St. Anselm: Ontological Argument for God’s Existence

Learning Outcomes:

1. Comprehend St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God.
2. Analyze the logical structure and metaphysical presuppositions underlying the argument.
3. Understand the epistemological implications of the a priori nature of the argument.
4. Evaluate classical objections to the ontological argument, notably from Gaunilo and Kant.

Overview of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St. Anselm of Canterbury, a prominent figure in medieval philosophy, formulated one of the most significant and enduring arguments for the existence of God. Known as the ontological argument, it is unique in its a priori approach—meaning it does not rely on empirical evidence but on pure reason. In his work, Proslogion, Anselm presents this argument as a reflection on the nature of God.

The ontological argument rests on a definition of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. From this definition, Anselm derives God’s existence as logically necessary.

Structure of the Argument

Anselm’s argument unfolds in a series of logical steps, which can be broken down as follows:

1. Definition of God: Anselm begins by asserting that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. This definition encompasses the notion that God, as the greatest conceivable being, must possess all possible perfections, including existence.

2. Existence in the Understanding: Anselm argues that even a fool (referencing Psalms 14:1) who denies the existence of God must understand what is meant by the concept of God. Thus, God exists in the understanding or the mind.

3. Existence in Reality as Greater: Anselm posits that it is greater for a being to exist both in the understanding and in reality than merely in the understanding. If God exists only in the understanding, then we could conceive of a being greater than God—namely, one that exists both in the mind and in reality. But by the definition of God, no greater being can be conceived.

4. Contradiction and Conclusion: To conceive of God as existing only in the mind would be to violate the initial definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, to avoid contradiction, we must conclude that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.

In-Depth Logical Structure of Anselm’s Argument

Anselm’s argument is logically intricate and structured to demonstrate that denying God’s existence leads to an internal contradiction. The argument can be further clarified and examined in a step-by-step logical breakdown:

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived: Anselm defines God in such a way that His existence is tied to His supremacy in all conceivable qualities, including existence. This definition forms the foundation of the ontological argument.

2. The concept of God exists in the understanding: Even an individual who does not believe in God’s existence must have a concept of God. The fool can understand the concept of a supremely great being without affirming its existence. Anselm stresses that the idea of God is intelligible, even to the non-believer.

3. Existence in reality is greater than existence solely in the understanding: According to Anselm, existence is a property or perfection. For something to exist in reality as well as in the mind makes it greater than something that exists solely in the mind. This claim is rooted in medieval metaphysical hierarchy, where actual existence is seen as a higher form of being than mere conceptual existence.

4. If God exists only in the understanding, then a greater being can be conceived: Anselm’s argument hinges on this point: if God exists only as an idea, it would be possible to imagine a greater being—one that exists both in the mind and in reality. But since God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, this leads to a contradiction.

5. Therefore, God must exist in reality: To avoid the contradiction, it follows that God exists in reality. Since the very concept of God implies the necessity of His existence, denying God’s existence is logically incoherent.

Important Notes on the Ontological Argument

Note: Anselm’s argument relies heavily on the concept of perfection and the assumption that existence is a form of perfection. This assumption has been a point of contention among philosophers, leading to various criticisms of the argument.

Process flow of the argument: Concept of God → Existing only in the understanding → Existence in reality is greater → Contradiction in denying God’s existence → God must exist in reality.

Metaphysical and Epistemological Underpinnings

Anselm’s ontological argument operates within a specific metaphysical and epistemological framework.

1. The A Priori Nature of the Argument: The ontological argument is a priori, meaning that it is based on reason alone, independent of experience. This reflects the Platonic and Augustinian traditions, which emphasize the role of intellectual intuition in knowing ultimate realities.

2. Necessary Existence: A key metaphysical concept in Anselm’s argument is the idea of necessary existence. For Anselm, God is a being whose existence is logically necessary, meaning that non-existence is impossible for such a being. The argument suggests that God’s existence is not contingent upon any external factors but is an essential part of what it means to be God.

Classical Objections to Anselm’s Argument

Anselm’s ontological argument has faced several significant objections, both in his own time and in later philosophical discourse. The most notable critiques come from Gaunilo of Marmoutiers and Immanuel Kant.

1. Gaunilo’s Perfect Island Objection: Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm, offered a counterexample to Anselm’s reasoning. He argued that by the same logic, one could conceive of a perfect island, and thus this island must exist. Anselm responded by distinguishing between necessary beings, such as God, and contingent beings, such as islands. God, by definition, cannot be compared to a contingent object like an island.

2. Kant’s Critique: Immanuel Kant later objected to Anselm’s argument by challenging the notion that existence is a predicate. According to Kant, existence does not add anything to the concept of a being—it merely asserts that the concept is instantiated in reality. Therefore, Kant argues that one cannot define something into existence by claiming that existence is part of its essence.

Note: Kant’s critique was instrumental in shifting the focus of philosophical debates on the ontological argument, particularly in discussions of metaphysical necessity and the relationship between concepts and existence.

Comparative Table: Key Criticisms of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Impact and Legacy of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

The ontological argument has had a profound impact on the development of Western philosophy, particularly in the areas of metaphysics and philosophical theology. Despite its critics, it remains a pivotal example of rational theology and continues to influence contemporary debates in philosophy of religion.

MCQ on St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

MCQ: Which of the following philosophers objected to Anselm’s ontological argument by arguing that existence is not a predicate?

1. Gaunilo
2. Thomas Aquinas
3. Immanuel Kant
4. René Descartes
   Correct answer: 3. Immanuel Kant

Anselm’s ontological argument, while simple in its structure, raises profound questions about the relationship between thought, language, and reality. Its exploration continues to provide a rich area of inquiry for students of medieval philosophy and classical metaphysics.