http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ism8vGQTtD0
I usually opt to leave politics out of it, but consider the get-out-the-vote campaigns during the ’08 election. I received many calls from both. I was never available at the time, because when you work odd hours, you sleep odd hours, but the two campaigns were markedly different.
Consider, Election Day usually entails a long wait to cast one’s vote, and most people usually don’t like waiting in long lines. It therefore follows naturally that a lot of people would have an interest in taking advantage of the early vote. So when the Obama campaign left a message offering to help me register for the early vote on these grounds, it made sense to me.
The call from the McCain Campaign, on the other hand, instead of being an actual person, was a recording. Instead of an offer to help me take advantage of the early vote, the voice in the recording simply told me to, on the grounds that “Barack Obama has associated with domestic terrorists!”
Here, we are getting a little into Guilt by Association but such is not my intended focus here. Tell me, what does Obama associating with domestic terrorists have to do with voting early? Nothing.
If you believe that one candidate is just all-around a bad guy, then that’s a reason to vote against that candidate. That’s not a reason to vote early. Are there good reasons to vote early? Plenty. That, however, is not one of them.
Now consider the Ontological Argument from Saint Anselm:
Part 1: Greater than God cannot be thought to exist. Therefore God must exist.
Hmm. What’s the pattern here? Well, this means that, if the limits of human conceptualization extend only to a certain point and no further, this establishes the existence of whatever we insist is found at that point.
One serious problem here is that the existence of something in the real world is objective, while the limits of human perception are subjective and what’s more, varying. That is, they extend further at some times than at others. What if you were to encounter someone who could not conceive of greater than the Great Pumpkin existing? Would this establish the existence of the Great Pumpkin? Of course not. Our limits, the limits of what we can do, establish identifying information about us; not the Universe or the Cosmos.
Part 2: God cannot be thought not to exist. Therefore God must exist.
Clarifying this, Anselm is making the observation that when one thinks about God, one is thinking about God existing. One is unable to picture God not existing; therefore, he concludes, God must exist.
Consider, though. What about when one thinks about Harry Potter? Observe that when you think about him, you are picturing him existing. Does this establish his existence? Of course not, because of the same problem. Subjective, human limits do not establish objective universal fact.
Descartes’ addition: God, by definition, is perfect, and would not be so without the perfection of existence. It is more perfect to exist then not to exist, therefore God, being perfect, must exist.
Hmm. Does that work? Well let’s test it. What Descartes is proposing here is that one can establish the objective, universal existence of this, that, or the other thing simply by the act of defining it as perfect. So let us try and see if it works. Let’s send a letter to the folks over at good ol’ Merriam Webster. Let us talk them into adding the word “zeebledorf” to the dictionary. “What is the definition?” they will want to know.
Zeebledorf: a perfect unicorn.
If Descartes is right about this, then the moment the print hits the page, this ought to establish the existence of at least one perfect unicorn. Well, if perfect unicorns exist, then unicorns exist. Are any of us prepared to accept that?
Also, consider, who came up with the word “God?” We did. Who decided what that definition would include and exclude? We did. If the act of defining something as perfect is all it takes to cause it to exist, then this gives the creators of language, us, the ability to bring God into and out of existence. Surely Anselm and Descartes would not suggest that we created God.
Furthermore, what is perfection? It is a flawless state. We call a thing perfect when it has no flaws. I note that if a thing does not exist, it cannot have any flaws. Therefore, all nonexistent things are perfect. If a square triangle does not exist, then its flaws do not exist which makes it perfect. But then its flaws, being nonexistent, would likewise lack any flaws, which would make them flawless, perfect flaws. Hence, perfection agrees much more readily with nonexistence than existence.
The four examples I cited here are each an example of the same logical fallacy: the non sequitur. That is, the conclusions do not follow from the premises. Now since properly deriving conclusions from premises is what logic is all about, any places this derivation is not properly made, logic is not taking place.
No comments:
Post a Comment