Does Anselm’s ontological argument justify belief in God?
Anselm's ontological argument is an a priori argument for the existence of God, it essentially
argues that God is "that than which no greater being can be conceived" (TTWNGBCBC) and so
based on logical steps taken from that statement, we know that God must exist. I will use this
essay to explain why Anselm's ontological argument does not justify belief in God, but it can be
used as a helpful stepping stone to justify the existence of God, I will do this by examining
Anselm's argument and critiques and further explanations by others such as Gaunilo, Plantinga
and Hume.
Anselm's ontological argument is one that exists in two formulations as written in chapters 2
and 3 in his book Proslogion. The first formulation is as follows, God is TWNGBCBC, a being that
exists in reality and the mind would be better than a being that exists only in the mind, if God
were to exist only in the mind he would not be TWNBCBC because a greater being that exists
also in reality could be conceived, therefore God by this definition must exist in reality. Anselm
explains this argument more clearly using the analogy of the painter, if a painter has an idea of a
painting in his head then the painting would be a better painting if he were to paint it and have it
exist in real life also. So in this same sense, much as the painting would be better if it were to
exist in real life, God would be better if he were to exit in real life, so following this logic he must
exist in real life as if he did not he would not be TWNGBCBC. Anselm's argument therefore
provides an explanation for why the Judeo-Christian God which we think of therefore has to
exist in reality by definition.
However, Anselm is critiqued in this argument by Gaunilo. Gaunilo's critique is known as the
idea of the perfect island and tries to disregard Anselm's argument through the use of analogy.
Gaunilo states that Anselm's argument is flawed because just because Anselm uses these
logical steps to get to God's existence by required in reality, doesn't actually lead to any proof of
it existing in reality. Gaunilo takes the example of the "perfect island" and applies the same
logic to it that Anselm applied to the argument when explaining God. This being that there is an
island that you are unable to conceive a greater version of, however when applying the same
steps to the argument that Anselm does, we reach the conclusion that actually we are unable
to simply define this island into existence using reason alone. This therefore critiques Anselm's
argument on the basis that there is no link between the existence of God or the island, and the
explanations that we have imposed upon them. However, Gaunilo's counter-argument falls
short for reasons explained by Anselm and Plantinga. These reasons stem for the fact that
Anselm's argument is relating to God and Gaunilo's to an island, so the two in fact cannot be
compared relating to existence because God is "necessary" while the island is "contingent",
Anselm explains this in his second formulation, but it is essentially the idea that an island's
existence is reliant on external factors, whereas God is reliant on nothing, he exists purely
based on his own attributes and ideas of "perfection", this can also be seen to be further
analysed as the characteristics of the island are not comparable to the characteristics of God.
God's characteristics have "intrinsic maxima" as Anselm said, meaning that they are the
greatest version of themself by definition and if you were to consider that they weren't then he
deemed you were not considering God, whereas an island's characteristics such as sandyness
do not have intrinsic maxima as you can always have more or less sand. So in this sense
Anselm's ontological argument does a good job in justifying the belief in God.
Anselm's second formulation is much like his first one but instead of being a proof for the
existence of God in reality, it is a proof of God's existence as "necessary", it is as follows: God is
TWNGBCBC, something that exists necessarily would be greater than something that exists
contingently, if God were to be contingent then he would not be TWNGCBC as we could
Anselm's ontological argument is an a priori argument for the existence of God, it essentially
argues that God is "that than which no greater being can be conceived" (TTWNGBCBC) and so
based on logical steps taken from that statement, we know that God must exist. I will use this
essay to explain why Anselm's ontological argument does not justify belief in God, but it can be
used as a helpful stepping stone to justify the existence of God, I will do this by examining
Anselm's argument and critiques and further explanations by others such as Gaunilo, Plantinga
and Hume.
Anselm's ontological argument is one that exists in two formulations as written in chapters 2
and 3 in his book Proslogion. The first formulation is as follows, God is TWNGBCBC, a being that
exists in reality and the mind would be better than a being that exists only in the mind, if God
were to exist only in the mind he would not be TWNBCBC because a greater being that exists
also in reality could be conceived, therefore God by this definition must exist in reality. Anselm
explains this argument more clearly using the analogy of the painter, if a painter has an idea of a
painting in his head then the painting would be a better painting if he were to paint it and have it
exist in real life also. So in this same sense, much as the painting would be better if it were to
exist in real life, God would be better if he were to exit in real life, so following this logic he must
exist in real life as if he did not he would not be TWNGBCBC. Anselm's argument therefore
provides an explanation for why the Judeo-Christian God which we think of therefore has to
exist in reality by definition.
However, Anselm is critiqued in this argument by Gaunilo. Gaunilo's critique is known as the
idea of the perfect island and tries to disregard Anselm's argument through the use of analogy.
Gaunilo states that Anselm's argument is flawed because just because Anselm uses these
logical steps to get to God's existence by required in reality, doesn't actually lead to any proof of
it existing in reality. Gaunilo takes the example of the "perfect island" and applies the same
logic to it that Anselm applied to the argument when explaining God. This being that there is an
island that you are unable to conceive a greater version of, however when applying the same
steps to the argument that Anselm does, we reach the conclusion that actually we are unable
to simply define this island into existence using reason alone. This therefore critiques Anselm's
argument on the basis that there is no link between the existence of God or the island, and the
explanations that we have imposed upon them. However, Gaunilo's counter-argument falls
short for reasons explained by Anselm and Plantinga. These reasons stem for the fact that
Anselm's argument is relating to God and Gaunilo's to an island, so the two in fact cannot be
compared relating to existence because God is "necessary" while the island is "contingent",
Anselm explains this in his second formulation, but it is essentially the idea that an island's
existence is reliant on external factors, whereas God is reliant on nothing, he exists purely
based on his own attributes and ideas of "perfection", this can also be seen to be further
analysed as the characteristics of the island are not comparable to the characteristics of God.
God's characteristics have "intrinsic maxima" as Anselm said, meaning that they are the
greatest version of themself by definition and if you were to consider that they weren't then he
deemed you were not considering God, whereas an island's characteristics such as sandyness
do not have intrinsic maxima as you can always have more or less sand. So in this sense
Anselm's ontological argument does a good job in justifying the belief in God.
Anselm's second formulation is much like his first one but instead of being a proof for the
existence of God in reality, it is a proof of God's existence as "necessary", it is as follows: God is
TWNGBCBC, something that exists necessarily would be greater than something that exists
contingently, if God were to be contingent then he would not be TWNGCBC as we could
