A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.

Anselms Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument

The term the Ontological Argument was first coined by Immanuel
Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason to describe a priori, deductive,
analytic arguments. Another term for a priori is propter quid. The
word ontological is derived from the Greek verb einai meaning to be
and Ontological Arguments try to show that existence is a natural part
of Gods being. There is not just one type of Ontological Argument,
there is a whole family which work in subtly different ways. The main
arguments are proposed by the following scholars:

St. Anselm in Proslogion.
Ren Descartes in the fifth of his Meditations on First Philosophy.
Norman Malcolm.
Alvin Plantinga.
Iris Murdoch.

The main objections to the argument come from:

St. Thomas Aquinas.
Immanuel Kant.
David Hume.
Bertrand Russell.

St. Anselm

St. Anselm is the name most firmly associated with
the Ontological Argument (OA) and in the 11
th

Century, whilst he was Archbishop of Canterbury,
he wrote two treatises which have become the
foundation of the OA: Monologion and Proslogion.
Anselm was primarily concerned with showing that
it is reasonable to believe in God (in other words,
theism can be rational). He directed the
Monologion at atheists and agnostics in the hope
that the rationality of his argument would help
atheists to believe and to show that atheism
cannot be coherently maintained.

The argument in the Monologion starts with the premise that
everybody, including atheists and agnostics, desire things in life which
they suppose to be good. Because of this, Anselm argues, all people
must have an idea of goodness and justice in their minds. Gene Fendt
gives an example to illustrate this point:

If a person cannot or will not recognise that some things are more just than others then
the proper response seems to me to be to put out his left eye and see if he complains
about something more than painif he does not, continue the experimentbut if it is
A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.
Anselms Ontological Argument.
not yet apparent to the fool that he has a conscience, we must help him dig for it: the
closest way to get him to see the point is to practise the thing he doesnt believe in on
himself. As soon as he complains of injustice, much less abominable iniquity, we ask him
what it is that makes him so sure of his complaint. He cannot make this complaint unless
there is a principle, eternally available, true and knowable to reason.

There is a big overlap here with Plato, who argued that in the realm of
the Forms, all the principles which allow us to make judgements of
good and bad, truth, beauty and justice exist and that it is our lifes
duty to uncover these principles. Anselm was a Platonist.

Anselm argues in Monologion, that all of the principles which help us
to understand truth, beauty goodness and justice are to be discovered
in God, a being who is a good through itself since every other good
is good through it. It is God who gives us the ability to rank goods
(i.e. decide that one thing is more good than another), without God we
could not order goods. We clearly can order goods, so God must exist:

But just as it has been proved that there is a being that is supremely good, since all goods
are good through a single being, which is good through itself, so it is necessarily inferred
that there is something supremely great, which is great through itself. But I do not mean
physically great, as a material object is great, but that which, the greater it is the better or
more worthywisdom for instance. And since there can be nothing supremely great
except what is supremely good, there must be a being that is greatest and best, i.e. the
highest of all existing beings.
1


This is the basis of the definition that Anselm uses in the Proslogion.
He argues that the atheist does not believe in God either because he
has not heard of God, or because he is irrationally ignorant and
chooses not to believe in God. Anyone who reflects on why there is
goodness in the universe, for Anselm, must conclude that it comes
from God.

So, the Proslogion was written with the existence of God having
already been established and the definition of God having been
decided: the definition is not an assumption, it is arrived at through
reason.

The Proslogion, Peter Vardy has pointed out, is written as a prayer, it is
written as a conversation with God. It begins:

Come then, Lord my God, teach my heart where and how to seek You. Where and how
to find You.

The Proslogion is not written to prove Gods existence, Anselm
believes he has achieved this in the Monologion. The Proslogion is an
explanation of what is believed not a proof of what is believed, the
Proslogion begins its argument from the perspective of faith (because

1
From the Monologion.
A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.
Anselms Ontological Argument.
the reasons for that faith have already been given in the Monologion)
and Anselm argues that it is only with faith that we can hope for a true
understanding of the existence and nature of God.

The Proslogion consists of two arguments, both a priori, propter quid
arguments which start from a first principle or definition arrived at
through reason. They are also both reductio ad absurdum arguments
which aim to show that disagreement with the argument is logical
absurdity. The argument in Proslogion 2 attempts to show that the
non-existence of God contradicts our definition of God (That Than
Which No Greater Can Be Conceived: TTWNGCBC) and Proslogion 3
attempts to demonstrate that God must exist necessarily and that if
God exists only contingently, this contradicts our definition.
2


Arguments against the Proslogion.

There are three main arguments against the Proslogion, which come
from the following three scholars:
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers: the island.
St. Thomas Aquinas.
Elizabeth Anscombe and Brian Davies (not a critique but a re-
statement).

Gaunilo.

After the Proslogion was published, an attempt to refute the argument
was produced by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers and it is called Pro Insipiente:
On Behalf of the Fool. Anselm was so impressed with this argument,
that he requested that it be published alongside future publications of
the Monologion and Proslogion.

I thank you for your kindness both in criticizing and praising my tract. For since you
praised so fulsomely those parts that appeared to you to be worthy of acceptance, it is
quite clear that you have criticized those parts that seemed to you to be weak, not from
any malice but from good will.
3


Gaunilos argument essentially states that the logic of Anselms
argument can be used mutatis mutandis (by substitution of terms) to
prove the existence of a perfect island. Read the following and see
how Gaunilo substitutes the word island for the expression
TTWNGCBC:

Now if anyone tell me that [the island is perfect], I shall easily understand what is said,
since nothing is difficult about it. But if he should then go on to say, as though it were a
logical consequence of this: You cannot any more doubt that this island that is more
excellent than all other lands truly exists somewhere in reality than you can doubt that it

2
See further, Thompson pages 20 and 21 and Hamilton pages 244 to 246.
3
Reply to Gaunilo ch10.
A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.
Anselms Ontological Argument.
is in your mind; and since it is more excellent to exist not only in the mind alone but also
in reality, therefore it must needs be that it exists.
4


This argument is also a reductio ad absurdum because it tries to
show that to deny the existence of this island is a logical absurdity.
Gaunilo has substituted the term TTWNGCBC for island to show that
the logic of the argument can be used to define something into
existence.

Anselm however, had a response that was in two parts:

1. Islands are contingent and God exists necessarily. Islands are
caused to exist and may go out of existence: God is not subject
to either of these problems: God cannot not exist. Therefore, it
is possible for there to be something greater than this greatest
island, namely something that cannot not exist. Therefore, the
non-existence of the island is a possibility and this counts
against it being TTWNGCBC. It is not contradictory to deny the
existence of the island. Also, contingent things may be added
to, necessary things may not, so we can always add to the
greatest island to make it greater. If you can make something
greater, it is not greatest.
2. The second part concerns objectivity and subjectivity. For
Anselm, as a Platonist, his idea of God is objective and
immutable. God cannot change. Islands however, as they are
contingent, are subjective. One persons idea of the perfect
island may not match up to another persons: I may like cool
and shade, whereas you may enjoy bright sunshine. You may
retort that not everyones idea of God may be the same, but for
Anselm, God exists objectively and his nature does not vary
from person to person: there is one, objective, true God and it is
our duty to use reason and faith to arrive at knowledge and
understanding of this objective reality.

St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas rejected the OA proposed by
Anselm, however they did have one thing in
common: they both believed in a wholly simple,
immutable God. This is however where many of the
similarities end.

Aquinas was an Aristotelian, whereas Anselm was a
Platonist. Aquinas believed that we have to arrive
at truth by starting with an observation. Each of Aquinas 5 Ways is an
a posteriori argument based upon an initial sense experience, such as
the Teleological and Cosmological arguments. Anselm, as a Platonist

4
Pro Insipiente, 6.
A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.
Anselms Ontological Argument.
believed that it was acceptable to submit a priori arguments for the
existence of God.

Brian Davies puts it like this:

[Aquinas] view is that that we can only know that God exists because we can cogently
argue for Gods existence with reference to what God has produced or caused to be.
5


Aquinas rejects reduction ad absurdum arguments which claim that it
is contradictory to deny the existence of God. To do so, we have to
assume that God exists in the first place and Aquinas argued that we
have to argue to Gods existence from observation. Aquinas also
believed that we, as weak and limited humans, cannot have such a
clear understanding of God to allow us to believe that the statement
God does not exist is a contradiction:

The proposition God exists is self-evident in itselfsince God is his own existence
but, because what it is to be God is not evident to us, the proposition is not self-evident
to us.
6


Once Aquinas had rejected the argument, no-one studied it seriously
until Descartes formed his own version of the OA in the 17
th
Century. A
rinsing from Aquinas was really the death knell on any argument.

John Mackie.

John Mackie was a brilliant philosopher and he was
also an atheist. In his book The Miracle of Theism
he tackles Anselms OA.

Mackies objection to Anselms argument is very
similar to Immanuel Kants rejection of Descartes.
Anselms definition of God (TTWNGCBC) suggests
(see notes on Iris Murdoch below) that existence is
a predicate, or quality of greatness. In other words,
in order to be maximally great, that being must
exist in order to meet the terms of its definition.
Anselm accuses atheists of foolishness and incoherence, because by
stating the non-existence of God, they are contradicting the definition
of God that they have agreed to i.e. that the greatest being must exist
to avoid the existence of something greater than it. The fool in
Anselms argument, can avoid being accused of incoherence by simply
stating that he can conceive or think of a being than which no greater
can be conceived but that he disagrees that this being exists; in the
same way, I might have an idea of a dragon in my head; that doesnt
mean that it actually exists. This follows on from a criticism from

5
Brian Davies, Aquinas p40.
6
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Ia, 2, 1.
A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.
Anselms Ontological Argument.
David Hume
7
which argues that thinking something exists does not
logically require its actual existence. Mackie goes on to argue that
Proslogion 3 can be rejected on similar grounds: we can conceive of a
being that cannot not exist, that does not mean that this being is
realized or instantiated (actually exists).

This argument is similar in format to an argument
from philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell.
Russell distinguished between two types of
statement: predicative, which adds to a description
of something and existential, which shows that
something actually exists. It is possible to use
predicative statements to describe something, but
that something does not necessarily exist: e.g. I
could describe the current King of France. My
description may be understandable, but, Russell
argues, because it does not correspond to an actual state of affairs,
the statements have no real meaning. Russell is therefore a
philosophical realist.

Let us then concede this. Let us grant that there is a concept of a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived and which cannot be conceived not to exist. But then the discussion merely
repeats itself at a higher level. It is still a further question whether this concept is realized
or instantiatedIn effect, we are still, justifiably, appealing to and illustrating Kants final
dictum that Whatever, and however much, our concept of an object may contain, we
must go outside it, if we are to ascribe existence to this object.
8


Elizabeth Anscombe, Brian Davies and Iris Murdoch.

What follows is not a criticism of the argument, but a
subtle re-statement of it and if what Anscombe argues is
correct, this will cast doubt upon Mackies criticism
above. Elizabeth Anscombe (and later Brian Davies)
argued that the Proslogion is not an Ontological
Argument, because it does not actually state that
existence is a predicate of greatness (unlike Descartes
who explicitly makes that claim).

Anscombes argument rests upon the translation of a particular part of
Proslogion 2. She argues that the Latin can be translated in either of
two ways:


7 I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter
of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a
contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as
existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable. I
propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

8
J.L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism pp54-55.
A2 RS. Paper 3; Developments; Philosophy of Religion.
Anselms Ontological Argument.
1. And surely, that than which no greater can be conceived cannot
exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can
be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.
Or:
2. And surely, that than which no greater can be conceived cannot
exist in the mind alone. For if it is only in the mind, what is
greater can be thought to be in reality as well.

The second sentence of (1) implies that existence is a predicate of
greatness (underlined), in other words, in order to be greatest, one
must exist. The second version does not: the second sentence of (2)
does not imply that existence is a predicate of greatness, merely that
something is better if it exists both in the mind and reality.

This causes problems for Mackie (above). Mackies criticism hinges
upon the assertion that the atheist is not contradicting himself by
saying that God can exist in his mind but not in reality, and that it is
Anselm who makes the mistake by claiming that existence is a
necessary predicate of greatness. If Anselm is not in fact making this
claim, Mackies argument is weakened; however, Mackies claim that
just because we can think of something doesnt make it exist is very
powerful.

Iris Murdoch argues that the OA may not be an
objective proof of the existence of God, but it
has great value for the person who already
believes in God. Murdoch was a Platonist and as
such, believed in higher realities: she believed
that principles of truth, beauty, love and justice
all existed objectively. For Murdoch, the OA
shows us that it is rational to hold such beliefs
and it teaches us about our own meta-cognition:
it teaches us to think about how we think. As she
writes:

If considered carefullythe ontological proof is seen to be not exactly a proof but
rather a clear assertion of faith which could only be confidently made on a certain
amount of experience.

For Murdoch, the OA has anti-realist meaning: it is meaningful to the
individual, or to a group of people who understand what the definition
of God means (just as Rugby players understand off-side). According
to Peter Vardy, this is precisely what Anselm intended it to be in the
first place.