Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument - Essay Example

Insert Introduction Saint Anselm of Canterbury, also known as the Archbishop of Canterbury (c. 1033- April 21, 1109) was a Benedictine monk, a prelate of the Church and a philosopher. He is also known as Anselm of Bec or Anselm of Aosta and served as the Archbishop of Canterbury between 1039 and 1109. Anselm was mostly interested in explaining the existence of God and atonement and therefore considered philosophy, specifically ontology as an important instrument to this end. For this cause, Anselm is always reputed as the founder of scholasticism. Theme Statement Anselm’s argument of God’s existence in both human understanding and in reality is plausible and credible as it makes logical use of inductive reasoning and clearly explains its suppositions. Anselm’s Argument Anselm begins with premises that disregard experience as their source of justification. He then proceeds to use logical means to conclude that God exists. Anselm’s main aim is to address the two important features in the argument of the fool (the one denies God’s existence). The features are- the fool: Understands the claim of God’s existence, and Does not believe in God’s existence Anselm intention is to show the combination above as unstable since anyone who is led to understand the claim that God exists can also be led to see that God exists. Therefore the position is mistaken. From this point, Anselm introduces the second chapter of the Prosloguim. For the purpose of the argument, Anselm defines God as, “An absolute unsurpassable being- a being that cannot be conceivably improved upon.” This definition is credible since there cannot be a living or nonliving entity with such properties other than the Supreme Being Himself (Walz, 75). Anselm explains that it is possible for an object to exist in an individual’s understanding and a different matter for the same to understand that it exists. For instance, people can visualize a hobgoblin in their minds but will not believe goblins to exist. In this light, Anselm applies the distinction he draws to God’s case. The fool appreciates the claims made about God, meaning that God exists in his understanding. Therefore, when the fool hears about God, he is able to understand what the same means. Likewise, what is understood exists in people’s understanding. The heart of Anselm’s argument is that God cannot exist in man’s understanding alone. For this, Anselm contrasts between existence in understanding and existing in reality. Anselm at this point categorizes things that exist in understanding alone (A) from those that exist both in understanding and in reality (B) and those that exist in reality but not in the understanding (C). Anselm continues that at this point, the atheist concedes already that God exists in his understanding, so that the matter can be classified as belonging to A or B (Anselm, 27). From the foregoing, Anselm contends that it is impossible that God exists in the understanding alone. Anselm points out that if a thinker supposes with the fool that God’s existence is limited to the understanding alone, then, given the definition of God (An absolute unsurpassable being- a being that cannot be conceivably improved upon), then such a being cannot be taken or conceived to exist in reality. This is to the effect that people can conceive circumstances in which theism is true, even if it is not actually believed that the circumstance obtains. Anselm divulges that it is greater for an entity to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. Because of the foregoing, Anselm continues that a critical thinker is compelled to conclude that an entity than which none is greater can be understood to be greater than it is. This is absurd nevertheless; and this means that the first condition (A- the assumption that God exists in the understanding alone) is wrong. God must exist both in reality and the understanding. Objections to Anselm’s Arguments As is expected, there are some thinkers who have critiqued Anselm’s arguments and attempt to demonstrate God’s existence. A monk and Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutier posits that the idea of an island to which none is greater does not necessarily underscore the existence of an island since perfection does not really imply existence. In this light, if people are to substitute the phrase perfect island with God, in light of Anselm’s argument, no rational person can reasonably conclude that the existence of the island has been really proven. The charge that Gaunilo is laying to Anselm’s work is that Anselm makes true premises to make false conclusions and this therefore renders Anselm’s argument invalid. Again, Gaunilo argues that the definition of God as the being to which no greater can be conceived is logically understandable. This is because, according to Gaunilo, the being to which the greater can be conceived is hard to understand and is approximated in a manner similar to the idea of infinitesimals (Lovejoy, 384-5). Gaunilo also contends that in the consideration of any given idea, one should not cross the parameters of reality. Gaunilo contends that although Anselm’s argument the concepts of existence in reality and in the mind, yet an argument should deal with concepts and non-existent things in the outside world. People assume existence in arguments and conversations without needing the proof of an existence after all. It is in this light that Soren Kierkegaard pointed out that the existence of a thing, an entity or person cannot be proven. Nobody can prove the existence of an individual by pointing to his deeds since his deeds readily speak of the existence of their performer. Response To a large extent, I am in agreement with what Anselm says, and his arguments on the existence of God. Part of my agreement with Anselm’s argument is his elaborate use of inductive logic. The manner in which he defines God is both plausible and worthy of credence since ideally, there is nothing that should be greater than the Supreme Being. Because of this, there is also nothing that can be added to this being. This makes Anselm’s argument an inductive one, since he begins with a specific claim before proceeding to qualify it. Again, Anselm’s inductive logic is well organized in a step-by-step with the interrelationship between Anselm also makes his conclusion more plausible when he contrasts between existence in understanding and existing in reality, since it is possible for opponents to make rebuttals to the effect that existence in the mind does not necessarily denote actual existence, since people have ideas such as hobgoblins but such mental or/ and language constructs have never be seen to actually exist. However, such a Supreme Being cannot be limited to the frame of human understanding since his definition surpasses the human mind or the ability of the human mind to conjure such a concept. Because of this, one can clearly understand where Anselm has come from and why he makes the conclusion he stands with- that it is impossible for God to exist as a figment of imagination and that God must exist both in reality and the understanding. Conclusion The logical assumptions that Anselm makes are plausible enough to make the fool willing to grant them. Anselm sufficiently defines God and qualifies his definition well so that the fool can grant them credence and acceptance to the next level of logical engagement. The other assumption that Anselm makes is that the fool or anybody else can understand God to exist in his mind. This assumption is also credible since however far removed from theism one may be, he can construct the concept of the Divine Being, however abstract it may be, notwithstanding. The foregoing make Anselm’s argument of God’s existence in both human understanding and in reality is plausible and credible. Works Cited Anselm. Proslogion; Monologium: An Appendix In Behalf Of the Fool by Gaunilo; And Cur Deus Homo. Print Lovejoy, O. Arthur. “St. Anselms Proslogium, Monologium, an Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon, and Cur Deus Homo.” The Philosophical Review, 13.3 (1904): 384 – 385. Print Walz, D. Matthew. Anselm’s Proslogion: Including Gaunilos Objections and Anselms Replies. Saint Augustines Press, Incorporated, 2013. Print Read More