The Ontological Argument

Anselm's Ontological Argument

Anselm's argument is a priori- an argument relying on logic, not observation or sense experience.

Deductive- an argument aiming to give absolute prood. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Analytic statements- based on logic and true by definition.

Subject and predicate- the dubject refers to who/ what the sentence is about. the predicate gives information about the subject. Example, the cat sat on the mat- 'the cat' is the subject', 'sat on the mat' is the predicate.

Necessary truths/ things:

Necessary truths relate to statements that could not possibly be false. For example, a circle has no sides.

Necessary things are things that cannot possibly fail to exist. For example, the laws of mathematics according to some mathematicians and scientists. 

Anselm's Ontological Argument

• based on Anselm's definition of God, and God's existence can be deducted from that definition.
• the proposition 'God exists' is a priori and deductive. It contains the predicate 'exists' in relation to the subject 'God' so God must exist. It is a necessary truth.

Proslogium 2:

• God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'.
• 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God'- Psalm 14:1. Anselm showed how even the fool understood the concept of God.
• there is a difference between having a concept in the mind and knowing that it exists in reality- if God existed only in the mind, a greater being could be conceived, that is, one that existed in reality. This would then be greater than God.
• so God cannot exist only in the mind. therefore God exists in both mind and reality.

Guanilo: 'on behalf of the fool'

• Guanilo's argument followed the same structure as Anselm's, substituting the lost island for God.
• the lost island is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
• it is greater to exist in reality than only in the mind.
• if it exists only in the mind, then a greater being can be conceived.
• so the lost island exists both in the mind and in reality.

Proslogium 3 and the Responsio:

• Anselm pointed to the distinction between necessity and contingency.

a necessary being would be a being whose non- existence would be contradictory.

a contingent being is something that may or may not exist, being dependent on something else for its existence.

• Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent one.
• if God exists only as a contingent being, a greater being could be imagined. This being would then be greater than God. Therefore, God is a necessary being.
• Anselm pointed to the key difference between an island and God; islands are contingent; God is not.
• Anselm was pointing out that only in God is necessary existence an integral property. Only God cannot be thought not to exist.

Criticisms: Kant

Kant made two challenges to the Ontological Argument. Both stem from his conviction that statements about existence are synthetic, not analytic. Synthetic statements are those that could be true or false. Their truth or falsity is determined by sense experience. 

Existence is not a predicate:

• a real predicate is something that gives information about a subject. For example, the cat sat on the mat. 'Sat on the mat' gives information about the car. 

Kant used the example of thalers (the Prussian currency of his day):

• it is possible to describe the appearance and the feel of thalers.
• but to say that they exist says nothing more about them.
• there is no difference between a concept of 100 thalers and 100 thalers that actually exist.

Something cannot be defined into existence:

• Kant accepted that necessary existence belongs to the concept of God.
• But this does not mean that God actually exists.
• The fact that something could exist does not mean it actually does exist.

Evaluation of Anselm's Ontological Argument:

Strengths;

• it is a deductive argument, so if it works, it gives absolute prood as opposed to other arguments' reliance on probability.
• its independence of evidence from human observation protects it from possibly unreliable evidence.
• Anselm's definition is in fact claiming that God is limitless and for many, if there is a God, his definition makes good sense.

Weaknesses;

• Kant's challenges suggest that it does not work in either of its forms.
• arguments about existence need to be empirically based.
• Aquinas and others since have challenged Anselm's definition of God. Humans cannot know the nature of God and any attempt to define God limits him. If this is the case, the whole of the Ontological Argument collapses.

The status of Anselm's argument as a proof:

Proof of the existence of God;

• some claim it is a prood in that it is a faith- based acceptance.
• Karl Barth claimed that Anselm never intended it as a proof. He thought it consisted of Anselm's meditation on a religious experience.
• some theologians think it was simply a meditation on the nature of God that was intended to assure his fellow monks that their faith was reasonable.
• the nature of the argument as a priori, analytic and deductive means that if its premises are true, then it does prove the existence of God. Many scholars have claimed that it is valid.

Not proof of the existence of God;

• most scholars agree with Kant that the most it shows is that if God exists, then he exists necessarily. But it is all about the 'if'. Nobody disputes that 2 + 2 = 4. If Anselm's argument were true, there would be no doubt.
• this is not what is normally thought of as proof; it is more a confirmation of a belief that someone already has.
• the fact that he issued a response suggests that Guanilo understood it as an attempt to prove the existence of God.
• Anselm's preface to the Proslogium also suggests he saw it as a proof.

The value of Anselm's argument for religious faith:

On the positive side;

• the argument works for those who are already theists.
• it shows that their religious belief is rational.
• the reasoned 'belief that' God exists reinforces and supports 'belief in' God.

On the negative side;

• if it fails as a proof, then its value to religious faith is limited.
• fideists reject the use of rational arguments to prove the existence of God. They think that reliance on such arguments devalues faith.

Karl Barth rejected attempts to prove God's exists through reason:

• God can be known only through revelation, not by logic.
• he claimed that Anselm never intended the Proslogium to be seen as an argument providing God's existence using logic.
• Anselm was simply trying to understand the God he believed in and whose nature as the greatest conceivable being had been given to him in a religious experience.

KEY QUOTATION

"I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand; and what is more, I believe that unless I do believe I shall not understand" Proslogium 1, Anselm.