Critically Evaluate Anselm’s Ontological Argument In His Pro

Critically evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument in his Proslogion

Critically evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument in his Proslogion. The essay should include an introduction that presents your thesis and an outline of your structure, body paragraphs that reconstruct Anselm’s argument in premiss-conclusion form, consider objections, and respond to those objections, and a conclusion that summarizes your findings. Use scholarly sources for references and develop a structured, analytical argument demonstrating critical engagement with the ontological argument.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

In this essay, I will critically evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument as presented in his Proslogion. The central focus will be on reconstructing Anselm’s reasoning, assessing its validity and soundness, and engaging with pertinent objections to evaluate whether the argument convincingly establishes the existence of God as a necessary being. I will begin by outlining Anselm’s argument in a clear, logical form. Subsequently, I will examine common objections, particularly those raised by Gaunilo and Kant, and provide responses that defend the argument’s coherence and plausibility. The conclusion will summarize whether Anselm’s argument, when sufficiently reconstructed and responded to, remains compelling within philosophical discourse.

Reconstruction of Anselm’s Argument

Anselm’s ontological argument can be reconstructed in a formal premiss-conclusion structure as follows:

  • P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. (Definition of God)
  • P2: It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the understanding. (Premise about existence)
  • P3: If God exists only in the understanding, then a greater being—one that exists in reality—can be conceived. (Premise for contradiction)
  • C: Therefore, God exists in reality. (Conclusion)
  • This reconstruction shows that if one accepts the definition of God as a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and that existence in reality is greater than mere understanding, then God must exist in reality to avoid contradiction.
  • Objections and Responses
  • The primary objections to Anselm’s argument originate with Gaunilo, a contemporary monk, who proposed the “perfect island” analogy. Gaunilo argued that one could conceive of the greatest island imaginable, but that does not imply that such an island exists in reality. The counterargument is that the analogy fails because the concept of a perfect island lacks the necessary defining attribute of a greatest conceivable being—namely, necessary existence tied to a definition of perfection that cannot be meaningfully instantiated in a non-existent entity. Philosophers like Kant have also challenged the argument by asserting that existence is not a predicate or a perfection. Kant contended that adding existence to the concept of a being does not necessarily increase its greatness, thus undermining the leap from conceptual existence to actual existence.
  • Responding to Gaunilo’s objection involves emphasizing the unique nature of the concept of God in Anselm’s argument—God’s necessary existence is part of the definition of such a being. Unlike a hypothetical island, which can be logically conceived without necessitating actual existence, God’s existence is argued to be impossible to deny if the definition is accepted. Furthermore, defenders of the ontological argument suggest that Anselm’s version relies on the premise that necessary existence is a perfection, which elevates the status of God beyond merely conceptual entities to a necessarily existent being.
  • Is the Argument Valid and Sound?
  • Assessing validity involves confirming whether the premises logically guarantee the conclusion. The reconstructed argument appears valid: if the premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. However, the validity hinges on whether the premises are acceptable. The central premise—that existence is a perfection and that denying God’s existence leads to a contradiction—remains contentious. The soundness depends on whether these premises are true. Many philosophers have challenged the truth of the premise that existence is a predicate or perfection, which casts doubt on the overall soundness of the argument.
  • Moreover, the argument’s reliance on a definition of God that necessarily entails existence is problematic. Critics argue that definitions do not guarantee existence—merely defining something as the greatest conceivable being does not prove it exists outside of the mind. In this regard, the argument faces a significant philosophical hurdle, as it conflates conceptual coherence with ontological reality.
  • Engagement with Objections and Critical Analysis
  • Despite the objections, some defenders argue that Anselm’s argument, especially in its revised form by philosophers like Descartes and plantinga, can successfully demonstrate that God’s necessary existence is logically deducible from the concept of God. They contend that rejecting the argument requires rejecting a fundamental principle of how we understand necessary existence and conceptual perfection. However, critics remain skeptical, highlighting that the argument could be critiqued for semantic ambiguity and reliance on questionable premises about existence.
  • In summary, the critical evaluation reveals that while Anselm’s ontological argument is elegant and logically structured, its persuasiveness depends heavily on accepting contentious premises about existence and the nature of conceptual definitions. When the premises are challenged, the argument’s validity and, more critically, its soundness come into question, suggesting that it does not conclusively prove the existence of God.
  • References
  • Charlesworth, M. J. (1979). St. Anselm’s Proslogion: with a reply on Behalf of the fool by Gaunilo and The Author’s Reply to Gaunilo. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Clarke, D. M. (2008). Berkeley: Philosophical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hodges, W. (2001). Logic: An Introduction to Elementary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rosenberg, J. (1996). The Practice of Philosophy: Handbook for Beginners. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
  • Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. P. Guyer & A. W. Wood. (1998). Cambridge University Press.
  • Fischer, J. M. (2010). “Ontological Arguments,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).
  • Martin, M. G. (2010). “The Ontological Argument,” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Eds. Chad Meister & Paul Copan.
  • Plantinga, A. (1974). “The Power of Theistic Arguments,” in Faith and Rationality. University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Rowe, W. (1978). “The Argument from Contingency,” in The Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press.
  • Kvanvig, J. L. (2003). The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge University Press.

Related Assignments