The Ontological argument

1. The Ontological argument

2. Biographical information • Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was a Benedictine monk • Held the position of Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109) • Canonized in 1494

4. Opening remarks “Up now slight man! Flee, for a little while, thy occupations; hide thyself, for a time, from thy disturbing thoughts. Cast aside, now, thy burdensome cares, and put away thy toilsome business. Yield room for some little time to God; and rest for a little time in him. Enter the inner chamber of thy mind; shut out all thoughts save that of God, and such as can aid thee in seeking him; close thy door and seek him.” (30)

5. Opening remarks “Up now slight man! Flee, for a little while, thy occupations; hide thyself, for a time, from thy disturbing thoughts. Cast aside, now, thy burdensome cares, and put away thy toilsome business. Yield room for some little time to God; and rest for a little time in him. Enter the inner chamber of thy mind; shut out all thoughts save that of God, and such as can aid thee in seeking him; close thy door and seek him.” (30)

6. Ontological arguments • There have been many “ontological arguments” given, and it is a bit difficult to say what they all share in common. • Most try to prove that God exists using only features of our minds, or by considering only what our conception of God entails. • Anselm’s argument does the latter.

7. The argument “Even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater.

8. The argument Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being , than which none greater can be conceived, is one than which a greater can be conceived. But this is obviously impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which none greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.” (32)

9. Announcements The paper has been postponed. It will be handed out next Monday and be due Monday the 21st.

10. The argument • God is a being than which none greater can be conceived. • We can conceive of God. • Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist. • Therefore, if we could conceive of God as not existing, we could conceive of something greater than God. • We cannot conceive of anything greater than God. • We must conceive of God as existing. • Therefore, God must exist.

11. The argument • God is a being than which none greater can be conceived Anselm presents this as a definition of what he means by “God.”

12. The argument 2. We can conceive of God. Guanilo seems to worry about this claim.

13. Can we conceive of god? It is pretty obvious that we can conceive of God. We have been talking about him for two weeks! Anselm: “I call on your faith and conscience to attest that this (that we can’t conceive of God) is most false.” (39)

14. The argument 3. Something which exists is greater than something which does not exist. • No argument for this claim is given, but it seems difficult to deny: • A real cake is better than an imaginary one. • A real Superbowl victory for the Vikings is better than one that I merely conceive of.

15. The argument 4. Therefore, if we could conceive of God as not existing, we could conceive of something greater than God. • Just like in the case of the Vikings’ Superbowl victory, if God doesn’t actually exist, then it is possible to conceive of something greater than him: namely a God-like thing that does actually exist.

16. The Argument “For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction.” (33)

17. The argument 5. We cannot conceive of anything greater than God. This is just a restatement of premise 1.

18. The argument • God is a being than which none greater can be conceived. • We can conceive of God. • Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist. • Therefore, if we conceive of God as not existing, we could conceive of something greater than God. • We cannot conceive of anything greater than God. • Therefore, we must conceive of God as existing. • Therefore, God must exist.

19. Something fishy Wemust conceive of God as existing. ? ? ? Therefore, God must exist.

20. Something fishy Anselm is no help. “Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being , than which none greater can be conceived, is one than which a greater can be conceived. But this is obviously impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which none greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.” (32-33)

21. Two suggestions • Argue that if conceiving of X entails a contradiction, then X is impossible (and thus cannot exist). • Say that what the argument shows is that one cannot rationally believe that God does not exist, because believing that God does not exist involves believing something that one cannot conceive of.

22. Conceivability and Existence Guanilo points out that conceivability does not entail existence. (e.g. Sherlock Holmes, unicorns, Hilary Clinton’s third daughter). If Anselm’s argument relied on a denial of this obvious claim, that would constitute as significant problem.

23. Conceivability and Existence Anselm never argued that anything that is conceivable exists. He argued that the conceivability of a particular thing: a being than which none greater can be conceived entails that that thing exists.

24. The Lost Island It is a lot easier to show that something must have gone wrong with this argument than to say precisely what is wrong with it. Guanilo offers a famous parody of Anselm’s reasoning.

25. The lost island • The Lost Island is an island than which none greater can be conceived. • We can conceive of the Lost Island. • Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist. • Therefore, if we conceive of the Lost Island as not existing, we could conceive of an island greater than the Lost Island. • We cannot conceive of any island greater than the Lost Island. • Therefore, we must conceive of the Lost Island as existing. • Therefore, the Lost Island must exist.

26. The lost island Guanilo concludes: “If a man should try to prove to me by such reasoning that this island truly exists, and that its existence should no longer be doubted, either I should believe that he was jesting, or I know not which I ought to regard the greater fool: myself, supposing that I should allow this proof; or him, if he should suppose he had established with any certainty the existence of this island.” (58)

27. Anselm’s Response “You say, whosoever you may be, who say that a fool is capable of making these statements.” (39) Modern translation: who the hell do you think you are? I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury!

28. Response #1 God and the Lost Island are, in some important way, disanalogous. The argument works for God, but not for the Lost Island.

29. Response #1 What is the disanalogy supposed to be? Some have suggested that the difference is that you cannot conceive of the Lost Island.

30. Response #1 The qualities of an island have no upper bounds of greatness (you could always add one more tree or oasis). While we might grant the point about the qualities of the lost island not having an upper boundary, why shouldn’t the same hold of the things that make God great?

31. Anselm’s Response If God’s great-making qualities have an upper boundary why shouldn’t an island’s? Let one be beauty for instance. How is this relevantly different from moral goodness?

32. Response #2 God is supposed to be a necessary being, (if he exists, then he could not have failed to exist) and Anselm’s argument is only meant to apply to beings of that kind. The Lost Island if it exists, is not a necessary being.

33. Response #2 • Seems ad hoc. Nothing in the premises or principles as stated imply any such restriction. It would have to be introduced merely to avoid Guanilo’s objection

34. Response #2 • Seems ad hoc. Nothing in the premises or principles as stated imply any such restriction. It would have to be introduced merely to avoid Guanilo’s objection • If the argument ended up working for the island, it probably would imply that the island existed necessarily. That is, if we allow the argument to go through it entails that the Lost Island is a necessary thing just like God!

35. summary We have been given no good reason to suppose that Anselm’s reasoning does not also support the existence of the Lost Island. Since we don’t think the parallel argument gives us any reason to believe in the Lost Island, we should conclude that Anselm’s argument does not give us any reason to believe in God.