It’s good to change your mind, isn’t it? When you held to one thing and realise you were wrong, being prepared to admit it and adopt whatever position you think is now right is good. It is particularly good in academia, where ideas routinely get tested and (theoretically, at least) we ought to be pushing toward the most compelling positions.
Here is a good example of that. William Lane Craig explains that he changed his mind on the ontological argument for the existence of God. He once found it unconvincing, he now thinks it is compelling.
I think I was drawn to this because I originally didn’t find the ontological argument very compelling either. I could get behind teleological, cosmological and moral arguments much more readily. I was very much compelled by the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But the ontological argument seemed to me, to give Atheists their due, little more than a clever word trick. I have since, like Craig, come to view it as more sound as a logical argument than I originally gave it credit and have not found the arguments against it – certainly not from those who wish to retain a pretence of academic humility and insist they are opposed even to the possibility of the premise – to be far less compelling.
Anyway, have a listen to Bill Craig explain first that he changed his mind and then to an explanation of the ontological argument itself and see what you think:
I don’t get it. The human imagination can conceive of many things greater than itself, but that doesn’t make them true… from intelligent life on other planets to UFOs and talking animals. Maybe I’m dim but the ontological argument has always flown over my head..
The ontological argument doesn’t rest on the ability to imagine things greater than oneself. It rests on a definition of God as a ‘maximally great being’. What is clever about it (I think) is that if you accept the first premise and definition, if you accept this is a valid definition of God and you accept it is even *possible* such a being exists, you are logically committed to affirming that God does exist.
I used to hate it as an argument and found it a bit silly. I don’t think it is unassailable. But some guys have done some good work defending the first premise quite convincingly. But if you accept that a God would be maximally great and it is even possible that he exists, then you are logically committed to the fact that he does exist.
But I am not surprised many don’t find it compelling. Bill Craig – who is an eminent philosopher and a theist who would no doubt prefer it to be credible – didn’t either! If theistic philosophers struggle with it, we can’t be surprised if the ordinary man on the street will too.
But it’s surely conceivable that someone could imagine a God who is maximally great and concede that it is possible that he exists. I don’t see how that logically commits them to accept as a fact that he does exist. He could still be a product of their imagination.
I’m sorry I just don’t get it.
It doesn’t so much prove that God exists. Rather, it says if you are committed to the genuine possibility of a God, logic leads you to affirm that he does exist.
I think this is clearest in Plantinga’s modal version of the argument, which runs like this:
1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
2. Maximal greatness entails having maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
4. So in W there exists a being which is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in every possible world.
5. So in W the proposition “There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being” is impossible.
6. But what is impossible in one possible world is impossible in every possible world.
7. So the proposition “There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being” is impossible in the actual world.
8. So there is in the actual world an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being.
As you can see, the first premise is an affirmation that the existence of God is possible. The rest does follow logically.
Well, thank you for taking the trouble to provide these details… but unfortunately I’m still not convinced. I do appreciate your time though….
Fair enough – I appreciate it’s not for everyone. Nothing stands of falls on our accepting this and this alone. I can sympathise with why people don’t like it or find it compelling (I didn’t used to either) but I have come to appreciate it since.