Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence

Anselm's Ontological Argument

Anselm (1033-1109), philosopher, theologian and church leader, has presented an argument for the existence of God that has been debated by philosophers and academicians for centuries. Anselm presented this argument in the second chapter of his book Proslogium (Discourse) written in 1078, and it became known as the 'ontological argument' much later, in the 18th century. From the beginning, Anselm's argument has met with criticism, appreciation and interest. Even in his lifetime a fellow monk, Gaunilo challenged his argument, as have some later philosophers, including Immanuel Kant. Other philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz have indirectly supported Anselm's view by presenting similar arguments for the existence of God. Any argument or thesis that has evoked so much interest over such a long period must have some merit and needs to be looked at with seriousness and an open mind. However, after a critical analysis of Anselm's argument, I have come to the conclusion that, although the argument is interesting, it has certain basic flaws, which I will attempt to bring out later in this paper.

The Argument

Anselm's argument was written in Latin so at the first reading of its translation in English it is difficult to grasp its exact meaning. One way of facilitating an understanding of the argument is by breaking it down into its essential parts:

God is defined as the being than which nothing greater can be imagined

The notion of God exists in the understanding of even those who doubt his existence

Evaluation of the Argument

While evaluating Anselm's argument what strikes me as the basic flaw (or weakness) in the argument is that Anselm has based his 'proof' on two basic assumptions. The first of these assumptions is the presumed definition of God as "the being than which nothing greater can be imagined." The second is the assumption that the God that exists in imagination is greater than He is. Now, if we are to assume the definition of God as being "the greatest being that can be imagined" as correct then there may not even be any point in going any further because we are already assuming that God is the greatest being that can be imagined. Basing our whole proof on such a premise (as done by Anselm) is, to my mind, weak. The second link in Anselm's argument that "the God that exists in imagination is greater than He is" is once again an assumption. One may choose to assume a being greater (or not greater) than the greatest being. The argument is like going around in circles or like trying to prove whether 'infinity' is the greatest number.

Immanuel Kant, the famous 18th century philosopher objected to the ontological argument for the existence of God by arguing, "being is not a real predicate." In simpler words Kant argued that 'existence' is not an attribute of an object like temperature, shape, size etc. Hence existence cannot be associated with the definition of an object. He has objected to attributing existence to the definition of an object because by doing so, we could prove anything exists by this method. Therefore the existence or non-existence of God cannot have anything to do with the definition of God.

Gaunilo was a contemporary of Anselm and a fellow monk who challenged Anselm's argument in his "Book on behalf of the Fool." Gaunilo suggested that the 'Lost Island' was the greatest island he could conceive. By applying the Anselm's argument he argued, we would have to conclude that the island in fact does exist, while in reality it does not. Anselm in his "Book of Defense Against Gaunilo" replied to Gaunilo's argument contained but his reply was basically a repetition of his earlier ontological argument -- which can be construed to mean that Anselm did not have an effective defense of the Gaunilo's criticism.

While analyzing Anselm's argument and focusing on its weaknesses, the obvious question arises: Why has the argument fascinated so many philosophers over the years, if it was such a weak argument? The answer probably is that it is difficult to prove Anselm's argument wrong logically. Even Kant's argument that "existence is not a predicate" has been challenged by others who have argued that there are senses in which existence is a predicate. So the controversy of and fascination with Anselm's argument is far from over and is likely to continue.

Conclusion

As we have seen from our description and analysis of Anselm's ontological argument, the weaknesses in the argument are at times so glaringly apparent that one is constrained to wonder what the all fuss was about. But the argument is structured in such a way that when you look at the argument from another angle, it may look quite plausible. Is it a magical trick or was Anselm pulling a fast one on us when he put together his argument? We are never likely to know for sure but 'the saint' is probably smiling from 'up there' while he looks down on people still struggling with the 'predicates' and the 'premises' of the argument and getting nowhere.

Gijsbers, Victor. "Theistic Arguments: Anselm's Ontological Argument." Retrieved at http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anselm.htm

Philosophy