c







  

 


 
 


The word ͚challenge͛ can be taken to mean a number of things. The success or failure of the
Ontological Argument could pose a ͚challenge for faith͛ by making a person question their religious
beliefs further. It may provoke a response either by challenging people to rethink their approach or
defend it. I will consider the positive and negative challenges for faith that the success or failure of
the ontological argument may pose.

Faith is a freely given and trusted belief in God. Some would argue that the ontological argument will
not convince atheists and will not affect theists and thus has no significance for faith. Others would
say the argument has immense significance if it succeeds. The success of the argument might
challenge non propositional faith. Kierkegaard believed that faith is non propositional and he
claimed that objective probability is actually undesirable to the theist. For faith to mean anything it
has to be taken against the odds. So any attempt to prove the existence of God might challenge the
believer in that they may not want faith to be made easier through reasoned argument. That kind of
faith based on reason may not be worth having.

But faith can be propositional in that it can be supported by reason. Scientists want empirical a
posteriori evidence to support their hypotheses and, similarly, it may be helpful to confirm faith
through reasoned argument. We live in a scientific age where we want as much evidence as we can
get. Anselm's Ontological argument was intended to show the inadequacy and absurdity of the
opposition.

Faith may be challenged by the failure of the argument. If a person of faith is looking for a rational
argument that will completely convince them that belief in God is beyond doubt, then the failure of
the Ontological argument may present a problem. Kant's refutation of the ideas that existence is a
perfection seems to refute both Anselm's first form and Descartes first part of their Ontological
argument. It has been persistently backed up by the work of Russell (oranges and unicorns, Moore(
tame tigers) and lume( existence is not a predicate.) Findlay argues even of a necessary being! So all
that the argument can prove is that if God exists then God must exist. This apparent failure might
challenge a person of faith and make them wonder if God exists after all.

However, Kant refuted the Ontological argument but was still able to present a moral argument for
the existence of God so his faith was not challenged just because he believed that the Ontological
argument failed. Other arguments might have more success. Similarly, St Thomas Aquinas said that
the Ontological argument failed for several reasons and yet his faith in God was not challenged. He
argued that no amount of purely rational arguments would succeed in proving God. What was
required was evidence, hence his Five Ways based on a posteriori arguments. So Ontological
arguments neither support faith nor challenge in a negative way.

Faith is not challenged by the success or failure of this argument some theists argue, because it is
impossible to prove the existence of God through reference to reasoned argument. Faith in God is
non-propositional. Strong faith should be able to resist such a challenge in that it is not important if
you truly believe. Anti realist argument. Faith can be non cognitive e.g. Hare's Blik. Some non
propositionists argue that belief in God can only be based on revelation from God (Barth). Descartes
also believed in the doctrine of innate perception- he claimed that his definition of God as a
supremely perfect being was intuited and must have come from God. In other words, no rational
argument will establish beyond reasonable doubt that God exists because God is a wholly other
being who will make himself known to people apart from through logic .

However, propositional faith may consider it important to have reasoned faith which is logical and
can be followed.

Overall, faith is not challenged by the success or failure of the argument because faith can be non
cognitive and to use Hare͛s word, a Blik. Bath argued that belief in God could only come from divine
revelation. Descartes seemed to support this with his doctrine of innate perception. His definition of
God as ͚the supremely perfect being͛ came from God himself; the trademark argument which
Anselm had argued from faith.

Personally I believe that whether the argument succeeds or fails, it poses little challenge to faith.
Generally strong faith will not be swayed by even the failure of an argument but even if it is
successful it is unlikely to persuade a non-believer. This can be seen by Richard Dawkins, who wrote
his strongly opposing views and also on the failure of the argument. Also, in the modern world, the
ontological argument with its medieval form of proof can be interesting for scholars, believers and
non believers but is generally speaking irrelevant in development or challenge to faith, whether it
succeeds or fails.