Today we are introducing a new area of philosophy – philosophy of religion. We are starting this unit off with Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, while also considering objections to that argument.
“That’s a Neigh” David Goehring https://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/8757020626
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashC...
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr - http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
If you start with the hypothesis that faith is the only way to know God, and especially if the reason for that is that rationality is not enough for this knowledge, the even trying to rationalize faith is wrong. You are changing the theoretical framework.
what surprises me the most about this discussion is the total lack of vision that both sides of the argument are expressing. The question for some apparent reason distracts everyone from a very real fact. In a nutshell god equals the creator. The arguments are stuck discussing a mute point because we have scientific proof what created our lovely Earth and what specific thing gave rise to life. Seriously people we know what created us and GOD literally means creator. Do you guys understand now?
Proof that God exists: The impossibility of the contrary. Without God you would naturally assume no objective standard for morals and truth. This assumption leaves both morals and truth arbitrary, which is a contradiction to reality. Another reason to prove God's existence is order. It is scientifically impossible that order can derive from chaos. It is also scientifically impossible that nothing can have an outcome. Evolution is unscientific because there is no observable evidence. It is scientifically impossible that life can come from non-living matter. It is also impossible to state no uniformity in nature because uniformity demands consistency and truth, which is basically science. Without God there is no value, guidance or purpose. Without God you have no reason or justification to trust your five senses. Without God you can't know anything. And that's why God exists. God has displayed his invisible attributes in creation so that we are without excuse. Our conscience bears witness of God's law. We have all broken that law and that's why we need a savior to bear our sin. And by his mercy we can be made righteous in the sight of God. We can get what we don't deserve. That savior was Jesus Christ. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the father except by me." (John 14:6). So repent, and trust in Jesus Christ unto salvation. And read God's word to obey it.
I'm grateful for Crash course it's so helpful in the way it simplifies some difficult concepts; although Anselm's Ontological argument is actually one of the arguments I find easy to understand. I think he did a great job in trying to define GOD even though GOD is way beyond our imaginations. The One who creates all things yet has always existed. There are some people that won't believe in the existence of GOD until they experience Him for themselves. Even though the evidence of GOD can clearly be seen in the creation. Only the perfect being can create such order. When I see human beings creating stuff I am reminded of the Creator, the most creative, the bestower of wisdom. I do not merely believe in GOD because I was told to, but because I experienced Him for myself. By giving my life to JESUS CHRIST, I began to truly know GOD for myself. JESUS is GOD.
Every other system is bound by logic, religion is bound only by faith and faith can have no bounds. This is why god is so great. Faith helps you to get through things that logic would say were not possible. For example, it would be illogical for a mother to try and lift a car to save her baby but a prayer for God to give her the strength and faith in that prayer could allow this to occur. Yes holes could be found in this statement but that is okay because faith is not bound by logic but illogical things like this do always occur. People criticize religion but they should remember that love is the most important part of religion and ironically, even some atheist BELIEVE in love. Another thought I have is that the bible states that it is better to believe and not have seen John 20:29 (oh by the way believing must include faith because otherwise it would be knowing). One last thing, I am an African American and my family came over on slave ships yet, my grandmother (born in 1922 and now deceased) had a college education and was very academically strong. Why? The town she came from owned a Black Church and in that church they educated their people. As a result of this many of them learned how to assimilate into a society that tried to keep them out. Of course, I believe this was the work of God. Praise the lord! And Think of all the social good churches do. Has there ever been a society that function without religion. I doubt it. Ok I'm done. Take care.
Another fault of Anselm's idea: It assumes that God must be the best possible thing. Which most theists (at least in teh Judeo-Cristian tradition) believes, since God as the "ultimate good" is a part of that tradition. (most interpretations of it, anyway.) But that is a belief, not a philospphical argument.
If you where to, say, make the same argument to a believer in the Aesir, he might be very well able to imagine a being better than Odin. Note that I havn't discussed this with an actual Asatrue believer, but the old "hethen" gods seems to me to have less of a claim of infalliability. Anyway, the argument stands. Even if we assume that a being such a god exists, we cannot automatically assume this being is also the ultimate good.
Um, the Bible is a theology book...…. and it certainly discusses atheism and many other godless isms. e.g. Read the book of Ecclesiastes -- its narrative reads like the existential woes of the affluent postmodern westerner, with a poetic critique of the ultimate message of said philosophy, which is ultimate meaninglessness without God. I wonder if the presenter has ever read any of the Bible of which he speaks?
So because I see a video of a man, does that mean he exists or is it just a hallucination of a real man or just a collection of electronic impulses that appear to be a man? LOL
Philosophy likes to contradict itself all the time. This crash course has definitely self-destructed.
Artistic depictions are not God. That is artistic expression. God exists as a pure and whole creator, the greatness of God exists through the creation of the Universe and all its wonders.
Beauty and creation are of deep and profound admiration simply due to the obvious existence of very intricate and mysterious ways of how everything was made and evolved. The big bang theory, a simple example, you have a printing press explode, but just because its a printing press exploding doesn't mean you'll have an encyclopedia or even a full written page, so this shows an example of how there is a mystery; the mystery is how did the Universe create anything instead of just an explosion but a master builder's hand. Everything has a reason and a place, a master equilibrium and a sequence to rationality. Science shows us glimpses of the creator, the Creator reveals Himself through his creation, just like behind a beautiful watch there is a master watchmaker. Behind the beautiful painting there is an artist and behind the rockets to space and land back safely, there are scientists who created space exploration. So behind them is a force to compel men and women to continue to create all things in love and for good of mankind and nature.
So next time you see a beautiful sunset or a splendid animal like a peacock or platypus, ask yourself, was this really just random or was it a creation from the Master creator, God.
A garden is defined by purpose and plan. So two people coming and going proves that there is, in fact a gardener! A bit of a negligent gardener...but who knows, maybe the gardener is on his way to dig up the garden and plant some better weed...umm...flowers.😏
The Universe is vast and there are many beings just on this planet, how could anyone say that god looks like us, talk like us and eats like us,
There are many good people who are dying of hunger, disease, bomb blast & etc and there are many people who are theives, murderers, killers & etc they are enjoying their lives and even controlling the governments.
There are many small children, girls, ladies who are being raped, murdered and even beaten to deaths, why god dosen't save them if he exists or he visited earth, the situtation is becoming dire and dire with every coming day.
God Exists but he never visited Earth.
I think that note right at the end there is the most important take away. If you're a good philosopher, you mustn't accept a flawed argument just because you like it's conclusion, something many people do in their daily lives, sometimes to guide decision making with extremely important repercussions.
Anselm developed this classic argument but the Crash Course guy on the video doesn't ever suggest that this is the only - or even the best - argument. It's simply one argument, with it's strengths and weaknesses. If you were to take a course in religious philosophy, you would cover a vast number of arguments (including Anselm's and Aquinas' 5 arguments).
You have based your entire argument of a single presumption. God is the greatest thing possible, then you decide that god has to exist to be the greatest thing.
1. You assume that god is the greatest thing in the world.... so you are using assumption rather than evidence and logic to base your argument.
2. What says that something being real, rather than imaginary is better? What if i like the idea of being immortal... but the problem is it would be worse if it were real, since i dont truly want to be immortal.. but in my imagination its brilliant.
"God" is for weak minded fools who need a sense of hope because they are afraid of dying. Isn't it better to be hopeful of an everlasting paradise where all of your lost loved ones will greet you instead of just dying and that's the end? People can't deal with the idea of not ever being able to think. very shallow and conceded. The worse are the ones who try to push that everything is out of our control and that it's all "god's" plan. Very ignorant. Ignorance is bliss as they say....
Well, my first point was that there are many, many people that are theists that are not weak minded. And your summary dismissal of theists as "weak minded" is, to me, both closed minded and dismissive. Second, my point about an explanation is in the vein of Aquinas' argument on contingency. In short, everything comes from something else (is contingent on other things). So the question becomes, where does all of the "stuff" the universe come from? And by "stuff" I mean everything - including space and time themselves, since they are simply objects in the universe. We can't use science to describe their origins (from nothing) ... since science only deals with interactions between existing "stuff" IN the universe. This singular initiator (whatever "it" is) must stand outside of the created universe. "It" isn't a magical being with a white beard (or any kind of conceivable being) and "it" doesn't have a residence (heaven) up in the sky somewhere. We've got to get those 3rd grade images of God out of our minds ... God, properly construed, is something very strange. God isn't just something "other" ... but something otherly other (to steal a phrase from Kathryn Tanner).
As for your comment about "joining God to live forever", I would say that this is a specific Christian belief. Anselm's argument and Aquinas' five arguments address the existence of God but that's it. They don't assign any specific attributes to Him (beyond being "greater" than all else or as being the "unmoved mover" - note that both of these descriptions are extremely broad). Of course, because Thomas' arguments indicate that the non-contingent, first mover must exist outside of time (since "it" created time), then in that sense "it" must be eternal.
So just because you can't explain "everything" that means there is a magical being that created it all?Very weak argument there, sounds like the man of ancient times who had gods to explain everyday nature. Why do we have to be so arrogant as to believe there is a magic god who will let us live forever in heaven?? Do you know how utter ridiculous that sounds??
Well, I would suggest that you sit down and read something like Aquinas' Summa. I think you might change your mind about "weak minded fools"; you may still disagree with Thomas, but I don't think that "weak minded" is an apt description. As for God's existence, I would only ask you where everything came from? And when I say "everything", I mean everything: matter, energy and, even more fundamentally, space and time itself.
I did find this video really helpful but I'd be even better without the music when the quotes were read. Also, the quotes were a bit too fast in my opinion - I mean we're dealing with philosophical theory 😇 but still so far the best video I've found on YouTube -- especially those in German are weirdly confusing and unclear, so I appreciate this helpful explanation. Thanks a lot, I'll check out your other videos.
But Guanilo did miss the point. Anaselm did mention at the begginig of hipothesis that god was the best THING that exists. He was precisely talking about every-thing thus it makes that hipothesis only work for God.
watched til 6;03 , but what am I, as an atheist supposed to learn from this? im not "on the hook" because atheism lacks belief, and that is as far as philosophers have been able to go, at least philosophers that as the presenter has said, dont beg the question. The monk thing was funny though, but nothing most atheists have not heard (atheists that have done very basic research)
All of Existence is Itself a part of God - God is the Sum of ALL Natural Processes – The Ground of ALL Being - Omnipresence, the Supreme.. or Ultimate.. Reality. The Creative and Controlling Force in the Universe - The Force regarded as causing and regulating the Phenomena of the World by the Universal Natural Laws - God is both Outside.. and Inside.. Space-Time. Not subject to the cycle of Birth and Death - The Ultimate, the Absolute, Infinite and Eternal….. ENERGY & FORCE
The word – GOD – functions as a SYMBOL.. representing.. the underlying Unity.. and.. or.. as a METAPHOR.. representing a personification of a Motivating Power.. of a Value System.. that functions in Human Life.. and in the Universe. The Force.. and Energy.. that supports the World - A personification of the Energy.. or Force.. that seems to regulate the Physical Universe - An anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism.. and symbolism.. are filtered through the medium of the psyche..
“God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” - - Joseph Campbell
CARL JUNG ON GOD
“A young female student accused Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed. Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, “When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!" - Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self
“The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it - I don't need to believe it.”
“I did not say in the broadcast, ‘There is a God’, I said ‘I do not need to believe in God; I know’. Which does not mean: I do know a certain God (Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, the Trinitarian God, etc.) but rather: I do know that I am obviously confronted with a factor unknown in itself, which I call 'God' in consensu omnium (‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur’).
“I put the word "God" in quotes in order to indicate that we are dealing with an anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism and symbolism are filtered through the medium of the unconscious psyche. Anyone who wants to can at least draw near to the source of such experiences, no matter whether he believes in God or not.”
“That religious experiences exist no longer needs proof. But it will always remain doubtful whether what metaphysics and theology call God and the gods is the real ground of these experiences. The question is idle, actually, and answers itself by reason of the subjectively overwhelming numinosity of the experience. Anyone who has had it is seized by it and therefore not in a position to indulge in fruitless metaphysical or epistemological speculations. Absolute certainty brings its own evidence and has no need of anthropomorphic proofs.” - Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self
Faith by definition (Hebrews 11:1) is believing in something that cannot be seen and thus proven. To demand proof from the person of faith, or to be a person of faith and thinking that their faith can be proven to the nonbeliever is to not understand it. The person of faith cannot prove their belief to the person with no faith, and the person of no faith cannot prove the person of faith to be wrong unless the faith is in something that is not metaphysical, like believing that the moon is made of green cheese which can be checked. The person of faith can explain their faith but this is not the same as empirical evidence. The debates on the topic really have no value. The bible teaches that faith is a gift of God. The belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross a sinless man to pay for the sins of the world inherited from Adam, and that he rose from the dead on the third day thus imparting the gift of faith and eternal life is a gift from God. That belief is not the function of tangible evidence.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The fact is that all argumentation for the metaphysical begs the question. It all stems from a presupposition that cannot be proven absolutely. If one reasons that you don't have to prove the platform your coming from you've put yourself into the same category as the side you accuse. Philosophy chases it's tail for the same reason.
PBS? gee, that's not connected to any Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Postmodernist stuff, is it? No. I thought this might be a good video then I sensed a hint of contempt and THEN I saw the PBS logo. Tricky, tricky.
In my personal opinion, I think that comparing God with a human as a gardener is a false example.Due to the fact that a gardener could be only A HUMAN BEING. Especially when is invisible we could actually suppose that the gardener is dead.. Which brings us in a contrast with HOW the FLOWERS OR WHAT THE garden had inside of it still GROWS UP. Which doesnt approves that whatever grows alone in the garden after no gardener to take care of it is Gods doing..cause actually if God was an idea..before we humans gave it a shape ..could be invisible..as a shape after we imagine him/ it. So that proves that in our logic, we approve a design of a PROTECTOR ( gardener and a space - garden) who we cant see or smell..but, in the garden we seek someone! and not something. A tracter for example. That defines we humans have an Overall idea of what not to seek. SO WE KNOW WHO TO HATE!
"Some people say that religion is the one area where you don't need arguments. That faith alone is enough. But philosophers don't take faith for an answer." ... You know better, Hank. That's a strawman. What about the theologians who don't take faith for an answer? You're conflating theologian with non-thinking believer in blind faith. You're just picking off low-hanging fruit. There are clearly atheists who don't have good reasons to back up their assertions of a lack of God. They just choose to reject God - perhaps to avoid acknowledging cosmic responsibility to a higher authority. They will quickly cling to an idea that is posed by a philosopher without examining for themselves the validity of the argument. Just like there are religious people who do the same. But that doesn't account for religious people who think through and consider the evidence and make informed decisions on ultimate truths and reality.
It feels as if he purposely choose the weakest argument for God. I see a lot of comments about him being "unbiased" but he just brushed the hundreds of better arguments for God aside and settled for the most ridicules and lazy so he could quickly refute it as easily as possible. Disappointed.
Skepticism gives the paradox that what the skeptic believes is true is false. When Christianity say to have faith that they mean belief in something of substance. What has happened is faith has become a meme of Christian belief in God, and we literally have enemies claiming belief in anything is evil, but believe in me, the atheist, because atheists have the best belief. This is a logic bottom of p & not-p (believe and not-believe) and it is a contradiction that demands that you choose something to believe in (even if it is in neither the premises nor conclusion, choose something and introduce a new term of logic) for the next logic step, because life does not crash and burn like computer programs. This is Christian evangelist skepticism, that what you believe of reality has nothing to do with it. What we are asking is to believe in the holy God for the purpose driven life, because without it, then all you can do is be subjective in your beliefs and only serve being an enemy and adversary.
In defense of Philosophy, belief is too valuable to be given to people who claim wisdom, just like wealth is too valuable to be trusted to the rich, where it is that we are remaking ourselves and choosing to throw off the troubles and evil that become us that are found in the reflection in our mirrors (where 99% of your problems are found in the mirror reflection of you, now look at it and smile).
The funny thing is that I could argue with Anselm using his first and second arguments, because I strongly disagree with the third one. I mean, I can see why the real pizza would be better than the imaginary one when you're starving. But in case with unicorns?.. I wouldn't be so sure. For a dreamer like me fantasies are better than reality just because they are fantasies. If unicorns were real, they would loose the thing that made them special, they would not be so exciting anymore. Reality spoils stuff like that, we often get used to real stuff very quickly. If you ever spent months waiting for a new game and dreaming about how cool it would be and then finally you get to play that game and it suddenly seems boring to you, then you know what I mean.
Therefore, to be the greatest thing I can think of, God must not exist in reality.
While I am a Christian who loves the idea of proving God, Anselm's argument was very flawed. If that was the only proof we had for God, I wouldn't believe in Him. Thankfully, it's not the only proof we have. Sorry Anselm, you had good intentions but your argument sucked.
Adolf Schlatter began his Theological studies with Anthropology, however in anthropic terms. He addressed the questions of, how God made us so that we can arrive at a certain belief about anything. Genesis begins with a Philosophic Concept, that reasonably explains the possibility, for, "personality." It begins with, three distinct equal beings, whose mutual reciprocal actions between themselves, represents a unity, of, "thought," "will," and "expression," God is love. If the Bible doesn't begin in this way, it doesn't start at all, and must not be trusted. But, it does, because it's a book about a God that thinks in a particular way, that made other thinkers like them, us, who went, "Yeah but," one day and fell from grace and become intellectually blind. Science can't talk about "personality," because science method is insufficient to take them there. Schlatter writes in his "Systematic Theology," "God makes the revelations of himself, and the recipient of that revelation, in such a way, that love and truth are possibilities for them." According to Roman's all the evidence for knowing God is in front of you. Kant, he helped Hegel give us a Hegelian dialectic conflict. Most Theology today, is deeply rooted in this science method. Schlatter's works, and they are significant, addresses the Kantian influence upon Theological studies since the days of Harnack and others. The Bible is the intellectual affirmation of all the possibilities. If it's not in the Bible, it can't happen. Genesis 1:1 enables, "Polemics." Islam is dead and so are all the systems that can't explain the possibility for human reason process. God is great. However, if you reason in a Hegelian dialectic, God might as well be dead. You know, if you don't know for yourself, you will follow someone else. That's not even a man. I taught our 9 son's this. Male by birth, men by choice. Thinking is the first act of worship, because it deals with truth. So much heart faith today, and so little thinking. Science and education, have taken peoples' ability to think for themselves away. "Hurry Jesus! Let's do it Holy Spirit!"
love crash course, although from a materialist sense of the understanding of religion, id say that human history shapes religion, not the other way around.
That is to say, the process of history, the philosophical underpinnings of any society, forge the religious beliefs of those present in them. i.e. , the backwardness of the crusades was ultimately do to the backwards philosophical underpinnings of society, one that was barberous in nature, rather then religious crusaders foraging history due only to their individual religious ideologies
When people point at violence, stoning or punishment in general as a way to try and destroy religion, but let's understand what was going on when such commandments were called for,
We here "look a woman gets stoned outside her father's house" they go to the barbaric verses, but try to look at it from all angles,
For instance say the ruler king or leaders commanded "all non virgins will be buried alive"' no one knows what the laws were before scripture,
Now imagine if you are falsely accused of not being a virgin, you would prefer to be taking to your father's house than being buried alive without any justice, by being taken to your father's house first, your parents would pretact you and law and order would prevent you from being falsely accused, and that is the point, atheists point to such verses which in this day and age sound dreadful but you have to understand what were they doing before hand?
Again if you were born in that era and your daughter was brought to your house to be stoned, you would protect her it's human nature, while the laws before the scriptures, your hand will be tied as they bury your daughter,
Again we all go to the worse case scenario before looking at the bigger picture, again Alan Turing the British war hero was chemicalally castrated for being a homosexual, this was only less than 60 years ago in the united kingdom, it's easy to find faults regarding punishment in scriptures in this day and age, but you must ponder how did we get civilized? Scripture,,, now we see and hear the atheists point at the religious people forgetting, if it was not for religion we all would be running around in a dog eat dog fashion,
Repeatedly we are told "there is only one God" ask yourself why? Killing is not worshipping God it's playing God, judging others be that by skin colour or their sex or language then that to is not worshipping God it's playing God, there is only one God and that's not you or me,
The bible is a fairy tale book. The Creator doesn't even like that absurd title called "god". The titles "god" and "lord" are titles that Lucifer has been using for centuries. Christians are Lucifer worshipers.
Does this confuse Anselm’s concept of a “possible world” with the existence of something within our thoughts? Or did Anselm change his proof later on? The presentation of Anselm’s argument here is different that I’ve heard it before.
I was a little disappointed they didn't really cover the other refined versions of the Ontological Argument (particularly Kurt Godel's, which is arguably the strongest). I get that these Crash Course videos are generally only ~10min long, but they could have cut out the part about the Invisible Gardener (which wasn't particularly relevant to the video's main topic IMHO) and replace it with at least an overview of the other arguments.
Still, I liked this video (as I do all of the Crash Course Philosophy videos) and look forward to the next!
This aint the argument of Saint Anselm. The argument is : the universe are made of contingent beings, so there must be a necessary being,or first cause. A necesaary being would have to be omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient. A being with those caracteristics is equal to the being we call God. Then if God is a necessary being, so He must necessarily exist.
The Gardener analogy is easily dismantled by the idea that the Gardener simply didn't come back.... Or can see that they are waiting for him and simply doesn't reveal himself. It's neither an implausible idea nor impossible to imagine a shy gardener who simply doesn't like to be around others while he tends to the garden.
It's also easy to imagine or assume the Gardener would simply wait until they inevitably went home to start tending the garden. The list goes on possibility-wise.
Of course then you could argue: "What's a gardener worth if he doesn't come back"
Well he's worth the flowers currently in the garden of course, he tended to them, and now they grow.
They wouldn't be there without the gardener. Most plants can exist in any temperate climate by themselves without human interference... Exhibit A: The Rain forest.
I'm sure to most animals we seem like Gods by comparison. We give them food whenever they are hungry, we give them shelter when they are cold, from their perspective we magically cleanse them of illness...
I believe in God, and I believe in intelligent design.
Love the video but it's not rocket science to prove the fallacy of that logic. And I love discourse, so feel free to find a flaw in my logic if it pleases you, but please do be respectful. I'm a firm believer in "learning more about the world = learning more about god" so I promise I'll be more open minded than most of my fellows.
to start off the only reason why someone would try to find out if God is real or not is because they would rather get it right when they are still alive to choose rather than go to hell because they didn't beleive or choose at all. Also if they find out that God does not exist then they can do whatever they please without fear of an afterlife. In any cas it would be wise to beleive because you have nothing to loose if you are wrong and everything to gain if your are right. Just saying :)
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.