Anselm of Canterbury:

The Ontological Argument

Does God exist?

Must there be a fastest runner?

Background

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was an Italian medieval philosopher, theologian, and church official who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. He is most famous in philosophy for having articulated the so-called “ontological argument;” and in theology for his doctrine of the atonement. Anselm was canonized by Pope Alexander II in 1494.

The Ontological Argument

The word Ontology means the study of being. An Ontological Argument is an argument for God's existence based merely on what God is. Anselm's version is based around the definition of God as being that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Can you work out the rest of the argument from these premises before scrolling down?

God is something that is better than anything you can think of.
God exists as an idea
Things that exist in reality are better than things that exist only as an idea
...
God exists in reality

The argument is roughly that, since nothing greater than God can be conceived, and it's obviously better to be real than imagined, God must be real or else we'd end up with a contradiction:

An outline of St Anselm’s Argument

God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived
God exists in the understanding
Something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists in the understanding alone
If God exists in the understanding alone, then we can conceive of something greater than something than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Something greater than something than which nothing greater can be conceived is a contradiction
∴ Something than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone
∴ God exists (in reality)

We believe that thou art something than which nothing greater can be conceived. Suppose there is no such thing, according to what the fool says in his heart There is no God (Ps. 14. 1). But at any rate this very fool, when he hears what I am saying— something than which nothing greater can be conceived—understands what he hears. What he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it exists. For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that that object exists . . . Even the fool, then, is bound to agree that there exists, if only in the understanding, something than which nothing greater can be conceived; because he hears this and understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding. But for sure, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, that very thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is a thing than which something greater can be conceived. But this is impossible. Therefore it is beyond doubt that there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

—St Anselm, Proslogion, c. 2

Gaunilo's 'Perfect Island' Objection

Another Monk, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers objected to Anselm's argument, however.

He thought that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

We can conceive of how great the greatest conceivable being would be if it existed… but that doesn’t entail that it exists. I can, for example, conceive of an island greater than any other island, but that doesn’t entail that it exists.

Anselm’s reply

Anselm responded by arguing that the ontological argument only works for God.

There is nothing in the concept of an island which makes it necessarily the greatest conceivable island. (Compare with an island not being surrounded by water – that is inconceivable). God, however, wouldn’t be God if there were something greater. The property of ‘being greatest’ is a necessary property of God (just like being surrounded by water is a necessary property of an Island).

Think of the following sentence:

'I am thinking of the fastest person in Valencia'.

There are two possible meanings of this sentence: either

I am thinking of Dave who happens to be the fastest person in Valencia
I am thinking of whoever happens to be the fastest person in Valencia

In sentence 1, there may be someone who turns out to be faster than Dave. This is called the de re interpretation - from the latin word 'res' meaning 'things'.

In sentence 2, there cannot (by definition) be anyone faster than whoever I am thinking of. This is called the de dicto interpretation - from the word for 'what is said'.

Perhaps we should take Anselm's argument in the second sense - i.e. that God is (by definition) whatever happens to be the best thing ever.

Gaunilo, on the other hand, is treating God as what happens to be the best thing ever.

Discussion

But then we come to the question: Can God really exist in the understanding? Can we really conceive of a being 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived?' Can we really understand the concept of God at all?

If we can't then Anselm's argument doesn't really get off the ground.

Tasks

Explain Anselm's Ontological Argument.
Explain Gaunilo's objection and Anselm's response.
What do you think? Is his argument convincing? Explain your answer.

Page updated

Report abuse