that understanding culminates in faith, and so did his best to justify the ways of God to man.

Anselm’s proof for God is as curious as it is audacious. He says that God is that thought of which nothing can be greater. Atheists are fools, but even an atheist knows what we speak of when we say “the thought of which nothing can be greater.” They scramble with laptops and pencils, scrawling equations on blackboards to avoid this construction. How could something exist where nothing is greater than that something? Even fools understand fully. We’re speaking of God. 

And try as they might to escape that conclusion, to ridicule it, they find a certain powerful logic in the reasoning of Anselm. They are certainly great thinkers if they are not great doers. They can easily conceive of something the thought of which nothing can be greater. They can easily think of that thing and know we mean God. Anselm’s next part is the audacious part. He says that if we can think of that thing that is greater than anything else, it must exist. The Being of God is found in his Conception. There can be no conception of God without His Being. 

The immediate counter-argument is that many things exist in the mind but not in reality. We can think of a unicorn, but a unicorn or a flying dragon. But a unicorn does not exist, so the argument is ridiculous on it's face. 

Well, before going further, we might insist that in the first place, unicorns do exist. A rhinoceros is a unicorn, an animal with one horn on its nose. Also unicorns exist in film and in Disneyland. Since perception is reality, there is a certain reality in films and Disneyland. A unicorn might  exist, in a possible world created by Disney. After all, "perception is reality." Again, the unicorn might have existed in the past and have become extinct, leaving no fossil evidence behind. 

But, leaving aside the “perception is reality” idea, a unicorn or a flying dragon doesn’t fit Anselm’s definition. A unicorn is not the “greatest thing we can think of,” and won’t do as a stand-in for his ontological argument. Anselm says God’s Conception includes his Being. If you can think of a Being beyond material reality, who is all-encompassing, all-pervading, eternal, infinite--he must exist, by definition. It is an argument easily mocked, but not well-understood.

A meme is an idea held in common by a wide variety of human beings. It may be argued that when everyone has the same meme there must be some veracity to it. Of course, the counter-argument is there, vox populi is not vox dei. Just because everyone thinks the world is flat doesn’t make it so. An idea may be widely held, and yet be wrong, as we have seen with the paradigms of Ptolemy and Copernicus. 

Anselm, however, is not arguing that an idea is true because it is widely held. He says the very idea of God proves His existence. The infinite being of the Absolute truth is apparent from the very transcendental thought. I confess that I was baffled when I first heard this argument. I thought, "I can't argue this point. People will laugh." So, this idea seems easily refuted on its face as flying in the face of reason: There is no evidence for the existence of the absolute. We have no mathematical model. And yet, Anselms argument is much subtler than it appears. It must be considered carefully and thoughtfully. And its contemplation will reveal its truth.

As arguments go, Anselm's seems weak, compared to others. Everyone understands the teleological argument; the “argument from design.” It is much easier to see: The evidence for a supernatural power is found in the organization and design we see everywhere around us. But this is an argument “after the fact.” I see what God has fashioned and admire his craft. Who but a divine, supernatural power could have crafted this world? Just as a detective studies the scene of the crime for evidence of its author, we can study this cosmos for evidence of its creator. 

And yet, the author has left the scene. We may make a forensic study: we look for God’s fingerprints, His DNA, evidence of his handiwork and in the end shout “Eureka, I have found it!” But where has he gone? Has he wound up the world like a clock and abandoned us? We are left unsatisfied by the teleological argument, since after admiring the artist’s work we want to meet the artist. But the ontological argument allows us to reach the same conclusion through meditation. God exists because we can think of Him. Not the cogito of Descartes, “I think therefore I am;” Anselm says “I can think of God, therefore He is.”

The argument seems naive, but is more subtle that it appears at first glance. Easily defeated by school-boys, the ontological argument haunts their professors. Refuted by Kant, the argument survives him. Bertrand Russell admired the argument, but rejected it after signaling its value: “The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thoughts. Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher's job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing.”

(Russell, Bertrand, The History of Western Philosophy, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1972, p. 417)

But Russell’s version is more superficial than he realized. Subsequent philosophers have demonstrated that the reasoning in the ontological is more subtle than it appears at first glance. Let’s take another look. We can frame the argument in a simpler way.

One of the interesting defenders of this argument today is a respected and influential philosopher named Alvin Plantinga who is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame. His version of the ontological argument for God relies on modal logic, which deals with the logic of possibility and necessity.

Platinga puts the argument like this: It is possible that God exists. Even a true agnostic can’t rule out the possibility. In fact, it is logically impossible to rule out the possibility of God’s existence, since to do so one would need to study all the available evidence in all possible worlds. So let’s just stick with this point for a moment. It is “possible” that God exists. Now, if it is possible that God exists, that means that God might exist in some possible world. Hawking himself posits the idea of imaginary time, and quantum mechanics explores the possibility of parallel universes. So let’s just posit that it might be possible for God to exist in some possible world. Now here’s the logical problem. If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.

The important thing to keep in mind is the definition of God. God is infinite and all-pervading. So if he exists in some possible world, by definition he must exist in all possible worlds. This means that God exists in the actual world, that is: God exists. Now, as we mentioned above, a sophomore, or clever fool, will suggest that we apply the idea to a unicorn. “If we can think of a unicorn, a unicorn must exist.” They will say. But since unicorns don’t exist, the argument is invalid. There are many things we can think of that do not exist. The idea that we can think of God and that therefore He must exist is therefore absurd, they claim.

Platinga’s argument is sticky. A unicorn might exist in a possible world. But if a unicorn exists in a possible world, there is no necessity for a unicorn to exist in all possible worlds. A unicorn is a contingent being, not a necessary being. Whereas God is a necessary being. If He exists, His existence is absolute and extends to all possible worlds. A parallel universe may exist somewhere entirely populated by unicorns, but there is nothing in the definition of “unicorn” that implies that such a fantastic being must exist in all possible universes. God however is a distinct idea: The idea than which no greater idea can be thought. 

By definition of God is infinite, absolute, all-encompassing. If he exists, he must exist in all possible worlds, by definition. Therefore the only way to deny his existence is to reject any possibility of his existence. But this cannot be a logical proposition. We must admit that God could exist in some possible world. His existence in any possible world means that by definition he exists in all possible worlds. This is Platinga’s defense of Anselm, as I understand it. If God’s existence is possible, it is necessary.

Now this argument may not be absolute convincing, but its logic is interesting to reflect upon. 

 While Bertrand Russell felt that Anselm had been conclusively refuted, others have left the door open to possible worlds. Anthony Kenny ended his New History of Western Philosophy  with a warning to those who feel Anselm t has been refuted: “Plantinga's reinstatement of the ontological argument, using logical techniques more modern than any available to Russell, serves as a salutary warning of the danger that awaits any historian of logic who declares a philosophical issue definitively closed.” (Kenney, Anthony, A New History of Western Philosophy, vol IV. Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 318)

For an interesting article on the ontological argument see:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24093-the-ontological-argument-from-descartes-to-hegel/#_edn1

The article reviews an interesting book by Kevin J. Harrelson, who has written a welcome historical and critical analysis of the ontological argument in early modern European philosophy.

KEVIN J. HARRELSON

The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel

Kevin J. Harrelson, The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel, Humanity Books, 2009, $39.98 (hbk), ISBN 9781591026396.

Ideas in Philosophy

With the movement towards video I decided to try to explain some of the ideas on the blog on youtube. Here's my first effort at streaming.

Saint Petersburg

Here's a little home movie of the trip to Petersburg, Russia.


Saint Petersburg

Arguments for the Existence of God

Michael Dolan/ B.V. Mahayogi

I've been asked to prepare a few remarks of a philosophical nature, giving credence to faith.  I'll go through some of the arguments for the existence of God, since faith is often bolstered by rational conviction.

The Ontological Proof

Professor Sannyal

Professor Nishikant Sannyal was a famous disciple of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Ṭhakura. 

His Sri Krishna Caitanya is an important textbook on Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Sannyal's book was consulted by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swami in writing his own "Teachings of Lord Chaitanya." 

Before he was able to publish "Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, Śrīla Prabhupada recommended Sannyal's book to his own disciples, notably Achyutananda Swami, his first initiated disciple who was instructed to stay at the ashram or Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja in Nabadwip.

In Śrī Krishna Chaitanya, Sannyal describes the history of atheism:

… Faith in a Personal Godhead and inclination to serve Him are not the artificial products of material civilization. Many books have been written by empiric thinkers to prove the historical origin of a belief in God as a product and concomitant of material circumstances. Such attempts betray an attitude of self-contradiction in regard to the nature of the super-mundane. These writers, almost deliberately confound religion, which is the eternal spiritual function of all individual souls, with the apparently similar mental speculations on the same subject although it is more or less admitted by all persons as lying outside the range of our sensuous experience. Nevertheless these assume religion to be the equivalent of a bundle of ideas that have their temporary existence in their own imaginations, and proceed to analyze what they suppose to be the similar mental phenomena of past generations with the tacit object of finding further support for, and for the elaboration of their pre-conceived views. Religion is supposed to be only a special department of thought produced by the mind by working on a particular aspect of the materials presented to it by the senses. This mental religion is more or less the method as well as goal of investigation of empiric moralists, theologians and scientists. Empiric criticism of the Bible and all mental treatment of the subject of religion, are vitiated by the adoption of this faulty method of begging the question at issue.

Sri Krishna Caitanya, Gaudiya Math Jan. 20, 1933

 Refutations to Atheism

Atheism, of course, is nothing new as we have pointed out. It is the natural position of those bent on exploitation. And yet philosophers, theologians, mystics and other thinkers have often presented arguments and reason to give support to the concept of theism.

 As Sannyal puts it:

But whenever atheism has been openly professed by the greatest leaders of thought and has appeared to be on the point of scoring a final and decisive victory over its rival with their influential support, the latter has invariably re-asserted itself, has demolished all efforts of the former and has consolidated its position by the refutation of such arguments as had been urged, or had seemed likely to be urged in the future, against it by its opponents, to an extent that was within the grasp of the contemporaneous generations. Atheistic opposition has thus resulted in the gradual and further elucidation of the theistic position.

The opposition given to atheism by various philosophers over the generations has led to the expression of forceful arguments for the existence of God. Western philosophers especially have forwarded these as basic components of theological reasoning.  In direct opposition to the trend towards materialism, philosophers have tried for generations to “justify the ways of God to man,” as Milton put it, by giving reasons and arguments as proof of God’s existence.

Arguments for the existence of God

The Ontological Argument

We begin with Saint Anselm. Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) was the greatest theologian and philosopher of Christianity writing in the eleventh century. 

St. Anselm of Canterbury

He is best known for his “ontological argument” for the existence of God. According to St. Anselm, there is no need to look for physical evidence of God’s existence. Reason alone provides the evidence. The ontological argument is called an a priori  argument, for it stands alone and does not rely on any empiric evidence.  The Ontological Argument relies on reason alone, and needs no evidence. The argument tries to prove that it is absurd to try to imagine a world without God.

For Anselm, the idea that a four-sided triangle exists is just as absurd as the nonexistence of God.  No one knows what a four-sided triangle could mean, just as no one knows what the nonexistence of God could mean. Therefore, knowing what “God” means makes it obvious that his non-existence is impossible.

Definition of God

The very definition of  “God” includes perfection. Since we can conceive of “infinite” and “perfection” they must exist. Imperfect perfection is inconceivable. Finite infinite is also inconceivable, hence nonexistent. Therefore it is especially impertinent and nescient to ask, “Who created God?”

This argument is not an a posteriori argument based on sense experience. With the ontological argument, we don’t need to reason “after the fact.” This is an a priori  argument. It needs no empiric evidence, but relies exclusively on reason. Anselm’s reasoning is idea goes as follows:  “God is something of which nothing greater can be thought. It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind, therefore God must exist, otherwise he would not be the “greatest thought.” This form of argument relies on the premise that “existence is a necessary part of perfection.” God is by definition, a necessary being. Existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary being. Since God is a necessary being, he must exist. He is "By Himself and For Himself."

The content of God is nondifferent from the thought of God, according to Anselm. That we can think of an infinite being alone is proof of his existence. This is an audacious statement on the face of it, and may be the most difficult to defend; but in its mystical rationalism it may be the most powerful. Hegel, at least, defended Anselm. 

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is certainly one of the most audacious arguments in the history of Western philosophy; it may even be the most audacious. It is also one of the most perplexing. Some philosophers have scorned it. St. Thomas Aquinas did. Others have thought they had refuted it. Immanuel Kant thought he had done that. Many philosophers have tried to ignore it. But it is difficult for a serious philosopher to ignore the claims of such a daringly elegant bit of reasoning. 

Atheist Bertrand Russell once realized the validity of the ontological argument

Even the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell famously once had an epiphany where he realized the power of the ontological argument. He puts the argument like this: “We define ‘God’ as the greatest possible object of thought. Now if an object of thought does not exist, another, exactly like it, which does exist, is greater. Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist, since, otherwise, another, still greater, would be possible. Therefore God exists.” He was stunned.

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu explaining philosophy to the mayavad sannyasis

Saint Augustine commented about such logical arguments for the existence of God:  “You said, “I would understand that I may believe.” I said, “Believe that you may understand.” In his Preface to the Proslogion, the first title he gave his own work, Anselm follows Augustine: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe – that unless I believed, I should not understand.” Real knowledge is based on faith. Without faith there can be no true knowledge of God.”

Hegel, of course, knew of Kant’s objections to the ontological argument and had seen its refutation, and yet he felt that it held up against the scrutiny of the agnostics: “Every attempt to look down upon the so-called ontological proof and upon Anselm’s definition of perfection,” said Hegel, “is futile, because the proof is implicit in every unprejudiced human mind, just as it keeps coming back in every philosophy even against its wit and will, (as in the case of the principle of immediate faith).” Dieter Heinrich points out that “It is well-known…that Hegel’s entire system can be understood as an ontological proof for God. The system demonstrates that being cannot be thought in opposition to the concept, rather that the concept includes being as a moment and that the concept therefore determines itself to objectivity. The unity of concept and being constitutes the definition/determination of the absolute and thus leads to the central idea of Hegel’s philosophy.”

Reality is by himself and for himself

Hegel’s philosophy defended against Kant by defending the existence of God against his premature “death.” In Christianity, the Death of God in Christ’s resurrection is followed by new life in the resurrection.  Die to live.

 

His Divine Grace Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhar dev Goswāmī Mahārāja had been a student of Hegel in his early life. He summarized Hegel’s system:  “Reality is By Itself and For Itself,” and “Die to Live.” If God was dead, as Kant had it, his transcendental “death” is transformed into a higher sense of transcendental “life.” 

God’s death would seem existentially impossible. Once when asked “If God can do anything, can he commit suicide?” Govinda Maharaja answered, “Yes. He does so in the undifferentiated plane of Brahman. Brahman has no personality so it is a form of spiritual suicide.” 

Govinda Maharaja: "God commits suicide in the brahmajyoti"

If "death" is complete loss of ego, God commits suicide in the brahmajyoti, where no ego can exist. In another sense, God "dies" in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, or in a higher sense,  when he loses His ego in the supreme act of love. Since the greatest loss of ego is when Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead takes on the heart and halo of his greatest devotee Śrī Rādhā as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, this is the greatest "death" and the greatest example of Die to live. 

Caitanya Mahaprabhu's union in separation  is the highest expression of the  inner meaning of “Die to Live.”

In any case, Hegel was fascinated by St. Anselm’s ontological proof. He wrote: “the proof presupposes God as content, as the most perfect being, in comparison with which  the mere concept of God is imperfect. What does God exist? Anselm answers: because God is perfect, i.e., he is the unity of concept and reality.”

That is, the Supreme Absolute Truth is “By Himself and For Himself.” Since God is the conceptual sum of all realities; consequently He also includes being. That we can conceive of Him means that He exists. Since in God there is a unity of concept and being, the concept of God includes the existential reality of His being.  This, in a nutshell is the “ontological argument.”

We mention the ontological argument first, since Anselm predates Aquinas. 

Next: Aquinas and his "Five Proofs"

-->

Evidence of Higher Reality

Proof of God

Soul-denying definitions

Materialists would define human life by denying soul, mind and God. They would explain the human experience by eliminating what makes us human. By prohibiting metaphysical thought they would enlighten us on the origins of the universe. They would frame the existential argument by leaving out any spiritual or supernatural element. They would shape the discussion on human civilization and its discontents purely in terms of self-interest. The popular science writers and their fans would deny that altruism and love exist except as the fantasy of poets.  They would deny the self while talking of “selfish” genes. Consciousness is reduced to something the brain does. The artists vision and the child’s sense of wonder are all impractical, useless anomalies. All that cannot  be monetized is useless. Only what is practical is valuable. Humans are units, resources to be managed and manipulated. The soul-denying atheists preach against faith, sermonize against belief, and give communion only to the true believers. By denying the soul and faith in God, the atheists would define human society by eliminating what most sets us apart from the animals.

What sets us apart from the animals?

Philosophers Noble Attempts to Prove the Existence of God

Atheism is not a new philosophy. Democritus of Greece tried to establish that cosmic reality is no more than atoms moving through the void. Plato abhorred his opinions.  In Sri Krishna Caitanya, Professor Nishikant Sannyal of Ravenshaw College, Calcutta, describes the history of atheism:

-->

Agnosticism and Skepticism deny the existence of possibility of the Knowledge of the Absolute. Both do so on the strength of their limited experience and without due consideration of the method proposed by the Scriptures. Both have an attitude of disbelief towards the method of revelation by their over-confidence in their own conclusions. This is really self-contradictory as neither professes to be able to know the Truth. The Skeptic is the greater sinner of the two, because he is not even prepared to admit the very existence of the Absolute. Both really depend on the method of narrow dogmatism in their own cases although appearing to condemn the attitude in the case of others. The explanation of this irrational attitude is to be sought, as in the case of atheists, in undue attachment to the prospects of this transitory world which is father to the thought that it would be heroic not to seek to fly from the state of ignorance and misery which is supposed by them to be unavoidable. The argument that is used by the theists is that ignorance and misery is due to the self-elected folly of the votaries of worldly vanities whose position is psychologically unsound and is also opposed to the moral principle. It is the Nihilistic attitude that becomes the worst of nuisances if it be allowed to pass itself off as a constructive ideal.

Professor Nisikant Sannyal of Ravenshaw College, Calcutta, cerca 1930