Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T21:55:26.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontological Arguments for Satan and Other Sorts of Evil Beings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

William L. Power
William L. Power
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the years it has been suggested that it is possible to construct deductive arguments for the existence of Satan and other sorts of evil beings, modelled on Anselm's argument in the Proslogium. From time to time such suggestions and similar proposals have also appeared in print. In my judgment, such suggestions and proposals are ill-conceived, misguided and foolish. My reasons for this judgment are all implicitly contained in Anselm's Proslogium or in his reply to Gaunilon. When examined in light of Anselm's insights, arguments for the existence of Satan and other sorts of evil beings turn out to be unsound.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , Fall 1992 , pp. 667 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 One of the more recent proposals is that by David, and Haight, Marjorie, “An Ontological Argument for the Devil,” The Monist, 54, 2 (April 1970): 218–20Google Scholar. An earlier piece is that by Richman, Robert J., “The Ontological Proof of the Devil,” Philosophical Studies, 9, 4 (June 1958): 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Hartshorne, Charles, Man's Vision of God (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941), p. 303f.Google Scholar; also Devine, Philip E., “The Perfect Island, The Devil, and Existent Unicorns”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 12, 3 (July 1975): 257–58.Google Scholar

3 In my judgment one of the best discussions of Anselm and his interpreters is still that of McGill, Arthur C., in Hick, John and McGill, Arthur C., eds., The Many-Faced Argument (New York: Macmillan, 1967), p. 33–110.Google Scholar

4 Anselm, , Proslogium, translated by Deane, S. N. (LaSalle: Open Court, 1958), p. 10.Google Scholar

5 See my article on John Baillie where the classical understanding of faith is discussed: “Our Experience and Knowledge of God,” in Nicholás, Antonio De and Moutsopoulos, Evanghelos, eds., God: Experience of Origin? (New York: Paragon House, 1985), p. 142–57.Google Scholar

6 Anselm, Proslogium, p. 1.

7 Ibid., p. 154.

8 Hick and McGill, eds., The Many-Faced Argument, p. 303.

9 Hartshorne, Charles, The Logic of Perfection (LaSalle: Open Court, 1962)Google Scholar, and Anselm's Discovery (LaSalle: Open Court, 1965).

10 See my article, “Analysis and Theology,” Sophia, 17, 2 (July 1978): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Melanchthon, Philip, Loci Communes of 1555, translated by Manschreck, Clyde L. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 24.Google Scholar

12 This is the mistake made by Grant, C. K. in his short article, “The Ontological Disproof of the Devil,” Analysis, 17 (January 1957): 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Ibid. Grant notes that this was pointed out to him by P. T. Geach.