28.01.2015 Views

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God - Anselm

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God - Anselm

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God - Anselm

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

‘A’ Level Philosophy and Ethics<br />

Notes<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Ontological</strong> <strong>Argument</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>Existence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> - <strong>Anselm</strong><br />

Syllabus<br />

Content:<br />

<strong>the</strong> ontological argument from <strong>Anselm</strong> and Descartes, and challenges<br />

to it from Gaunilo and Kant;<br />

For medieval <strong>the</strong>ologians, <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> was a "given" - <strong>the</strong>re<br />

was no need to debate it. As <strong>the</strong> philosophy <strong>of</strong> Aristotle, and his<br />

Muslim commentators, was introduced into <strong>the</strong> universities, it was<br />

seen as a threat to traditional Christian belief. A debate raged<br />

between <strong>the</strong> supporters <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new philosophy and <strong>the</strong> "orthodox"<br />

traditionalists. <strong>Anselm</strong> wanted to reconcile <strong>the</strong> two approaches.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Monologion<br />

<strong>Anselm</strong> wrote "<strong>The</strong> Monologion" as a meditation on <strong>the</strong> Divine Being. In it<br />

he stated that he wanted to find a single argument which would show that<br />

<strong>God</strong> exists. His argument came to him after a long period <strong>of</strong><br />

contemplation - it is said that he was sat in Vespers when <strong>the</strong> idea hit<br />

him.<br />

He explains his <strong>Argument</strong> in "<strong>The</strong> Proslogion". He bases his argument on a<br />

quotation from Psalm 14:1. <strong>Anselm</strong> argues that it is possible <strong>for</strong> anyone to<br />

conceive <strong>of</strong> "that than which nothing greater can be thought"-<br />

<strong>The</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e, Lord, you who give knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> faith, give me as much<br />

knowledge as you know to be fitting <strong>for</strong> me, because you are as we believe and<br />

that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than<br />

which cannot be thought. Or is <strong>the</strong>re no such kind <strong>of</strong> thing, <strong>for</strong> "<strong>the</strong> fool said in<br />

his heart, '<strong>the</strong>re is no <strong>God</strong>'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1) But certainly that same fool, having<br />

heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought,"<br />

understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he<br />

does not think it exists. For it is one thing <strong>for</strong> something to exist in a person's<br />

thought and quite ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> person to think that thing exists. For when a<br />

painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but<br />

he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has<br />

painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it.<br />

Thus even <strong>the</strong> fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which<br />

cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and<br />

whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which<br />

cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, <strong>for</strong> if it exists only in thought<br />

it could also be thought <strong>of</strong> as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If,<br />

<strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone,<br />

<strong>the</strong>n that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which<br />

something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly<br />

exists both in thought and in reality.<br />

www.<strong>for</strong>dham/edu/halsall/source/anselm.html<br />

What does this mean<br />

1. This "something greater than which cannot be thought" must exist, at<br />

least in <strong>the</strong> mind.


<strong>The</strong> <strong>Ontological</strong> <strong>Argument</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Existence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong><br />

<strong>Anselm</strong><br />

2. But if it exists only in <strong>the</strong> mind <strong>the</strong>n it is inferior to anything that exists<br />

both in <strong>the</strong> mind and in reality.<br />

3. It must <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e be that <strong>the</strong> thing than which nothing greater can be<br />

thought exists both in <strong>the</strong> mind and in reality.<br />

4. <strong>The</strong> most perfect conceivable being must exist in reality as well as in<br />

<strong>the</strong> mind.<br />

This argument hinges on <strong>the</strong> following points:<br />

<strong>The</strong> real will always be greater than <strong>the</strong> imaginary<br />

(compare this debate with Ally McBeal's struggle with<br />

her feelings about <strong>the</strong> perfect "meaningful o<strong>the</strong>r"!)<br />

That <strong>God</strong> is <strong>the</strong> "greater thing" that <strong>Anselm</strong> is talking <strong>of</strong>.<br />

This leads to <strong>the</strong> second stage <strong>of</strong> <strong>Anselm</strong>'s argument, that if <strong>God</strong> is <strong>the</strong><br />

greatest thing imaginable, he must exist - if he didn't, something<br />

greater could be imagined which actually did exist!<br />

In <strong>the</strong> third chapter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proslogion, he argues that <strong>for</strong> <strong>God</strong>, existence is<br />

necessary.<br />

In fact, it so undoubtedly exists that it cannot be thought <strong>of</strong> as not existing. For one can think <strong>the</strong>re<br />

exists something that cannot be thought <strong>of</strong> as not existing, and that would be greater than something<br />

which can be thought <strong>of</strong> as not existing. For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought<br />

<strong>of</strong> as not existing, <strong>the</strong>n that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot<br />

be thought, which does not make sense. Thus that than which nothing can be thought so undoubtedly<br />

exists that it cannot even be thought <strong>of</strong> as not existing.<br />

And you, Lord <strong>God</strong>, are this being. You exist so undoubtedly, my Lord <strong>God</strong>, that you cannot even be<br />

thought <strong>of</strong> as not existing. And deservedly, <strong>for</strong> if some mind could think <strong>of</strong> something greater than you,<br />

that creature would rise above <strong>the</strong> creator and could pass judgment on <strong>the</strong> creator, which is absurd. And<br />

indeed whatever exists except you alone can be thought <strong>of</strong> as not existing. You alone <strong>of</strong> all things most<br />

truly exists and thus enjoy existence to <strong>the</strong> fullest degree <strong>of</strong> all things, because nothing else exists so<br />

undoubtedly, and thus everything else enjoys being in a lesser degree. Why <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e did <strong>the</strong> fool say in<br />

his heart "<strong>the</strong>re is no <strong>God</strong>," since it is so evident to any rational mind that you above all things exist<br />

Why indeed, except precisely because he is stupid and foolish<br />

www.<strong>for</strong>dham/edu/halsall/source/anselm.html<br />

<strong>Anselm</strong> aims to define <strong>God</strong> in such a way as to make it impossible to<br />

conceive <strong>of</strong> Him as not existing.<br />

"Since <strong>God</strong> in his infinite<br />

• What we cannot conceive <strong>of</strong> as not perfection is not limited in or by<br />

existing must be greater than what time, <strong>the</strong> twin possibilities <strong>of</strong> his<br />

we can conceive <strong>of</strong> as not existing.<br />

having ever some to exist and <strong>of</strong><br />

his ever ceasing to exist are alike<br />

• It would be absurd to propose that<br />

excluded, and his non-existence<br />

<strong>the</strong> greatest thing that can be<br />

is rendered impossible".<br />

thought <strong>of</strong> did not exist, because Hick, J. Philosophy <strong>of</strong> Religion,<br />

<strong>the</strong>re would be something greater in Prentice Hall, p17<br />

reality than <strong>the</strong> thought first proposed.<br />

Assuming you can accept <strong>Anselm</strong>’s definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> as “<strong>the</strong> greatest thing<br />

that can be thought” If we can hold <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong> in our minds, <strong>God</strong><br />

2


<strong>The</strong> <strong>Ontological</strong> <strong>Argument</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Existence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong><br />

<strong>Anselm</strong><br />

must exist in reality, since that which exists in reality is always greater<br />

that that which exists only in <strong>the</strong> mind.<br />

Criticisms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Anselm</strong>'s <strong>Argument</strong><br />

A monk named Gaunilo argued that, if what <strong>Anselm</strong> said was true, <strong>the</strong>n<br />

<strong>the</strong> same could be said to prove <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> an<br />

imaginary island. His reply was called "In Behalf <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> Fool".<br />

• You think <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> perfect island.<br />

• Since it is perfect, it must exist, or it would be<br />

inferior to <strong>the</strong> grottiest island on <strong>the</strong> map.<br />

<strong>Anselm</strong> himself provided a reply.<br />

He pointed out that an island is a finite, limited thing.<br />

When one person imagines a "perfect" island, <strong>the</strong>re will always be<br />

o<strong>the</strong>r "perfect" islands.<br />

<strong>The</strong> "thought than which nothing greater can be thought" is unique.<br />

<strong>Anselm</strong> believed that Gaunilo's argument was defeated by his own<br />

proposition <strong>of</strong> "necessary existence".<br />

Necessary <strong>Existence</strong><br />

In “Teach Yourself Philosophy <strong>of</strong> Religion”, Mel Thompson points out<br />

that <strong>the</strong>re is a distinction between logical and factual necessity.<br />

• If "<strong>God</strong> exists" is a logical necessity (i.e. if it is an analytic<br />

statement, [true within itself] <strong>the</strong>n "<strong>God</strong> does not exist" would be<br />

self-contradictory.<br />

• If "<strong>God</strong> exists" is a factual necessity, it implies that it is impossible<br />

<strong>for</strong> things to be as <strong>the</strong>y are if <strong>God</strong> did not exist, and <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e that it<br />

is actually not possible <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>re to be no <strong>God</strong>.<br />

Thompson, M. Teach Yourself Philosophy <strong>of</strong> Religion, Hodder, p92<br />

<strong>The</strong> philosopher holds <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> a “Greatest Being” in his mind. Simply<br />

knowing about this “Greatest Being” does not mean that it has to exist.<br />

All that has been established is that if I can think <strong>of</strong> such a being, <strong>the</strong>n it<br />

is possible <strong>for</strong> it to exist. <strong>Anselm</strong> goes on to try to argue that it is<br />

necessary <strong>for</strong> <strong>God</strong> to exist.<br />

Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, if it can be thought <strong>of</strong> at all, it must necessarily exist. For no one<br />

who denies or doubts <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> "a being greater than which cannot be<br />

thought <strong>of</strong>" denies or doubts that, if it did exist, it would be impossible <strong>for</strong> it not<br />

to exist ei<strong>the</strong>r in reality or in <strong>the</strong> mind. O<strong>the</strong>rwise it would not be "a being greater<br />

than which cannot be thought <strong>of</strong>." But whatever can be thought <strong>of</strong> yet does not<br />

actually exist, could, if it did come to exist, not existence again in reality and in<br />

<strong>the</strong> mind. That is why, if it can even be thought <strong>of</strong>, "a being greater than which<br />

cannot be thought <strong>of</strong>" cannot be nonexistent.<br />

www.<strong>for</strong>dham/edu/halsall/source/anselm.htm<br />

• In order <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept held in <strong>the</strong> philosopher’s mind to be “<strong>the</strong><br />

greatest being”, it has to be <strong>the</strong> greatest thing in reality.<br />

3


<strong>The</strong> <strong>Ontological</strong> <strong>Argument</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Existence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>God</strong><br />

<strong>Anselm</strong><br />

• If <strong>the</strong> philosopher had thought <strong>of</strong> this greatest being, and it did not<br />

exist, <strong>the</strong>n (following <strong>the</strong> first part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Anselm</strong>’s argument) it would<br />

have to come into existence.<br />

• If it can come into existence, it can also go out <strong>of</strong> existence – it is a<br />

part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> contingent world, and not <strong>the</strong> greatest thing that can be<br />

thought <strong>of</strong>.<br />

If this “greatest being” that you have been thinking <strong>of</strong> is actually <strong>the</strong><br />

greatest being, it must exist. <strong>The</strong> Greatest Thing must be so perfect that<br />

it cannot be conceived <strong>of</strong> as not existing.<br />

<strong>God</strong>’s <strong>Existence</strong> is <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e Necessary<br />

But let us suppose that it does not exist (if it is even possible to suppose as<br />

much). Whatever can be thought <strong>of</strong> yet does not exist, even if it should<br />

come into existence, would not be "a being greater than which cannot be<br />

thought <strong>of</strong>." Thus "a being greater than which cannot be thought <strong>of</strong>" would<br />

not be "a being greater than which cannot be thought <strong>of</strong>," which is absurd.<br />

Thus if "a being greater than which cannot be thought <strong>of</strong>" can even be<br />

thought <strong>of</strong>, it is false to say that it does not exist; and it is even more false if<br />

such can be understood and exist in <strong>the</strong> understanding.<br />

www.<strong>for</strong>dham/edu/halsall/source/anselm.htm<br />

But…<br />

You cannot use this argument to prove that anything exists. Perfection<br />

does not extend into <strong>the</strong> contingent world. <strong>Anselm</strong> covered this in his<br />

discussion <strong>of</strong> Gaunilo’s objection to <strong>the</strong> first part <strong>of</strong> his argument.<br />

So:<br />

1. <strong>God</strong> is <strong>the</strong> thought than which nothing greater can be thought.<br />

2. <strong>God</strong> is not a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> contingent world.<br />

3. <strong>God</strong> is absolute perfection.<br />

4. <strong>God</strong> necessarily exists.<br />

Norman Malcolm (1911 – 1990) also suggested a way to understand <strong>the</strong><br />

concept <strong>of</strong> necessary existence. While he is not on your course<br />

specifications, it may help you to understand <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> necessary<br />

existence if you read his argument!<br />

4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!