Q&A: The Anthropological Argument
The Anthropological Argument
Question
Is there somewhere that the Rabbi has spelled out his view of the anthropological argument regarding the existence of God, and if not, could you briefly give your opinion on it?
Answer
I don’t remember such a place. What is commonly called the anthropological argument is an argument based on the very existence within us of the concept of God, which supposedly proves His existence outside of us as well (otherwise, where would we have drawn that concept from?).
In my view, the argument is not especially strong, since it is clear that we have the ability to generalize and extend our experience, and arriving at the concept of an omnipotent being who created the world does not seem to me such a dramatic leap that it would require a source in some external experience. The sense of obligation toward Him, however, is already harder to explain (in my view it stems from His very being God; that is, it is almost part of His definition). In my opinion, that is a stronger argument in favor of His existence, though of course one can dispute that as well.
Discussion on Answer
Someone who discovers within himself a religious obligation—this is a sign for him that he is encountering God. That is what I called a “theological” argument (as opposed to a “philosophical” one). A sign, not a cause.
Yes, but why not say that this is the definition of God—as an entity one is obligated to obey—and then it doesn’t say very much.
Second, maybe religious obligation comes because of ontic gratitude?
I didn’t understand the question. This is an essential characteristic of Him (not a property, because this speaks about His status and not about Him Himself), but the claim that one ought to worship Him is a claim, not a definition.
Ontic gratitude is indeed the basis of that obligation toward God. That is basically exactly what it is.
But why can’t you say that this is the definition, like in the ontological argument?
Second, if it comes from gratitude, then how is it any different from the moral argument?
I don’t understand the question. You keep repeating it, and I already answered.
It is similar to morality, except that here we are talking about religious obligation, not moral obligation.
I really don’t think you answered the second part.
If you say that religious obligation comes from gratitude (morality),
God is defined as the one who created you.
So religious obligation comes from a purely moral source, like honoring one’s parents; it’s not a new branch… to create a new argument.
You wrote “ontic gratitude,” so I assume you know my definition of that concept. It is not connected to morality.
Maybe the Rabbi could write a bit more about the second part of the answer.
The very understanding of obligation toward Him comes from recognition.