The Ontological Argument is an argument for the existence of God. The argument first appears in St. Anselm's writings. The Ontological Argument
Ben's Personal Ad:
Before describing Anselm's argument, let's start with something that may seem pretty unrelated. Let's talk about personal ads.
Let's say I'm looking for love, but not having much success. I might eventually try putting out a personal ad. For example:Philosophy grad student ISO fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster.If all goes well, I will finally meet the fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster of my dreams, my "Dreamboat"."Ben's Dreamboat" = A fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster.If all goes well, my Dreamboat will see my ad, and will be moved to call me. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that things will go well. "Dreamboat" may not see my add, or, worse yet, "Dreamboat" may not exist.This is just a vivid illustration of a common phenomena. It's one thing to define a concept, but it's quite another thing whether anything satisfies that concept. Think about "Santa Claus", "fairies" or "free lunches". These are all well-defined concepts, but nothing satisfies them.
The Ontological Argument
Now we're ready to look St. Anselm's famous "Ontological Argument" for the existence of God. The Ontological Argument attempts to move from a certain definition of God, to the conclusion that something must satisfy that definition. (To put it another way, Anselm tries to show that "God" is unlike "Santa Claus".) One of the striking things about this argument is that it tries to show that we can have a priori knowledge of God's existence.First, let's look at how St Anselm defines "God". For him:
"God" = A being "than which no greater can be conceived".His argument comes in two big steps:Step 1: Prove that “God” at the very least, “exists in the mind”.
Step 2: Prove that “God” must also “exist in reality.”Step 1.
He first establishes that God "exists in the mind". His argument is fairly straigthforward:1. Whatever can be understood exists in the mind.
2. The concept of God (as St. Anselm has defined it) can be understood.
----------------------------------
\ C. God exists in the mind.Step 2.
He then offers a "reductio" argument to show that God exists in reality and not only in the mind:1. Assume (towards a contradiction) that God only exists in the mind and not in reality.
\ 2. But then a greater being than God can be thought (namely, one that exists in reality). [From 1]
3. But God was defined as a being "than which a greater cannot be thought".
\ 4. So, no greater being than God can be thought. [From 3]
----------------------------------
\ C. Contradiction (2 & 4)!!! Therefore, our original assumption must be false. God must exist in reality and not just in the mind.Gaunilo's Objection
An early objection (made in St. Anselm's own time) to the Ontological Argument was made by a monk named Gaunilo. Gaunilo points out that Anselm's argument is too strong. If the Ontological Argument were valid, we could prove the existence of a lot of things which just don't exist.Before discussing Gaunilo's objection, it's worth remembering our discussion of arguments. If you'll recall, there are two ways of objecting to an argument. You can either question the truth of one or more of the premises (questioning the "soundness" of the argument) or you can attack the reasoning (questioning the "validity" of the argument).
Gaunilo objects to the validity of Anselm's argument, but he does so in a very particular way. He compares Anselm's argument with other arguments that have the same form. In the end, he finds an example of an argument that has the same form as Anselm's, but which is clearly invalid.
The example Gaunilo himself gives concerns the existence of a "perfect island". In class, I discussed Gaunilo's objection with reference to "Ben's Personal Ad".
The basic idea is this: If the Ontological Argument is successful, I now have a recipe for rewriting my personal ad in a way that guarantees that my "Dreamboat" exists. All I have to do is specify that the fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster of my dreams also needs to be such that "no greater can be conceived". (I have to pay for a few extra words, but it's worth it to me if it ensures that my "Dreamboat" is out there. Then I'll just wait by the phone until she sees my ad!) So, my new personal ad now reads:
Philosophy grad student ISO fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster than which a greater cannot be thought.If Anselm's original argument is successful, we can run a parallel argument to show that my "Dreamboat" must exist. First, we define "Ben's Dreamboat" as follows:Ben's Dreamboat = A fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster than which a greater cannot be thought.Then, we can run through Anselm's two-step argument with "Ben's Dreamboat" standing in for "God"Step 1.We first establish that Ben's Dreamboat "exists in the mind":
And, of course this was just one example. You can see that this point can be generalized. If the Ontological Argument was sound, you could use that general argument for to prove the existence of anything you want.1. Whatever can be understood exists in the mind.Step 2.We can then give a "reductio" argument to show that "Ben's Dreamboat" exists in reality and not only in the mind:
2. The concept of "Ben's Dreamboat" (as I have just defined it) can be understood.
----------------------------------
\ C. "Ben's Dreamboat" exists in the mind.1. Assume (towards a contradiction) that "Ben's Dreamboat" only exists in the mind and not in reality.
\ 2. But then someone greater than "Ben's Dreamboat" can be thought. [From 1]
3. But "Ben's Dreamboat" was defined as being, among other things, someone "than which a greater cannot be thought".
\ 4. So, no one greater than "Ben's Dreamboat" can be thought. [From 3]
----------------------------------
\ C. Contradiction (2 & 4)!!! "Ben's Dreamboat" must exist in reality and not just in the mind.Further Objections
Gaunilo’s objection, even if successful, only shows us that something must be wrong with Anselm’s argument, but it doesn’t show us exactly where the error lies. In class, I discussed two further attempts to point out the flaw in Anselm's argument. (As I mentioned, these further objections aren't in competition with Gaunilo. Both Kant and Blackburn would agree with Gaunilo's point, are are going on to further point out flaws of Anselm's argument.)Kant: Existence is not a predicate.
One of the most famous objections to the Ontological Argument comes from Kant. He objects that Anselm’s Ontological Argument treats “existence as a predicate”.Notice that, if successful, Anselm's argument would show that God necessarily exists. That is, it would show that it's not even possible for God not to exist.
Now, Kant admits that some truths are necessary. (That is, some statements are such that their falsity is not even possible.) For example, he thinks that:
All triangles necessarily have three sides.To invoke some technical terminology, a "predicate" is a property that applies to some things but not others. For example, the predicate "having blond hair" applies to everyone with blond hair, but doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't have blond hair.Kant thinks that the triangle example is an example where a "predicate" necessarily applies to a "subject". In particular, he thinks that the predicate "having three sides" necessarily applies to the subject "triangle".
Kant tries to understand Anselm's argument for the claim that "God exists" on the model of the triangle example. He sees Anselm as trying to argue that the predicate "exists" necessarily applies to the subject "God". But Kant objects that this is a mistake on Anselm's part. Kant claims that, even though "exists" functions grammatically like a predicate, it is not a real predicate.
Kant's point can be illustrated by going back to the example of "Ben's Personal Ad". Remember, in the original ad I specified what I was looking for in a mate by stating a bunch of predicates which she needed to satisfy. (She need to "love fun", "arm-wrestle", etc.) If "existence" was a real predicate, then I could further specify my dreamboat by rewriting my personal ad to read:
Philosophy grad student ISO fun-loving, comic-book-reading, arm-wrestling Checkers Grandmaster who exists.But this last phrase ("who exists") doesn't add anything. I've just wasted my money on two extra words that don't narrow or widen the field of potential dates at all. (That is, anyone who fit the original description still fits this new one, and anyone who didn't fit the original description still won't fit this new one.)Blackburn: Comparing "Conception" and "Reality"?
Simon Blackburn (a contemporary British philosopher) offers his own diagnosis of the problem. He thinks the problem has to do with the comparision (required in Step 2 of Anselm's argument) between "conception" and "reality". The argument requires that we compare a conception of God with a real god and ask: Which one is greater?Blackburn thinks this is an ambiguous question (and perhaps even a nonsensical one). He illustrates this by considering the statement:
Real turkies are heavier than imagined turkeys.As he points out there is a sense in which that statement is true (imagined turkeys don't weigh anything) and a sense in which it's false (I can imagine a turkey that's heavier than any real turkey has ever been).