 |
| 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.
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"
