Great philosophers such as Anselm and Spinoza tried to prove the existence of God in a "logical" way. Did they succeed in doing so? And in general, what does the term "God" mean? And is it even possible to rationally prove the existence of a being that is necessarily beyond the scope of human cognition? And what is the status of scientific truths, which also do not exist
Dear Shoshani, Galileo
Why did so many people, including great scientists and philosophers such as Descartes, Newton, Faraday and Einstein*, believe in the existence of God beyond human knowledge? What meaning can be attributed to this belief that has accompanied the human race for thousands of years? There were those who discovered God after having a profound experience.
Sometimes they felt that a miracle had happened to them when they recovered from a serious illness, or when they escaped death during an accident. They turned to God in times of need, as a last refuge, and believed that God answered their request. Others who studied the north of the universe, or life, came to the realization that it is impossible that the reality around us, for all its complexity and beauty, was created completely randomly, without any intention and planning in advance. These people did not need to see that God exists, because they experienced His existence in a most profound and direct way. For them the belief in the existence of God was the first reason.
What is the status of the knowledge acquired in the religious experience?
However, placing the belief in the existence of God on the basis of the religious experience is exposed to sharp criticism from the atheists, who have no objection to the existence of such an experience per se, but they completely deny the existence of the transcendent God independent of human cognition. The main question for them is: What is the status of the knowledge acquired in the religious experience?
Is it equivalent to the knowledge acquired in a scientific investigation of reality? There were many, such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who claimed that the religious experience is nothing more than a psychological phenomenon, and that its cognitive objects have no meaning or application beyond the person experiencing it. Imagine someone in ecstasy due to intoxication, a drug he has taken, or an epileptic or neurotic attack, and he imagines that strange beings, such as demons or angels, are swarming around him.
Does anyone imagine that these three entities have a meaning beyond the person experiencing their existence? It is interesting to note in this context that the neuroscientist Michael Persinger used a device (TMS) that allows the stimulation of a limited area of the brain, through the bones of the skull, by a strong magnetic field that changes at a high frequency, and when he stimulated his temporal lobes he was surprised to find that he experienced for the first time The first is God.
In the book "Illusions of the Brain" (Maariv Library, 2004), the neuroscientist Ramachandran describes epileptic patients suffering from seizures in the temporal lobes of the brain who had religious and spiritual experiences of intense intensity, and pretended to have a direct connection with God and his angels.
Messengers of God or epileptics
Is it possible that the "messengers of God" in the past were nothing but epileptics who during their "religious enlightenment" had a seizure? Or does God communicate with his messengers through their temporal lobes? And maybe the religious experience and the deep belief in God are nothing more than neurological phenomena? And even if the religious experience is not related to any kind of disorder, isn't Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, right in his claim: "The lessons of the religious experience are sealed with the indelible seal of the wishes of the heart"? ("The Vision of the Final Theory", Ofakim Library, Am Oved, 1996 p. 236)
However, the question of the relationship between man's experiences that originate in his knowledge and the existence of objects that do not depend on or derive from this knowledge, is not unique to the question of God's existence. On the basis of the atheistic view that was presented, it can be argued that I cannot conclude from my feelings that there is an "external" world independent of or conditioned by my existence. Why in this case do the atheists believe in the existence of objective reality while they reject the objective existence of God because it arises from religious experiences?
This question raises the need for an extended discussion of the meaning of existence. Such a discussion is very important because when the believer claims that God exists, he has to present to us his view in relation to three main issues: a) What does he mean by saying that something exists? That is, what are the standards according to which it is determined whether a certain entity exists or not? b) What meaning does he attribute to the concept of "God" in whose existence he believes? Over the generations people have characterized this concept in different ways that were not always compatible with each other. c) In what way does he believe that the standards that define existence should be applied to the concept of "God".
Is there milk in the fridge?
Thus, for example, when I claim "there is milk in the refrigerator", I know the concepts "milk" and "refrigerator" very well, according to their physical characteristics, and I also have a clear criterion for deciding their existence, namely that they are amenable to my sensory perception. However, the use of this measure as a unit in the definition of existence is extremely problematic because different layers of being cannot be observed directly or through any equipment. Furthermore, this limitation is fundamental and does not depend on the scientific or technological knowledge that exists today.
Therefore, when people who believe in the existence of God try to convince others, who have not had experiences similar to their own in this existence, they face a very complex problem, because they are required to offer rational, scientific or other reasons for the existence of the God in whom they believe.
Such was the situation of the monk Anselm (1109-1033), one of the greatest theologians in the Middle Ages, who tried to prove the existence of God using the rules of logic that were known at the time. In the prayer in which he opens the second chapter of his book "Proslogion" he writes: (my translation) "Give me the understanding to understand that you exist as we believe, and that you are what we believe."
God as a being?
And what is the meaning of God in Anselm's eyes? He believed that God is a being that cannot be thought of as a greater being, that is, the greatest considered being. He felt that God answered his prayers and the fast he imposed on himself, because he believed that he had been able to clearly and completely prove the existence of God based on the definition he proposed.
This proof, which many wondered about and tried to disprove in different ways, and which was also popular among philosophers nowadays, is known as: "The logical-ontological proof of the existence of God". The wording of this proof presented in the Proslogion is cumbersome and not clear enough, but it seems to me that it makes sense to present it here (the translation and additions in parentheses for explanation are mine).
And indeed we understand that you are a being that it is impossible to think of a greater being than you. And maybe there is no such nature because "the fool said in his heart: There is no God"? (Here Anselm is referring to the verse: "The conductor said to David, "A harpy in his heart has no God" Psalm XNUMX:XNUMX). However, in any case, that fool when he hears what I say (about the being I'm talking about)...certainly understands what he hears, and what he understands is in relation to his understanding (is in his understanding), even if he does not understand that it (this being) exists.
Therefore even the fool is convinced that something "than which nothing greater can be considered" at least stands in a certain relation to his understanding because when he hears about it he understands it. ….. and certainly that being that nothing greater than can be considered, cannot be found only in relation to understanding (in thought only). Suppose it is at least in relation to understanding (in thought only) then it could be thought of (also) as existing in reality which is (and then it was) greater.
In more modern language, this view of Anselm's can be presented as a "proof by way of the negative" (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM) according to the following steps:
1. Suppose that God as defined by Anselm exists only in thought but not in reality (this assumption he wants to refute).
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in thought only. That is, if there are two considered entities, A and B, that both have the exact same characteristics, only that A exists in reality, while B does not exist in reality, then entity A is greater than entity B. (Anselm does not offer a clear and precise meaning for the term "greater" His intention was probably "comprehensive or more inclusive". However, as we will see later, this lack of clarification is the Achilles heel of the proof).
3. A being that has all the characteristics of God, according to (1) and in addition also exists in reality is a being that can be thought about.
4. From (1) and (2) it follows that there is an entity that has all the characteristics of God and in addition to that it exists in reality, greater than God.
5. From (3) and (4) it follows that a being greater than God is a being that can be thought of.
6. Based on Anselm's definition of God, it is not possible that a being greater than God is a being that can be thought of, which means we have reached a contradiction.
· The contradiction we reached shows that the assumption (1) was wrong, that is, it is not possible that God exists only in thought and not in reality.
God depends on the meaning given to him
What is interesting about this proof is that it is a priori, meaning that it derives solely from the meaning that Anselm attributes to God, and is not dependent or related at all to the state of affairs in the world. The core of the proof is this: if indeed I can think of an entity A that is not greater than it, it is impossible for this entity not to exist in reality. why? If entity A did not exist, I could also think of entity B which is identical in every respect to entity A, but in addition to that it also exists. Then it would be incorrect to claim that entity A is the greatest entity that can be considered., because entity B, which can be considered, is also greater than it.
Although there is a remarkable intellectual fallacy in this argument, there was an attempt to refute it already in the days of Anselm. The monk Gaunilo wrote a response to the prosologion titled, ironically, "In the name of the fool", in which he offered several reasons for refuting the ontological view. The most famous and brilliant among them is known by its nickname: "The Greatest Lost Island" (AGB). Gaunillo uses the same logical structure that Anselm uses to prove the absurd existence of such an island. He proposes to place in the verses (6) - (1) listed above in place of "God" "Agave" and in this way prove that Agave exists.
Following this criticism of Gaunillo, Anselm wrote a book "Reply to Gaunillo" in which he claimed that the analogy that Gaunillo proposed between God as a being that cannot be thought of as greater than him and the largest lost island is not valid at all. The reason for this is related to the distinction between two types of entities - a necessary entity and a contingent entity. The existence of a necessary entity does not depend on, or is related to, the existence of other entities, while the existence of a contingent entity depends on the existence of other entities. Therefore, a necessary entity cannot not exist, while a conditional entity can exist for a certain period of time and then disappear because the reasons that made its existence possible have ceased to exist.
Humans, animals, plants and even stars are contingent beings because when the nuclear fuel in a star, such as our sun, is consumed, the star ceases to exist in its current form. An inseparable elementary particle, i.e. not composed of other particles, such as the electron, can be considered a necessary entity, and this is because such a particle is not created from other particles and therefore its existence does not depend on any other entity. The problem with the "greatest lost island" is that this entity is contingent because the very existence of such an island is contingent on the existence of other entities, for example, a sea or other body of water on which the island floats.
Furthermore, we cannot increase the entity "island" without limit because starting from a certain size the entity ceases to be an island. On the other hand, "the being that one cannot think of a greater being than" must be a necessary being because by its very definition it cannot be dependent on another being. Gaunillo thus failed in his mission, and Anselm's ontological evidence lasted until the next "attack" on it in modern times, by David Yom and Immanuel Kant.
Kant objects
Kant's opposition to the ontological evidence is presented in his well-known book: "The Critique of Pure Reason" (2) published in 1787. His main claim is that existence cannot be considered as an attribute or a characterization (Predicate) of any entity. This is because a certain concept C corresponds to an object O only when the collection of features of C is the same as the collection of features of O, otherwise C would not be the concept corresponding to O.
So, for example, the number of dollars in a real $100 bill is exactly the same as the number of dollars in the concept of "100 dollars" treasured in my mind. And, when I say that the cat I'm thinking about exists in reality, I'm not adding any feature to the concept of the cat in my mind. According to several philosophers, this claim cannot be clarified and proven logically, so those who support this criticism of Kant try to convince us of its truth only based on examples.
However, let's assume that Kant is right and existence cannot be considered a property of a considered concept, how does this argument disprove the ontological evidence? The answer to this lies in step (2) in the proof where it is stated that the existence of a certain entity in reality is greater than the existence of that entity in thought. In what way? In this sense, the entity in reality has some additional quality that improves it in relation to the same entity that exists in thought. However, if Kant is right, and the mere existence in reality of a mental entity (concept) does not add an additional property to this entity, then step (2) in the ontological proof is void and the entire proof structure collapses.
However, a number of philosophers, among them Davies (3) (S. Davies) and Plantinga (4) (Plantinga) believe, based on the claims I made earlier and other claims, that Kant's starting point is wrong. Therefore, in their view, he failed to refute the ontological evidence. Their first claim is that there is no clear explanation why the existence of an entity does not add any value to this entity. I know, for example, that with a real $100 bill I can purchase products, meaning that it has purchasing power, while with the concept of "100 dollars" in my mind I cannot purchase anything.
The money, there is and there is not
Of course, I can imagine that I have a million dollars in my wallet, but just by having this concept in my mind, I do not become truly rich. Furthermore, Anselm did not assume in any part of his proof that the existence of an entity constitutes some additional property of the entity, but claimed that a concept referring to any entity becomes greater when we know that it exists in reality.
Another brilliant criticism of the ontological argument was proposed in the 20th century by Rowe (5) (William Rowe). His main claim is that during his proof, Anselm assumes the desired. The conclusion that Anselm wants to prove, namely the existence of God in reality, is implicit in step (5) of the proof.
At this point, Anselm assumes that the being considered the greatest can also exist in reality, because if this possibility did not exist, it would be impossible to think of a being greater than Anselm's God. How does Anselm have the knowledge that the possibility of the existence of the considered greatest being exists? After all, I can think of countless concepts that I know from my experience with certainty that they cannot exist.
Thus, for example, I can think of a horse with wings and assume the existence of such a horse in reality, but such an assumption has meaning if, and only if, such a horse does exist in reality, or at least I have a convincing reasoning that such a horse can exist in reality. That is, we can know about the possibility of existence in reality of a certain mental concept only in retrospect, after we have witnessed its existence. Therefore, what Anselm proves is this: if it were possible for the "being considered to be no greater than itself" to exist in reality, then it would exist in reality, but he does not show that this possibility does exist.
Refutation of the ontological proof
However, Davis claims that this refutation of the ontological evidence is also flawed. According to him, I can believe that a certain entity, A, exists even without clear knowledge that indeed A exists, provided that my belief does not entail any internal contradiction in my argument. So, for example, I cannot assume that there is any married bachelor because this assumption includes an internal contradiction - the definition of the term "married" is "not single". On the other hand, I can believe in the existence of living beings on the surface of other planets even if so far no such beings have been found. The history of science shows that in many cases scientists proposed the possibility of the existence of entities that did not exist in their time, and then these entities were discovered through experiment or observation. Thus, for example, Maxwell predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves in the middle of the 19th century, and this existence was confirmed several years after its prediction by Hertz. It seems to me that this argument of Davies' is quite weak since he also agrees that the existence of a considered entity is guaranteed only in retrospect.
It is possible to attack Anselm's ontological evidence from another direction as well and claim that the concept of God embodied in it includes everything that exists, the entities that are considered and actually exist. Therefore, it is understood that no entity can be considered greater than God, after all, what other meaning can we attribute to the phrase "greater than" in the ontological view? This idea leads us to the panentheistic view of Baruch Spinoza. This view arose from the failure of Descartes' Cogito idea.
Descartes was looking for a safe fulcrum, which would be impossible to cast any doubt on, on which he could place all his philosophical ideas related to the study of physical reality and man. He came to the conclusion that the existence of his thought cannot be doubted, because the very ability to doubt something requires the existence of the thought. He formulated this idea in his famous sentence: "I think therefore I exist" Cogito Ergo Sum, however this conclusion of Descartes did not stand up to the criticism of the philosophers who came after him. They were able to show that in his argument Descartes assumes what he is looking for by actually using several laws of logic.
This fallacy led Spinoza to the idea that if the justification of the primacy of reason is not possible, the source of existence must be sought in a being transcendent to man, which enables both the existence of his intellect and the ability of this intellect to understand the world independent of it. However, Spinoza's definition of the concept of God and the "proof" of his existence also raises many questions, and is not immune to sharp criticism. In his book: "Ethics" (6) Spinoza defines God as follows:
"Definition 6: By God I understand that there is absolutely infinite, that is, a being with infinite degrees, each of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence."
Spinoza clarifies the concept of "degree" in a previous definition:
"Definition 4: by title I understand what the mind perceives about the object as what establishes its essence"
From these and other definitions Spinoza comes to a conclusion which he proves in three different ways:
"Theorem 15: Everything that exists is in God"
In definition 4, Spinoza assumes the existence of the mind both as a means of perceiving the attributes of the object and as a means of establishing the essence of an object by relying on its properties. Furthermore, Spinoza assumes that the intellect can copy the skills of observing the finite objects that exist in the reality in which it lives in order to perceive and understand the existence of an object among infinite degrees. According to this conception, man creates God according to his abilities to perceive the tangible objects and his abilities to understand, for example the ability to generalize therein.
Against this criticism it can be argued that any theistic perception that goes beyond the limits of religious experience originates in human understanding, since man cannot break through beyond his understanding. However, since the mind can invent countless imaginary entities, the claim that some of them exist beyond man requires convincing justification. I believe that Spinoza does not provide such a justification, beyond the need for God as a link between consciousness and physical reality that Descartes proposed.
A more serious defect than those mentioned in the previous articles, in regards to Spinoza's theistic conception is related to the fact that God is defined in definition 6 as an entity that has infinite degrees. This infinite set of degrees can have a partial set, different from it, which is also of infinite degrees.
Let's look, for example, at the infinite set of all natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, …. which is denoted by N. We can look at each number in this group as a "degree" because each number represents an eternal and infinite essence. For example the number 3 represents infinite groups of objects so that each group has 3 members. From the set N it is possible to obtain an unlimited number of partial infinite sets, for example, the set of even numbers, 2, 4, 6, ... which is denoted by M. It follows that definition 6 of God is not unequivocal since according to it every part of God constitutes even He is another God.
Many different gods
Furthermore, it is possible to define many infinite groups whose members are not natural numbers, for example the collection of all points enclosed within a given cube. Therefore, according to definition 6, it can be said that there are many "gods" that are fundamentally different from each other. Against this, Spinoza could argue that the intention of definition 6 is that God is the largest group of infinite titles, meaning that every conceivable title or essence will be included in it.
But Spinoza does not address the problems I raised at all and therefore does not even try to prove the existence of such a group. Today we know that such a group cannot exist because, as Cantor proved in the 19th century, against every infinite group, A, you can build another infinite group, B, whose strength (that is, the "size" of infinity) is greater. In conclusion, the definition of God as a collection of infinite titles is not unambiguous and therefore contradicts the basic idea in all monotheistic beliefs that God is one, that there is no plurality of God.
It is possible to reduce definition 6 and state that God is the collection of all the titles that characterize the reality and knowledge of man in a certain period, for example, the one in which Spinoza lived. According to such an approach, the concept of God will expand with scientific development and man's self-knowledge. That is, God today is greater than that of Spinoza who did not include, for example, the degrees of electromagnetic waves that were discovered more than three hundred years after him. God today is more limited than the God that will exist in 100 years. This deficiency can be corrected and it can be stated that God includes everything that exists today as well as all the beings and their characteristics that will ever be revealed in the future.
What is good about this definition?
But what is the need for such a definition? What new insight comes from it? Furthermore, the grouping of entities into a group raises the question of the purpose of this grouping. Suppose I were to decide
To group all the vegetables and furniture into one group which I would call "green hit" in what way would such a grouping perfect my knowledge? So what is the point of grouping all beings from all levels of being under the wings of one concept? The only point, perhaps, that can be drawn from this theistic view is the belief in the limitations of our knowledge and knowledge, and the hope that in the future we will be able to know the world and ourselves better. After all, everything is contained in God and it is possible in His grace that Rav will reveal to us more and more of the secrets of the universe in the future. But for this there is no need at all for some new essence that includes everything, and in light of our past experience, belief in the abilities of the sciences is absolutely sufficient.
Why did Anselm, Spinoza and others who tried to prove the existence of God fail in their mission? I believe that the fundamental reason for this is that there is no way to "prove" the existence of God, who according to all theistic beliefs is the most sublime being. In every proof process we assume the existence of some cognitive means, for example logic or geometry, with the help of which we prove, as well as a number of assumptions on which we base ourselves during the proof. This implies that if it were possible to prove the existence of God, then the proof instrument and the assumptions we would base on would precede God in the sense that God's existence was conditioned by their existence, while their existence did not derive from God.
This state of affairs raises the question: Is it even possible to prove the existence of any entity? If this entity constitutes some theorem within the framework of an axiomatic theory, its proof has a clear meaning - a chain of theorems that have been proven in the past leading from the axioms of that theory to the desired theorem. Thus, for example, it is possible to prove, based on Euclidean geometry, the existence of 5 perfect fauns (that is, each of their fauns constitutes a perfect polygon, for example, a cube) in space.
However, it should be noted that the entities arising from axiomatic teachings are cognitive beings and their existence in reality independent of human cognition is not at all related to these teachings and is therefore not guaranteed at all. Furthermore, different axiomatic theories may attribute different characteristics to the same concept. Thus, for example, the triangle of Euclidean geometry is radically different from the triangle of Riemann's geometry (a triangle on the surface of a sphere in which each side is an arc of a main circle on the surface of the sphere).
A physical entity?
And what about any physical entity, or law of nature? Can we prove their existence? Why can't we also claim here that this existence is conditioned by the proof instruments and the assumptions on which this proof is based? Indeed, in the study of physical reality, we do not speak of "proof" but of "confirmation" (Confirmation), which means that there is no physical law or entity of which we are certain without a shadow of a doubt. The principle according to which the existence of any physical law can be refuted (Falsification) by some future experiment or observation is one of the principles guiding the development of experimental sciences.
There will be those who wonder: Is it impossible to claim that there are absolute truths about the world? For example, is the claim that the objects around me have mass not an absolute truth? The answer to this is negative for the following reason: the attribution of mass (for example, inertial mass) as a feature that characterizes material bodies is conditional on the observance of Newton's second law which states that for any body the ratio between the force acting on it and its acceleration is a constant that does not depend on the magnitude of the acting force. If this law were not true then the concept of mass would be meaningless.
Indeed, in special relativity the concept of mass takes on a completely different meaning precisely because of this reason. If the mass of a particle were absolute and constant, then, according to the second law, by applying a constant force on the particle, it would receive a constant acceleration, that is, its speed would be increasing and we would reach a situation where the speed of the particle would exceed the speed of light, in contradiction to the basic principle of special relativity.
Furthermore, one of man's basic beliefs is that the reality he observes and experiments on exists beyond his consciousness. This belief raises the question: how can man break through the limits of his knowledge and prove the existence of the world independent of him? After all, when I believe in the existence of some object, this belief relies on my knowledge. Therefore, in this context as well, similar to the discussion about the existence of God, I can claim that the existence of physical reality is conditioned by the existence of my sensory and cognitive perception and no meaning can be attributed to this reality in itself, as the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley claimed.
These and other questions, and the criticisms against evidence for the existence of God that have been proposed in the past, spurred me to look for a different meaning to the concept of "God" that on the one hand would have the power to perfect our knowledge of existence on all levels, including human reason, and on the other hand would be able to attribute to this concept an existence independent of the thinking person (7). But for this purpose it makes sense to clarify what the term "existence" means in the broadest context.
Professor Yakir Shoshani is a physicist who studies the philosophical foundations of existence and consciousness. His new book "In connection with God" will be published soon in the library of the "University Mashhadar" publishing house - the Ministry of Defense.
To purchase a subscription to Galileo
Knowledge of the universe and planning
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~191192186~~~100&SiteName=hayadan
