The Ontological Argument of St. Anselm

St Anselm and the Ontological Argument

St Anselm is often regarded as the originator of the first ontological argument. Anselm was a philosopher, theologian, and bishop of Canterbury. Anselm’s ontological arguments are divided into two parts. Anselm’s original argument has been examined for a long time, and various scholars have criticized it. It is vital to highlight that Anselm’s arguments are a priori. The definition of God establishes the existence of God (Corfield, Ian 1).

Anselm’s Argument of Existence

According to the philosopher: [Even a] fool, when he hears of a being with nothing greater can be conceived...understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding. That which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. (Anselm qtd. in Himma Einar, Kenneth par 7).

The Existence of God

Anselm presents that even a fool who hears that there is the existence of a greater being understands that information and that notion remains within him even if he refuses to believe that God exists. But the fact that the fool knows that God exists then it is true that God exists and the fools lack of acknowledgment of the existence of God is a matter of his folly.

The Concept of God

To Anselm, the existence of God can be proved by looking at the definition of who God is and the descriptions of God present him as the greatest being with none other being having a match for the greatness of God. Therefore, since there is no imaginable greater being than God, he remains a conception in the mind of individuals. Furthermore, if a being exists as both a reality and an idea in mind, then the being becomes greater than one which only exists as an idea. In that case, if God only exists in mind as an idea, there is the possibility of imagining a greater being that exists in mind as both an idea and reality. However, since the mind cannot imagine a being that is greater than God, then it puts a stop to the imagination process and indicates that God alone can exist as an idea and as a reality leading to the conclusion that God exists. What Anselm means in reality vs. mind existence argument can be interpreted as follows:

Understanding Anselm’s Ontology

If God = G and a being greater than God = GG and G exists while GG does not, then the greatness of G supersedes that of GG.

Or, if existence = object x and object x exists in G but it does not exist in GG, then the greatness of x in G surpasses the greatness of x in GG because, in GG, x is non-existent.

Criticism of Anselm’s Ontology

But Anselm’s ontology tends to support the existence of any imagined thing as long as the person has the knowledge that such a thing exists. Therefore, imagination equals the actual existence of anything that the mind imagines. The original ontology of Anselm has been criticized by several philosophers for permitting a method that argues the existence of anything. Gaunilo of Marmoutier exemplifies the supposition of the existence of an island that is greater than all real islands because that knowledge of the island exists in mind. If Anselm’s ontology is used to prove the existence of the island in Gaunilo’s example, it can be assumed that if Island Z exists as the greatest one in the mind of a person then there is no doubt that any other imagined island cannot exist but only the one that is in the understanding of the person (Himma Einar, Kenneth par. 13).

Limits of Anselm’s Ontology

From Gaunilo’s critique emerges a question, what are the characteristics that make one island greater than the other in this example? And isn’t there a possibility that the characteristics can differ from the understanding of one person to another?

Thus, it can be presumed that even with the loophole of allowing people to imagine the existence of all kinds of things, the properties of such things are worldly and incomparable to the ones attributed to God. That means the argument of Anselm is useful for the understanding of the existence of things whose properties have a specific maximum. For instance, God is perceived as powerful and moral goodness that define the greatness of the being. Since no other imaginable being can have properties exceeding those that are attributed to God, then there is no greater being than God and is the proof that God exists. In other words, it is impossible to imagine another being that has the powers like God’s or even surpass His capabilities and knowledge. In that sense, powerful beings may exist but none can be imagined to hold the properties attributed to God, and that is proof that God exists. The ontology of Anselm can also be understood to imply that even those who do not believe in the existence of God understand within them that there is no other being that takes up the qualities of God or even has higher powers. Thus the non-believers only deny the truth but understand that there is a superior being called God.

Criticisms of Anselm’s Ontology

Another contestable point by Anselm is the supposition that every person who has heard of the name God has an understanding of the concept of God as signifying greatness that cannot be surpassed by any other being. St Thomas Aquinas (Himma Einar, Kenneth par. 21) in his criticism of Anselm’s ontology presents that different minds conceive the word God in different ways and that the argument of Anselm can only suit the minds of people who have a similar definition of God.

However, Anselm’s refers to God as a superior being in his arguments which naturally deletes any other understanding or definition of God that is influenced by religious beliefs. That leaves the concept of God to remain above all definitions of superior beings Aquinas regarding the different conceptions of God. Also, the existence of God as explained by Anselm happens both in the mind and in reality. The argument of Aquinas can, therefore, be dismissed because it concentrates on the existence of God in the mind alone without adding the reality aspect.

Aquinas also points out that the description of God as a being that is superior to any other that can be imagined; the mind has no idea of what the being in question really stands for because of its infinity (Himma Einar, Kenneth par. 23). Nonetheless, the argument of Anselm still holds ground because the simple failure to understand the existence of a greater being than God is not necessary for one to conclude that God exists. What an individual needs is to know that the other beings cannot meet the qualities attributed to God.

Kant’s Criticism of Anselm’s Ontology

An eighteenth-century philosopher Emmanuel Kant argues against the ontology’s presentation of existence as a predicate (Corfield, Ian 4). Thus, existence cannot be used to prove that God is real because it adds no predicate to the being in description. The criticism of Kant is plausible for its highlight on the fact the existence is not a property as insinuated by Anselm. Therefore, Kant is correct in contending that nothing or a non-existing being cannot have properties attributed to it, and so using existence as a property cannot be applied to prove the existence of God.

Conclusion

Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God cannot be considered as misleading because it presents that there is no other being comparable to God and the attempt to imagine a being greater than God in itself is absurd. The strength of Anselm’s claim lies on the properties attributed to the view of God that no other being has surpassed or matched. However, some aspects such as the pure imagination of a greater being make it exist are misleading as argued by Gaunilo. Also, comparing the properties of non-existing being to the supposed existing ones is also erroneous as pointed out by Kant.

Works Cited

Corfield, Ian. An Analysis of the Ontological Argument of St Anselm. 2015, https://www.oxfordphilsoc.org/Documents/StudentPrize/2015_M1.pdf.

Himma, Kenneth Einar. “Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Iep.Utm.Edu, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/.