Anselm's Ontological Argument Anselm (1033-1109), Philosopher, Theologian

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 God may exist in reality If God only existed in imagination then he may be greater than He is Therefore, God is a being who is greater than He is This not possible, since God is a being than which nothing greater can be imagined Hence, God exists in reality as well as in imagination If we put this in simpler language, the argument goes something like this: God is the greatest thing that can be conceived.

If God did not exist, something greater than God would exist. But no greater thing than God can be conceived. Therefore, God must exist. In his argument Anselm goes on to give an example of a painter who before actually painting the picture imagines the painting in his mind.

He then asks the question: Which is greater, the painting that exists in the mind only or both the painting that exists in the mind as well as a physical piece of art that the artist produces? Obviously the answer to the question would be: both. In the same way, Anselm attempts to prove that God exists because, a) God is the greatest being possible, and b) He can only be the greatest being if he actually exists not just inside the mind but outside it (in reality) as well.

Anselm's argument can also be put in another way. This is the kind of argument known as Reductio Ad Absurdium (RAA) in philosophy. In RAA, one tries to prove that an opposite view of what one is trying to prove is absurd; hence what one is trying to prove is correct.

The RAA when applied to Anselm's argument goes something like this, a) God either exists or does not exist; b) assume that God does not exist (the opposite view); c) If God does not exist in reality, but only in the imagination, then that being who is being imagined is greater than the being than which nothing greater can be conceived. This is a logical impossibility; d) hence God does not exist is incorrect; e) therefore God exists.

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 --.