I think R.Stansbury is right on the money with his response to the
accusation about the validity of the ontological argument. The funny
thing about many post-medieval critiques of the argument is that nobody
ever reads the chapter that precedes the argument in the Proslogion, where
Anselm makes it very clear that the starting position is Fides Quaerens
Intellectum. What I think is fascinating about the argument is how medieval
conceptions of modality are buried in the structure of the argument, and the
more you tinker with it, the deeper the understanding of necessary being
is possible, which is, I think, the real point of the argument. The more
one meditates on the concept of a being greater than which cannot be thought,
and what that entails for divinity, the more one is put in awe of
the difference between humanity and the divine. This property of the
argument is generally lost on people interested in defusing it.
What I find interesting is that many students upon whom I spring Anselm's
argument are eager to disprove it, thereby assuming that atheism is ipso
facto proven. The assumption is: This argument for X is unsuccessful, so
~X MUST be the case! You'd be surprised the number of philosophers I've
met who walk around primed with the standard arguments against Anslem's
argument, chuckling at the cleverness of their proofs of the eminent
reasonableness of atheism. Then again, fellow medievalists, you probably
wouldn't be surprised, I guess...
By The Way, thanks for the recommendation of Plantinga's anthology
which I've used in class very successfully. Malcolm's argument is really
worth reading.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|