Augustine, evil and eternal damnation (oh so cheery)

First, I want to discuss Manichaeism, the dualistic theology that maintains that there are two opposing forces in the world of good and evil, with two ultimate creators. All that is good is created by God which manifests in the human spirit, while all that is evil is created by the Devil and gives the human body. Throughout life, there is a constant struggle between these forces, however ultimately the good is triumphant because the human body is finite and inferior to the spirit. As evil is the creation of the devil and not the product of free will, humans are not responsible for any evil they commit.

St Augustine was a believer in Manchaeism but rejected the religion after converting to Christianity and creating his Doctrine of Original Sin. He believed that God's creation was perfect and the existence of evil is as a result of the fall of Adam. For Augustine, evil is not an entity in of itself, but a privation, or lack, of the good (e.g. sight is good, therefore blindness/lack of sight is a privation of the good). When man was created they were given free will and it is the abuse of this free will that caused all of humanity to be enslaved by sin. 

According to Genesis, all moral evil is punishment for the disobedience of Adam and Eve:

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

-Genesis 3:16

This reveals the introduction of pain and suffering to a previously untarnished paradise that will be passed down to the whole of humankind. The rest of humanity is said to be deserving of this punishment because we were seminally present in Adam, therefore we inherit his sin and are born even as children as wicked. 

This punishment for sin is never-ending because only a select few receive the virtue of the undeserved Grace of God and enter the kingdom of Heaven. The inescapable fate of eternal damnation is not constructive for theologians who wish to resolve the problem of evil, as Hell is eternally filled with evil and becomes in built into the structure of the Universe. God is seen to arbitrarily give Grace and allows the majority of humanity to suffer. It seems that an omniscient God who created the world with absolute power would have foreseen the Fall and prevented the introduction of suffering into the world. In addition, an omnibenevolent God should be understanding of the human condition (i.e. finitely imperfect) and forgive our sins. 

Descartes' Ontological Argument

Descartes' argument follows a similar format to Anselm's, and begins by defining God as 'The supremely perfect being' (or SPB). He goes on to analyse the concept of a SPB and states that this being would contain every supreme perfection, for example omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and so on. For Descartes, existence is also a perfection so it follows that the SPB must exist. Therefore, he concludes that in order for God to fulfill his role as the SPB he exists.

In addition, not only does Descartes argue that God exists, but that he exists necessarily. To strengthen this point he asks us to consider a triangle, because by definition it is impossible to conceive of a triangle with three interior angles that do not add up to the sum of two right angles. Further, it is impossible to conceive of a mountain without a valley because it is innate to the definition of a mountain. However this does not necessarily mean that a mountain or valley exist or not, but that the two are inseparable from each other as they are crucial to the essence of a mountain or valley.

Although it is impossible to conceive of a mountain without a valley that follows, that does not mean any necessarily exists.

This is the distinction that Descartes makes with God, that God must exist because existence is inseparable from his essence as a mountain is from a valley.

"therefore that he really exists: not that this is brought about by my thought, or that it imposes any necessity on things, but, on the contrary, the necessity which lies in the thing itself, that is, the necessity of the existence of God, determines me to think in this way: for it is not in my power to conceive a God without existence"
- Meditation V

Due to the definition of God as SPB, it is impossible to think of him without necessarily concluding that he must contain the perfection of existence.
Therefore, Descartes concludes a priori that God exists necessarily.

Faith and Reason

I have been thinking about what we can really arrive at through our reason alone or a priori. The Ontological Argument is seen as Natural Theology, even though it draws on no experiences of God because Anselm believed that through reason alone we are able to "convince, to a large extent, of the truth of these beliefs [existence of God and knowledge of His attributes], simply by reason alone" (Monologion).

Søren Kierkegaard rejected this position in "Philosophical Fragments" and argued that it is a fallacy to prove God's existence from His attributes (i.e. that he is eternal, perfect, necessary) as you must state that something exists before assigning them characteristics. 

He argues that rational arguments do not sufficiently convince you of God's existence because faith is required to bridge the gap between doubt and certainty.

As long as I keep my hold on the proof, i.e., continue to demonstrate, the existence does not come out, if for no other reason than that I am engaged in proving it; but when I let the proof go, the existence is there. 

[Chapter 3: The Absolute Paradox: A Metaphysical Crotchet]

He believed that logical deduction requires justification in the form of faith, because faith goes beyond reason. This quote reveals that once you recognize the limits of reason and take the 'leap of faith' you will truly believe in God. It is important to have faith in the first place, in order to interpret experiences. 

For Kierkegaard, the limits of what reason can explain is faced in Christian Theology with 'The Absolute Paradox':

• Jesus Christ as entirely man and entirely divine, entirely creator and entirely creature, infinitely perfect and finitely imperfect.

Which are all contradictory and opposing statements!

The believer has two choices when they encounter this problem with reason:

1. Offense - where the reason does not come to a mutual understanding with the paradox and rejects the paradox. 
2. Faith - the leap is taken and the believer realises that the paradox transcends the limits of reason.

This is not to say that faith is irrational (i.e. it doesn't go against reason) but non-rational (i.e. beyond reason).

I think that for true belief in God the leap is essential because the logical arguments are restrictive and eventually there must be a time where a choice is made to have real faith. 

Ontological Argument no. 2

The flaws in Anselm's first ontological argument are exposed in Gaunilo's reductio ad absurdum argument found in "On Behalf of the Fool" arguing the existence of 'the perfect island'. He stated that the fact that the greatest conceivable being can be defined does not mean it exists. This is because intentional existence (i.e. having an idea of a perfect island) does not imply formal existence (i.e. that the island really exists in reality).

Can you prove that anything exists simply by defining them as the 'greatest'?

Gaunilo's criticisms led to Anselm refining his original argument by defining the nature of God's existence. He dismissed the analogy of the perfect island because no example taken from the world is comparable to God as they have contingent existence (i.e. they can be thought to exist or not). Whereas, God cannot have contingent existence or he would not be TTWNGCBC, and therefore he has necessary existence (i.e. cannot be thought to not exist). He concludes that not only the fact that God exists, but that he exists necessarily.

The ontological argument is frustrating because it was not designed to convince non-believers of God's existence and therefore you have to believe in God in order to understand and agree that the argument is valid. This leaves many criticisms of the argument meaningless because it never intended to satisfy those who did not love and have faith in God.
Hmmm..

Anselm's Ontological Argument no. 1

In his first argument, Anselm begins by defining God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' (TTWNGCBC). He states that everyone has in their understanding this concept of God as TTWNGCBC - even the fool "who says in his heart that 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1) - because by using the word God it shows he understands what the significance of the word despite the fact that he rejects it's existence. He goes on to say that an object can exist in your understanding alone, or the object can exist in understanding and in reality. The analogy of the painter imagining what he will paint before he has made it is used to demonstrate how objects can exist purely conceptually, and how this can move to existence in reality as well.

Once an artist has made his painting, it exists in both his understanding and in reality.

As it is always greater to exist in both concept and in reality, then it God exists in reality and in concept, or he would not successfully fulfill his role as TTWNGCBC. Therefore, God exists.

First Post

I have just finished reading "Religion for Atheists" by Alain de Botton, which I thought was very interesting because the author was trying to find all of the good uses of religion from a position of non-belief in religion or a God. This reminded me of the 'religious supermarket' and 'pick'n'mix' spirituality approach we learnt about in Postmodernism & Atheism, and it was worthwhile because it showed what secular societies can learn from religion to improve themselves. I would recommend this!