Open Enlightenment

Being Ordinary Interview: Life, the Universe and Everything

I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Being Ordinary‘s Tom Buckley-Houston. Tom has done a wonderful job in editing down our very long discussion into a listenable interview. Although I talk about some of things I already touch on in this video, we end up discussing a diverse range of topics including astronauts, direct vs developmental paths and even the future of the human species. Check it out here!

Bookmark this article

Before, During and After Awakening

Q: What was it like before, during and after enlightenment? – Chris Marti, Jackson, Ceri, plus many more OE readers…

Before, During and After Awakening from Alan Chapman on Vimeo.

Bookmark this article

God Does Not Exist: Some Thoughts on Anselm’s Ontological Proof

Obviously, God doesn’t exist. But this is not to be mistaken for a statement of atheism, because consider: if God did exist then, like everything that exists, It would be inside the universe and part of the creation rather than creative.

If God existed It would have characteristics, in which case other things would be comparable with It. Many of the problems of orthodox religion, such as how God can be omnipotent or good, given the presence of evil in the world, are created by naively attributing characteristics or existence to God.

Anselm of Canterbury’s (1033-1109) ontological proof of the existence of God is an example of this error. God, argues Anselm, is by nature perfect, in which case It must possess the characteristic of existence else It would be lacking something (i.e. existence). Thus God, being by nature perfect, therefore must exist [1].

There’s nothing more human than wanting to bring God closer and make It ‘real’, but therein lies the source of Anselm’s error. A human being exists. To remove our existence is to take away all our characteristics. Without existence we cannot be a self, and the self is that which needs to exist. However, self is transcended when our dependence on existence is recognised and we understand how the self (unlike God) subsists only in things as a creation and is not itself creative. In other words, we draw closer to God on realising how the self does not exist.

Anselm Of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Anselm recognised that God is ‘perfect’, dependent on nothing, absolute, but his argument attempts to draw down God rather than encouraging us in the necessity to rise to It. God’s perfection is neither threatened nor completed by the possession of existence, because the instant that something exists it becomes dependent, contingent, relative to all things.

The absolute Itself does not lack or require existence because existence is the producer of lack, the basis of the need in things to assume an appearance of self.

The Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) devised a parody of Anselm’s argument, which uses similar premises to arrive at the opposite conclusion: the non-existence of God. It goes like this:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Rather than a joke or parody, I consider this a good working description of the nature of the divine.

Note

[1] Here’s a translation of Anselm’s argument in full from chapter two of his Proslogion:

[W]e believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God? But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak – a being than which nothing greater can be conceived – understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to exist. For it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, another to understand that the object exists. For when a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding be he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding and he understands that it exists, because he has made it. Hence even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

Bookmark this article