Hartshorne's Revision: God's Existence and Modal Coextensiveness, Lecture notes of Philosophy

Download Hartshorne's Revision: God's Existence and Modal Coextensiveness and more Lecture notes Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! Charles Hartshorne and the Ontological Argument Aporia vol. 18 no. 1—2008 Joshua Ernst T he ontological argument distinguishes itself from the cosmological and teleological arguments for God’s existence because it is a priori, while the cosmological and teleological arguments are a posteriori. One of the first to formulate the ontological argument was St. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived in the late eleventh century. Anselm’s argument rests on the idea that God, by definition, is “that than which none greater can be conceived” and that this definition, when used in a proof created by Anselm, proves God’s existence. Another key point in Anselm’s argument is that if God exists, he must exist necessarily, symbolized “p ⊃ Np.” According to Anselm, who represents a classical understanding of God, it is impossible for God to exist contingently. Anselm’s argument has been criticized and critiqued by many philoso- phers, one of whom was Immanuel Kant. Kant felt that an ontological proof of the existence of God was impossible (Pojman 5). He called into ques- tion the use of being or existence as a predicate, which is used throughout the ontological argument. Kant argued that existence is not a great making property—knowing that something exists does not enhance the thing itself (Pojman 7). A century later, Charles Hartshorne revised the ontological argument and presented a different interpretation of God’s mode of exis- tence or of the way God can and needs to be perfect. Hartshorne argued that not only does his version of the argument withstand critiques such as Kant’s, it eliminates the fallacy he feels Anselm’s original argument creates: rather than prove God’s existence, Anselm’s argument proves the necessity of God’s non-existence. I will first outline Anselm’s original argument and Kant’s critique of that argument. I will then outline Hartshorne’s version of Joshua Ernst is a senior at Brigham Young University studying philosophy, logic, and Spanish. His primary interest is philosophy of religion. After graduation he plans to attend law school where he will study business litigation. This essay won third place in the 2008 David H. Yarn Essay Contest. Joshua ernst58 the argument and explain in detail the following: the central assumption of Hartshorne’s proof, that God is possible, Hartshorne’s defense of that the- sis, and that Hartshorne’s defense establishes the validity of his thesis. St. Anselm’s Presentation Anselm defines God as that than which none greater can be conceived. He claims that when someone hears this, “he surely understands what he hears; and what he understands exists in his understanding” (Pojman 4). However, even though this idea exists in the understanding of an individ- ual, that individual may not necessarily realize that it exists in reality as well. These two things are obviously different, for as Anselm explained, “When a painter, for example, thinks out in advance what he is going to paint, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand that it exists, since he has not yet painted it” (Pojman 4). However, once the artist paints the object, then it exists both in his understanding, and he understands that it exists. Anselm continues his argument by claiming that than which none greater can be conceived cannot only exist in the understanding, “for if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater” (Pojman 4). This leads to a contradiction, as shown in the following proof: 1. God =df that than which none greater can be con- ceived. 2. Some things exist only in the understanding; oth- ers exist both in the understanding and in reality. 3. God exists in the understanding. 4. All else being equal, that which exists both in the understanding and in reality is greater than that which exists only in the understanding. 5. God exists only in the understanding. 6. It is possible to conceive a God that does not exist only in the understanding. 7. We can conceive of a greater being than God. (4) (5) (6) 8. We can conceive of a greater being than God and God is that than which none greater can be conceived. (1) (7) 9. God does not exist only in the understanding. (5) (8) 10. Therefore, he must exist in reality as well. Charles hartshorne and the ontologiCal argument 61 The central assumption or thesis to Hartshorne’s argument is that God’s existence is possible. This assumption is important because the logi- cal underpinning of the argument is that to be possible and to be are the same thing. In defense of his thesis, Hartshorne offers two main points: the inclusion of possibility in the reality of God and that the neoclassical conception of God is able to overcome major difficulties the classical concep- tion, such as that of Anselm, is not able to overcome. In order to see the importance of possibility, first we must understand the differences between classical and neoclassical conceptions. Hartshorne did not disagree with every aspect of Anselm’s insights: his “argument against Anselm is that, while his insight into the logical status of perfection was correct (i.e., that perfection is either absolutely necessary or utterly impossible), his interpre- tation of what perfection means was inadequate” (Goodwin 52–53). The classical conception of God dictated the following: perfection must imply changelessness, a perfect being must be wholly actual, there is no potential- ity in the reality of God, and God is immutable or wholly necessary; there is no distinction between what he is and that he is (53). Hartshorne labeled this as actus purus. Neoclassicism states that perfection does not need to imply change- lessness. By introducing possibility into the reality of God, actus purus becomes modal coextensiveness, or “God covers, with complete adequacy and comprehensiveness the territory of the actual and the territory of the pos- sible” (Goodwin 55). This means that God is both everything that is and everything that could be. Modal coextensieveness also implies a certain distinction in an individual between its abstract identity, the idea of some- thing, and its concrete actual states, how that thing actually is. For example, there is a distinction between the fact that you exist, which encompasses you as an idea or being, and the fact you exist now reading this paper, or how it is that you exist in this moment. God has these two distinctions as well; however, the difference between you and God is that “in Him alone it is possible to treat existence as not only different, but different modally, from actuality, i.e., so that one is necessary, the other contingent” (Goodwin 56). God can be necessary (his abstract being) and contingent (his concrete states of existence). Under this revision, all the normally attributed properties of God do not apply to his whole being, but only to one aspect; they apply to his abstract being, not to his contingent and changing states and there- fore, the classical definitions of God are not denied. I will now show that the neoclassical conception of God is able to overcome the major difficulties that the classical conception is unable to overcome. I will follow a defense for this thesis outlined by George L. Goodwin in his work The Ontological Argument of Charles Hartshorne.4 4 I have already cited Goodwin various times in the paper, but the information I have cited is not unique to his book alone. However, the defense he outlines is specific enough for me to explicitly cite his book. Joshua ernst62 A Formal Ambiguity in the Notion of Perfection Anselm said God is, by definition, that than which none greater can be conceived or that there is no greater being than God. However, this can be interpreted in two ways. Either God is unsurpassable by all beings, or he is unsurpassable by all beings “save self in future states” (Goodwin 58). If interpreted one way, then the “none” in Anselm’s definition refers to all beings, including God himself, and if interpreted the other, then the “none” refers to other beings, except for God himself in the future. This ambiguity allows for a “neglected alternative” in the realm of perfection (58). Goodwin argues that “God is absolutely perfect in all respects” and “God is absolutely perfect in no respects” are contradictory, that only one can be true, but that they can both be false at the same time. Therefore, all the possibilities must be taken into account. The alternative lies between “all” and “none,” or “some.” Goodwin formalized the three possibilities as follows: “God is in all respects absolutely perfect and is unsurpassable by self; God is in some respects absolutely perfect and unsurpassable, and in other respects perfectible or surpassable by self; God is in no respects absolutely perfect and in all respects perfectible” (Goodwin 59). Perfection Requires Potentiality There is an important distinction between the neoclassical concept, modal coextensiveness, and the classical concept, actus purus. The former expresses perfection in terms of becoming, while the latter expresses perfec- tion in terms of being. Under the idea of perfection in terms of becoming, there exist two modes of reality: “concrete becoming and abstract being” (Goodwin 60). In terms of abstract being, perfection will be achieved; it will have the static notion that classic theism believes. However, in terms of concrete becoming, the being will be maximally perfectible only by him. Actus purus, argues Goodwin, removes the distinction between pos- sibility and actuality. Because God possesses all values completely, what actually is and what could be are the same thing. However, Goodwin offers the following example: If the definition of omniscience is “perfect knowl- edge,” and a correct knowledge of events which have not yet occurred requires temporality in understanding, “then a perfect knower will know the future . . . as possible and not as actual. God’s knowledge is perfect because he knows all the actuality as actual and all the possibility as pos- sible” (Goodwin 62). This understanding is requisite as we consider the idea of all possible values. There are values, such as green and not-green, that are such that they cannot exist at the same time. A classical concept of God requires the actuality of all values, or that all possibilities are actual Charles hartshorne and the ontologiCal argument 63 and complete. However, even a simple contradiction between green and not-green shows that this cannot be. Under the classical interpretation, such a contradiction would render the argument not only invalid, it would be necessarily impossible for God to exist under the classic interpretation while considering the notion of perfection. However, in a neoclassical interpretation God has all actual values as actual and all possible values as possible, thus allowing Hartshorne’s argument to avoid the contradiction. Goodwin raises another contradiction within the classical under- standing and the idea of infinity and actuality. Goodwin defines actuality as “the decision among competitive alternative possibilities” (63) or that there is always a choice among possibilities in any situation, and there are more possibilities that are not brought about than those that are. If actus purus contains the possibilities that are carried out, what of the possibilities that are not carried out? By definition, infinity would take into con- sideration both those possibilities that are carried out and those that are not carried out. However, it is important to remember that infinite, in terms of actus purus, cannot mean all possibilities, for I have already shown above that all possibilities are not housed within actus purus (green and not-green). It would seem, according to Goodwin, that infinity is not the totality of actuality, but “the unrestricted disjunction of all possible states of affairs” (63). In the modal coextensiveness of God, infinity is contained within his potentiality, not within his actuality. The final contradiction stems from a critique much like that of Kant. Goodwin argues that “nor can the divine reality—conceived as wholly actual—be necessary. No actuality . . . can be necessary, and this is the insight which has been misstated in the dogma that ‘existence is not a predicate.’ . . . God as actual cannot be necessary” (64). Classic interpreta- tion, just as Kant argued, cannot carry existence as a predicate because it simply states that God exists. However, modal coextensiveness’s existence is always a predicate, because modal coextensiveness says that God is con- tingent or necessary, which describes how he exists, rather than stating that he does. Describing how something exists adds to the thing itself, and thus Hartshorne’s argument is able to avoid another objection that the classical interpretation cannot. The Existence -Actuality Distinction Hartshorne once said, speaking of the existence-actuality distinc- tion, that it “is so essential I would have little interest in the ontological proof apart from it” (Goodwin 65). It is vital to Hartshorne because it is the backbone of his potentiality argument—that God’s actual state is not the greatest possible state. To approach this subject, Goodwin first considers