1. Set out as clearly as you can each of the steps in Aristotle’s argument for the existence of an unmoved mover in Metaphysics, 12 and discuss how his account of the nature of God and the relationship of God to the world conflicts with Christian thinking about God.
2. Explain how Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God is supposed to work and choosing two of Guanilo’s objections to it explain what those objections are and comment critically discuss how effective they are.
4. Explain why Aquinas believes that an argument for the existence of God like that proposed by Anselm cannot succeed and using as examples two of the arguments that Aquinas himself gives explain why he thinks that only this kind of argument can succeed in proving the existence of God.
5. Explain what is meant by saying that Aristotle proposes a naturalistic account of the highest good for humans and critically evaluate the role played in his account by what is known as the function argument.
6 Critically discuss Saint Augustine’s theory of human nature and sin.
7. Explain the role of consent in Peter Abaelard’s ethical theory explaining why, according to Abaelard, there no moral difference between the man who intends to commit murder but who is prevented from doing so and a man who succeeds in committing murder. Do you think that Abaelard is right?
8. Explain why Aristotle thinks that the theory of truth and falsity which he develops in the first eight chapters of his de Interpretatione cannot apply to contingent claims about the future and how he he propose to solve the problem presented by such claims.
The existence and nature of God have been topics of profound philosophical and theological inquiry for centuries. Various thinkers, from Aristotle to Anselm to Aquinas, have developed complex arguments and ideas about God’s existence and attributes. This essay will explore key philosophical arguments for the existence of God and their implications within the context of Christian thought. We will delve into Aristotle’s argument for the existence of an unmoved mover, Anselm’s ontological argument, Aquinas’s critique of Anselm, Aristotle’s naturalistic account of the highest good for humans, Saint Augustine’s theory of human nature and sin, Peter Abaelard’s ethical theory regarding consent, and Aristotle’s theory of truth and falsity in relation to contingent claims about the future.
Aristotle’s argument for the existence of an unmoved mover is found in his work “Metaphysics,” specifically in Book 12. This argument is rooted in his understanding of change and causality. Aristotle observed that things in the world are constantly changing, and he sought to explain how this change is possible.
a. Everything in the world is in a state of constant change. b. Change is the actualization of potentiality. c. This chain of change cannot go on infinitely, as there must be a source or cause of change. d. Therefore, there must exist a prime mover, an unmoved mover, which is pure actuality, causing change without undergoing change itself.
Aristotle’s conception of the unmoved mover is a divine being that sets the universe in motion but remains unchanged by its actions. This concept, however, conflicts with certain aspects of Christian thinking about God. In Christianity, God is often conceived as a personal, caring deity who interacts with the world and is capable of moral judgment and intervention. Aristotle’s unmoved mover, on the other hand, lacks these personal attributes and is more of an abstract principle.
The Christian God is seen as loving and responsive to human needs, while Aristotle’s unmoved mover seems detached and indifferent to the world’s affairs. Additionally, the Christian God is often believed to have a personal relationship with individuals through prayer and worship, whereas Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover does not lend itself to such a relationship. This conflict between Aristotle’s abstract, philosophical concept and the personal, interactive nature of the Christian God has been a point of contention and discussion within the history of philosophy and theology.
Anselm, an 11th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, proposed a famous argument for the existence of God known as the ontological argument. This argument is outlined in his work, the “Proslogion.” Anselm’s argument can be summarized as follows:
a. God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, that which nothing greater can be conceived. b. Existence in reality is greater than existence solely in the mind. c. Therefore, if God exists only in the mind but not in reality, a greater being can be conceived—one that exists both in the mind and in reality. d. This would contradict the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. e. Therefore, God must exist not only in the mind but also in reality.
Anselm’s ontological argument is highly abstract and depends on the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being. Two of the objections raised by Guanilo, a contemporary of Anselm, challenge the validity of this argument.
Guanilo’s first objection is the “Lost Island” objection, which posits that if Anselm’s argument were valid, one could also prove the existence of a perfect island simply by conceiving of it as the greatest conceivable island. This objection highlights the potential problem of using the concept of “the greatest conceivable X” to prove the existence of anything.
Guanilo’s second objection is the “Perfect Fool” objection, in which he suggests that one could employ Anselm’s argument to “prove” the existence of a perfect fool, as a perfect fool is the greatest conceivable being in the category of foolishness. This objection questions whether the argument’s structure can reliably establish the existence of any concept, no matter how absurd.
Critically evaluating these objections, it becomes apparent that they challenge the ontological argument’s applicability beyond the concept of God. While Guanilo’s objections raise valid points, they may not entirely undermine Anselm’s argument when it is specifically applied to the concept of a necessary and perfect being. Anselm’s argument, though abstract and debated, has remained a topic of philosophical discussion for centuries.
Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century Christian theologian and philosopher, offered a different perspective on the existence of God, critiquing Anselm’s ontological argument. Aquinas believed that the ontological argument was flawed because it attempted to prove God’s existence solely through the concept of God, without appealing to the empirical world.
Aquinas, in his “Summa Theologiae,” formulated five arguments for the existence of God, known as the Five Ways. Two of these arguments, the Argument from Motion and the Argument from Efficient Causation, illustrate why Aquinas believed Anselm’s approach was insufficient.
The Argument from Motion posits that everything in the world is in a state of motion or change. Aquinas argued that for anything to move or change, it must be set in motion by something else. However, this chain of movers cannot be infinite, so there must exist an unmoved mover, which is identified as God. Unlike Anselm’s argument, Aquinas’s Argument from Motion is grounded in observations about the physical world.
The Argument from Efficient Causation similarly relies on empirical observations. Aquinas argued that everything in the world has a cause, and causes form a chain of events. This chain of causation cannot be infinite, so there must exist a first cause, which is also identified as God.
Aquinas believed that these arguments provided a more robust foundation for the existence of God because they were rooted in the observable world, making them more accessible to individuals of different philosophical backgrounds. While he respected Anselm’s ingenuity, Aquinas emphasized the importance of connecting philosophical arguments to the empirical reality of the universe.
Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, as presented in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” offers a naturalistic account of the highest good for humans. Aristotle posits that the highest good, or eudaimonia (often translated as “happiness” or “flourishing”), is the ultimate goal of human life. He argues that this highest good is achieved through the cultivation of virtue and rational activity.
A central element of Aristotle’s account is the function argument, which asserts that the highest good for a human being is to fulfill their distinctive function or purpose. According to Aristotle, human beings possess reason as their unique function, and living a life in accordance with reason leads to eudaimonia. Virtues, such as courage, temperance, and wisdom, are developed through rational choices and contribute to the realization of this highest good.
Critically evaluating Aristotle’s naturalistic account of the highest good, some may argue that it places too much emphasis on rationality and neglects the emotional and social dimensions of human life. Furthermore, this account may not align with certain religious perspectives, such as Christianity, which emphasize the importance of faith, divine grace, and a personal relationship with God as central to human flourishing.
Saint Augustine, a prominent figure in early Christian theology, developed a comprehensive theory of human nature and sin. His views significantly shaped Christian thought on these topics for centuries.
Augustine’s theory of human nature is rooted in his understanding of the Fall of Man. He believed that all humans inherit original sin from Adam and Eve, making human nature inherently flawed and sinful. Augustine’s view of human nature is in contrast to the optimistic view of human potential found in some secular philosophies, like those of Aristotle.
This theological perspective has had a profound impact on Christian ethics and soteriology. Augustine argued that only through divine grace and redemption can individuals overcome their sinful nature and attain salvation. This view stands in contrast to philosophies that emphasize human agency and virtue ethics as the path to moral and spiritual fulfillment.
Critically evaluating Augustine’s theory, some may argue that it presents a pessimistic and deterministic view of human nature, leaving individuals feeling powerless in the face of their sinful inclinations. Others may contend that it underplays the role of human agency and moral development in the Christian life.
Peter Abaelard, a medieval philosopher and theologian, made significant contributions to ethical theory, particularly in the area of consent. Abaelard argued that moral responsibility is tied to the intention behind an action, rather than solely its consequences. He proposed that there is no moral difference between a person who intends to commit murder but is prevented from doing so and a person who successfully commits murder.
Abaelard’s view on consent is rooted in the idea that intentions reveal the true moral character of an individual. He believed that if one genuinely intends to commit an immoral act, they are morally culpable, regardless of external factors that might prevent the act from occurring. This perspective challenges conventional ethical theories that often focus on the outcomes of actions.
Critically evaluating Abaelard’s position, one might argue that it oversimplifies moral responsibility by neglecting the significance of actions and consequences. The traditional view of ethics often considers the harm or benefit caused by an action as a crucial factor in assessing its morality. Abaelard’s theory raises questions about how to navigate complex moral situations where intentions may not align with outcomes.
Aristotle’s theory of truth, as presented in his “De Interpretatione,” is concerned primarily with the truth conditions of propositions. In the first eight chapters of this work, Aristotle outlines his theory of truth and falsity, which relies on the concept of affirmation and denial. However, Aristotle’s theory encounters difficulties when applied to contingent claims about the future.
Contingent claims about the future are statements that assert something will or will not happen, but the future remains uncertain until it unfolds. Aristotle’s theory of truth, which centers on the correspondence between propositions and reality, faces challenges in this context because future events have not yet occurred to correspond to statements about them.
To address this problem, Aristotle introduces the notion of indefinite truth. He suggests that statements about contingent future events can be neither true nor false in the present because their truth value depends on events that have not yet transpired. Aristotle proposes that such statements become determinately true or false only when the future event occurs or fails to occur.
Critically evaluating Aristotle’s solution, one might argue that it raises questions about the nature of truth and the relationship between language and reality, particularly in the context of statements about the future. Additionally, contemporary philosophers have continued to explore the challenges posed by contingent claims about the future and their implications for the philosophy of language and truth.
The philosophical exploration of God’s existence and nature has been a central concern for thinkers throughout history. Aristotle’s argument for the existence of an unmoved mover, Anselm’s ontological argument, Aquinas’s critique of Anselm, Aristotle’s naturalistic account of the highest good, Saint Augustine’s theory of human nature and sin, Peter Abaelard’s ethical theory regarding consent, and Aristotle’s theory of truth and falsity all contribute to the rich tapestry of philosophical thought on these topics.
These discussions also illustrate the tensions and conflicts that can arise between philosophical ideas and religious beliefs, particularly within the context of Christianity. While philosophical arguments provide tools for rational inquiry and exploration, they may not always align neatly with religious doctrines and the deeply held convictions of believers. As such, the ongoing dialogue between philosophy and theology continues to shape our understanding of God, ethics, and the human condition.
