richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E X I S T E N C E 83clear discussion in The Miracle of Theism. I mean it as a complimentwhen I say that you could almost define a philosopher assomeone who won't take common sense for an answer.The most definitive refutations of the ontological argument areusually attributed to the philosophers David Hume (1711-76) andImmanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant identified the trick card upAnselm's sleeve as his slippery assumption that 'existence' is more'perfect' than non-existence. The American philosopher NormanMalcolm put it like this: 'The doctrine that existence is a perfectionis remarkably queer. It makes sense and is true to say that my futurehouse will be a better one if it is insulated than if it is not insulated;but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if itexists than if it does not?' 46 Another philosopher, the AustralianDouglas Gasking, made the point with his ironic 'proof that Goddoes not exist (Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo had suggested asomewhat similar reductio).1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievementimaginable.2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsicquality, and (b) the ability of its creator.3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the moreimpressive the achievement.4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of anexistent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, onewho created everything while not existing.6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater thanwhich a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidableand incredible creator would be a God which did notexist.Ergo:7 God does not exist.
84 T H E G O D D E L U S I O NNeedless to say, Gasking didn't really prove that God does notexist. By the same token, Anselm didn't prove that he does. Theonly difference is, Gasking was being funny on purpose. As herealized, the existence or non-existence of God is too big a questionto be decided by 'dialectical prestidigitation'. And I don't think theslippery use of existence as an indicator of perfection is the worstof the argument's problems. I've forgotten the details, but I oncepiqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting theontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the needto resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.The ontological argument, like all a priori arguments for theexistence of God, reminds me of the old man in Aldous Huxley'sPoint Counter Point who discovered a mathematical proof of theexistence of God:You know the formula, m over nought equals infinity, mbeing any positive number? Well, why not reduce theequation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides bynought. In which case you have m equals infinity timesnought. That is to say that a positive number is the productof zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate thecreation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing?Doesn't it?Or there is the notorious eighteenth-century debate on the existenceof God, staged by Catherine the Great between Euler, the Swissmathematician, and Diderot, the great encyclopedist of theEnlightenment. The pious Euler advanced upon the atheisticDiderot and, in tones of the utmost conviction, delivered hischallenge: 'Monsieur, (a + b n )/n = x, therefore God exists. Reply!'Diderot was cowed into withdrawal, and one version of the storyhas him withdrawing all the way back to France.Euler was employing what might be called the Argument fromBlinding with Science (in this case mathematics). David Mills, inAtheist Universe, transcribes a radio interview of himself by areligious spokesman, who invoked the Law of Conservation ofMass-Energy in a weirdly ineffectual attempt to blind with science:'Since we're all composed of matter and energy, doesn't that
- Page 36 and 37: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 31The God of the
- Page 38 and 39: T H E G O D H Y P O T II E S I S 33
- Page 40 and 41: T II E G O D H Y P O T H E S 1 S 35
- Page 42 and 43: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 37M
- Page 44 and 45: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 39although it ha
- Page 46 and 47: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 41enterprise. Ri
- Page 48 and 49: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 43God; because,
- Page 50 and 51: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 45Anecdotes of s
- Page 52 and 53: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 47Carl Sagan was
- Page 54 and 55: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 49Huxley was not
- Page 56 and 57: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 51can
- Page 58 and 59: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 53in
- Page 60 and 61: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 55McGrath goes o
- Page 62 and 63: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 57the Cambridge
- Page 64 and 65: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 59unequivocally
- Page 66 and 67: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 61non-interventi
- Page 68 and 69: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 63s
- Page 70 and 71: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 65Another typica
- Page 72 and 73: T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67NOMA -
- Page 74 and 75: T H E G O D II Y P O T H E S I S 69
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
- Page 122 and 123: W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C
- Page 124 and 125: W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R
- Page 126 and 127: W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T
- Page 128 and 129: no evidence of its own, but thrives
- Page 130 and 131: W H Y r H E RE A 1. M O S T C F.RTA
- Page 132 and 133: I ! T R t AI.M15S I' ('. I R !' A f
- Page 134 and 135: W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R
84 T H E G O D D E L U S I O N
Needless to say, Gasking didn't really prove that God does not
exist. By the same token, Anselm didn't prove that he does. The
only difference is, Gasking was being funny on purpose. As he
realized, the existence or non-existence of God is too big a question
to be decided by 'dialectical prestidigitation'. And I don't think the
slippery use of existence as an indicator of perfection is the worst
of the argument's problems. I've forgotten the details, but I once
piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the
ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need
to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.
The ontological argument, like all a priori arguments for the
existence of God, reminds me of the old man in Aldous Huxley's
Point Counter Point who discovered a mathematical proof of the
existence of God:
You know the formula, m over nought equals infinity, m
being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the
equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by
nought. In which case you have m equals infinity times
nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product
of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the
creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing?
Doesn't it?
Or there is the notorious eighteenth-century debate on the existence
of God, staged by Catherine the Great between Euler, the Swiss
mathematician, and Diderot, the great encyclopedist of the
Enlightenment. The pious Euler advanced upon the atheistic
Diderot and, in tones of the utmost conviction, delivered his
challenge: 'Monsieur, (a + b n )/n = x, therefore God exists. Reply!'
Diderot was cowed into withdrawal, and one version of the story
has him withdrawing all the way back to France.
Euler was employing what might be called the Argument from
Blinding with Science (in this case mathematics). David Mills, in
Atheist Universe, transcribes a radio interview of himself by a
religious spokesman, who invoked the Law of Conservation of
Mass-Energy in a weirdly ineffectual attempt to blind with science:
'Since we're all composed of matter and energy, doesn't that
Change language