Evaluation of Ontological argument part 2
- Created by: _bella_
- Created on: 27-05-19 10:15
View mindmap
- Evaluating the Ontological Argument part 2
- Richard Dawkins- The God Delusion
- Rejects argument on the grounds that it is infantile
- Sports Russell that "it is easier to feel convinced that the ont. argument must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies"
- Dawkins argues the automatic reaction to the argument should be suspicion that any line of reasoning which "lacked a single piece of data from the real world" should've led to a sig. conclusion
- Deductive reasoning
- The arguments success depends on how successfully it works as deductive proof- it may be successful if the 1st premise is accepted
- If there are good reasons for rejecting Anselm's definition then the argument is successful
- Counter- argument
- Despite criticisms the argument can be seen to succeed
- If it is understood as an expression of what the believer already holds to be true, rather than as proof that an objective reality to which the term God is ascribed exists objectively in the objective universe
- Anti-realism
- Can be argued that the ont. argument is successful if we accept that the statements made are not objectiely true statements but are subjectively true
- Vardy- if they "cohere w/ other true statements made w/in a particular form of life"
- Doesn't demand absolute truth but rather something should be true w/in its particular context
- Thus, for Anselm the claim that God is necessarilty existent is true w/i their particular 'Form of life'- as are other claims made w/i the religious sytem
- Language Games- Wittegenstein
- Language games such as those from Wittgenstein aren't of much value in theology
- e.g. it is of little use to say that prayer has practical value in bringing comfort to the worshipper, since for the believer the act of praying assumes that God exists
- Richard Dawkins- The God Delusion
Comments
No comments have yet been made