Reading: Anselm, “The Classical Ontological Argument”, pp. 169-170 & Gaunilo, “Critique of Anselm’s Argument”, pp. 171-173.
Reading Guide
The ontological argument attempts to deduce proof of God’s existence from the very definition of “God”. Anselm’s main argument is in Ch.2. Pay close attention to his definition of God; you will note that it is a rather abstract definition.
Because his definition is expressed rather awkwardly, this can cause confusion, but if you underline the definition, that should help you keep your bearings. See the editors’ abstract for a summary of Anselm’s argument.
Anselm’s painter example contrasts two senses of “existence”: existing in the understanding and existing in reality. Anselm thinks it is clear even to “the fool” that God exists in the understanding. Although some things that exist in the understanding do not exist in reality, Anselm argues that if God exists in the understanding (i.e., if we have a concept of God), he must exist in reality. The editors’ abstract will help you understand Anselm’s argument here.
Since the editors provide an excellent summary of Gaunilo’s argument, I won’t add to it. Gaunilo is best remembered for his perfect island example, but this is not his only criticism of Anselm’s argument. By the way, in response to Gaunilo’s perfect island example, Anselm asserts that his argument applies only to God, not to anyone or anything else. However, he does not explain why the concept of God is different from all other concepts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It is immediately apparent that the problem with Anselm’s argument has something to with the assertion that a being that exists in reality is greater than a being conceived in one’s mind. Gaunilo addresses the issue neatly with the island analogy. I would also like to note the interesting use of Psalm 14:1, 53:1, a concept also stated in Isaiah. It is interesting that Anselm claims this person is a fool for not following his own particular argument for the existence of God. I would propose a better interpretation can be found in Romans 1:18-23, an interpretation that one can refuse to believe but is nonetheless consistent with Biblical teaching as it comes directly from the Bible. Even so, in Anselm’s defense, the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive and both could be logically correct.
Gaunilo’s critique of Anslem’s argument is convincing especially with his perfect island example. It is perfectly possible for me to think of a number of things that I can understand in the same way I would understand God yet they do not exist. In reading Anselm’s argument I was wondering why he is even arguing if one must believe to understand because does that not defeat the whole purpose of proving God exists if you have to believe he does first?
Anselm's argument about something we understand in our minds must exist in reality is horrible. I understand superman, however no one can fly and no one has x-ray vision. Furthermore, I believe what the bible verses were saying is that if someone says, "God does not exist" they are failing to understand who God is and what he does for us. Like they may look at the earthquakes in Haiti and say that there is no god because why would a god allow this. THe arguement is that they do not understand God's ways and thus do not understand his reasoning behind the earthquakes.
Anselm's argument is like a magic trick in Vegas. You're completely wowed with it's simple elegance, yet in your gut you know it's all fake. I like Gaunilo's argument about the perfect island, simply defining something into existence doesn't mean it will actually exist. I won't bother with the circular belief argument since Whitney already got to it. Instead I'll ask the "So what?" question. Let's say for a moment, that imagining a perfect being and having the perfect being actually exist is better ergo it must exist holds true. How would one then derive a theology off of that? This perfect being is not the god of the old testament, nor is it the god of Stonehenge, nor Buddha, or any religion in existence. Frankly, what use is it to even try to consider if such a being cares how I live? What bearing would my life have on it? I would be willing to concede to Anselm that sure, god as he defined him necessarily exists. I would be completely indifferent though because such a being wouldn't care about anything I do.
The argument that I cannot conceive of a being greater than God or an existence without him is completely bogus. As is sighting the book of Psalms in any sort of religious debate as they are nothing but songs. To say that I cannot create a being in my mind who exceeds the power/glory of God or life without God is crazy. I have an imagination with which I can conceive of some being with powers slightly superior to God who is capable of destroying God. And why can't I consider some existence in which God doesn't exist and everything started moving with the Big Bang? God does not have to play into the equation and my mind's imagination is limitless. I'm not saying that proves that he does not exist, but it does not prove that he does.
Oh, the ontological argument. "God must exist, because we can think of the concept of God as being the greatest thing ever. And in order for it to be the greatest thing ever, it must exist, because existence is so much cooler than nonexistence." Really, Anselm? I mean, at first you think it works. But then you start to realize it means absolutely nothing. Just because I think I understand the concept of God doesn't mean it must exist, especially since we're not supposed to understand God anyway.
And who's to say that existence is automatically better than nonexistence? It's all relative, isn't it? I would say that the nonexistence of a giant evil seamonster is probably better than its existence.
I feel Gaunilo does a good job at refuting the argument, especially when he talks about trying to come up with an idea of God you know only by name, not by nature, and can only speculate since you have nothing to which you can compare the idea. We simply cannot conceive of something we have no basis for. You tell me to think of something that is unlike anything here on Earth, and I'll have a hard time doing it because our brains work on the basis of things we know. Well played, Gaunilo.
Anselm's argument for the existence of God is pretty much ridiculous right from the very start, and Gaunilo supports this very well. The biggest thing though that turns me off from Anselm's writing is the first thing he says (in this reading): "Unless I believe, I shall not understand." One can understand all religions of the world, but that doesn't mean they would have to believe in all of them. Also, to go along with Gaunilo (in defense from Anselm's reply), my perfect island is probably going to be different from everyone else's. Anselm responds that the amount of coconuts on an island can always increase, but what if I hate coconuts? Is it required for an island to have coconuts?
I think Anselm's argument is flawed in his definition of God. "That than which greater cannot be conceived." I cannot conceive it in my mind it the first place. This being is imposable to imagine in the mind let alone it existing outside of it. It's simple and elegant and easy for a believer to follow it without questioning, but when really examined I think his argument does not hold.
Anselm's argument has no logical validity. The self-rationalizing nature of his proposition defeats itself with little need for others to address the obvious flaws in reason. By systematically proving HOW Anselm demonstrates his ignorance, Gaunilo speaks up for the natural reactions of any philosophic audience. The idea of thought (or understanding) alone as the sole justification of something's existence is absurd. Gaunilo expertly replaces "God" with "an imaginary perfect island" to show just how illogical this line of reasoning truly is.
I do not think that Anselm has a strong argument even with his definition of that which a greater cannot be conceived. It makes sense that each of us have some kind of image of something which a greater cannot be conceived, however to some that may be a pro basketball player, so does that make them god? Also, we can all think of something in our minds that does not exist in reality. For example, I can think of what a unicorn looks like, however unicorns do not exist in reality. I think that maybe his definition could hold true because everyone does have something which nothing greater could be thought, but god could be an extremly well behaved human to some because that is the most they can conceieve of.
Post a Comment