“Evaluate Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument.”
(40) 39/40 answer
The a-priori, inductive ontological argument is not without its
objections and criticisms, including that of Gaunilo’s repudiation of a
‘perfect’ or ‘lost’ island. The ontological argument itself places
emphasis on this idea that ‘God must exist’ in both of its premises,
arguing this as an analytical rather than a synthetic statement,
because if he is perfect and necessary, it is impossible for him not to
do so. Gaunilo finds flaws in this - a logical fallacy - in which he
questions whether ‘God exists’ is truly so objective. He makes a
strong point in this, but his argument can be rightfully challenged not
only and always by the original holders of the ontological argument,
but by someone more modern.
Gaunilo paints this idea of a ‘perfect island’ in response to Anselm,
allowing us to imagine our own version of this in our minds, and then
question whether this is real just because it is in our minds. Obviously,
it isn’t. And Gaunilo claims that this is exactly what Anselm’s logic is,
but with the concept of God. Gaunilo highlights how we cannot
imagine something into existence just because it exists in our minds,
as surely otherwise we can do this with other concepts like a perfect
island? This is certainly a strong argument in that it points out a
potential logical fallacy and his objections make sense within basic
human reasoning, however Gaunilo is still comparing two largely
contrasting concepts of an island and God. A perfect island we can
imagine clearly as we would be familiar with the other concepts within
it, however God is not so familiar. This shows how Gaunilo’s criticisms
of the ontological argument have flaws themselves, even if they
initially make sense.
(40) 39/40 answer
The a-priori, inductive ontological argument is not without its
objections and criticisms, including that of Gaunilo’s repudiation of a
‘perfect’ or ‘lost’ island. The ontological argument itself places
emphasis on this idea that ‘God must exist’ in both of its premises,
arguing this as an analytical rather than a synthetic statement,
because if he is perfect and necessary, it is impossible for him not to
do so. Gaunilo finds flaws in this - a logical fallacy - in which he
questions whether ‘God exists’ is truly so objective. He makes a
strong point in this, but his argument can be rightfully challenged not
only and always by the original holders of the ontological argument,
but by someone more modern.
Gaunilo paints this idea of a ‘perfect island’ in response to Anselm,
allowing us to imagine our own version of this in our minds, and then
question whether this is real just because it is in our minds. Obviously,
it isn’t. And Gaunilo claims that this is exactly what Anselm’s logic is,
but with the concept of God. Gaunilo highlights how we cannot
imagine something into existence just because it exists in our minds,
as surely otherwise we can do this with other concepts like a perfect
island? This is certainly a strong argument in that it points out a
potential logical fallacy and his objections make sense within basic
human reasoning, however Gaunilo is still comparing two largely
contrasting concepts of an island and God. A perfect island we can
imagine clearly as we would be familiar with the other concepts within
it, however God is not so familiar. This shows how Gaunilo’s criticisms
of the ontological argument have flaws themselves, even if they
initially make sense.
