Draft

1.2 Arguments for the

existence of God
The Ontological Argument
This chapter will cover:
● Anselm’s a priori argument
● Criticisms from Gaunilo and Kant

You will need to consider six things for this section

1 The basis of Anselm’s argument in thought.
2 Anselm’s a priori Ontological Argument.
3 Criticisms from Gaunilo and Kant.
4 The strengths and weaknesses of Anselm’s argument.
5 The status of Anselm’s argument as a ‘proof’.
6 The value of Anselm’s argument for religious faith.

When looking at the Ontological Argument, it is best to start with its

technical vocabulary, because the vocabulary defines the argument. Make
sure you understand these terms thoroughly before going on to Anselm’s
Ontological Argument – it will make your studies a lot easier.

Technical terms for the Ontological Argument

a priori and a posteriori

These you know from the Design Argument. ‘A priori’ arguments rely on
logical deduction and not on sense experience. An a priori argument is
prior to / before sense experience. ‘A posteriori’ arguments depend on
sense experience: think of ‘posterior’ – behind / after sense experience.
For example, that ‘oak trees grow from acorns’ can only be known by
sense experience and not by logic. 17
inductive and deductive
‘Inductive’ you already know from the Design Argument. An inductive
argument is probabilistic, because the truth of its conclusion cannot
be guaranteed by the truth of its premises. In a ‘deductive’ argument,
if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. To explain
‘deductive’, we’ll start with ‘premise’. A premise is a proposition upon
which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. A
deductive argument is one which is intended to guarantee the truth
of the conclusion so long as its premises are true. As an example

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 17 12/09/16 11:52 am
 Draft
(in which P1 / P2 stand for Premise 1 / Premise 2 and C stands for
Conclusion):
P1 All horses have manes.
P2 A Suffolk Punch is a horse.
C Therefore Suffolk Punches have manes.
Another example from mathematics:
P1 If a = b
P2 and b = c
C then a = c.
This kind of reasoning is a priori, meaning that it relies on logical
deduction and not sense experience. The Ontological Argument is an a
priori argument which claims to prove that God exists.
synthetic and analytic
Activity ‘Synthetic’ statements / propositions are those whose truth or falsity
Identify which two of the are determined by sense experience, for example, ‘William has a hairy
following statements are analytic chest’. ‘Analytic’ statements / propositions are those that are true by
and explain why. the meaning of the words used, for example, ‘A bicycle has two wheels’
is analytic because by definition a bicycle is a two-wheeled vehicle. In
1 There are mountains on the short, analytic statements are true by definition.
Philosophy of religion and ethics

far side of the Moon.

subject and predicate
2 The Sun will rise tomorrow. Any complete sentence contains a subject and a predicate. The ‘subject’
3 Frozen water is ice. refers to who or what the sentence is about and the ‘predicate’ gives us
information about the subject. In the following sentences, the subject is
4 All bachelors are unhappy.
underlined and the predicate is in italics: George played the piano. The
5 Spinsters are unmarried dog barked. The girl in the red high-heeled shoes starred in a film.
women.
necessary and contingent
6 Cows exist. We can talk about necessary and contingent ‘things’ and necessary
and contingent ‘truths’. A ‘necessary truth’ is a proposition that could not
possibly be false, for example, that 2 + 2 = 4, or ‘squares have 4 sides’. A
‘contingent truth’ is a proposition that happens to be true but might have
been otherwise, for example, ‘In the UK police cars use blue flashing lights
in an emergency’ – it is possible that they could have been red.
A ‘necessary thing’ is something that could not possibly have failed to exist,
Component 1

for example, some argue that the laws of mathematics exist necessarily.
A ‘contingent thing’ is one which does not exist necessarily and so could
have failed to exist. Most things in the universe are said to be contingent,
including people – your parents might never have met, for example.

18
Key terms Activity
subject Any complete sentence Identify the subject and predicate in the following sentences.
contains a subject and a predicate.
1 Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.
The subject refers to who or what
the sentence is about. 2 Henry’s broken toe will heal itself in about two months.
predicate Any complete 3 The love of money is the root of all evil.
sentence contains a subject and 4 Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land predators ever to exist.
a predicate. The predicate gives
us information about the subject. 5 Happiness is sometimes hard to define.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 18 12/09/16 11:52 am
 Draft
●● The basis of Anselm’s argument
in thought

1.2
1 The term ‘ontological’ comes from the Greek ontos, meaning ‘essence’,

Arguments for the existence of God

‘existence’, ‘being’. Anselm’s eleventh-century argument was the first of
its kind and continues to resurface in different forms. The Ontological
Argument is based on the claim that God’s existence can be deduced
from his definition – that once God is correctly defined, there can be no
Key terms doubt that he exists.
a priori Argument which relies 2 If you look, now, at the technical terms listed above, you will be able
on logical deduction and not on to see what it means to say that Anselm’s Ontological Argument has its
sense experience. An a priori basis in thought.
argument is prior to / before
sense experience. The Ontological Argument claims that:
deductive Argument where if
● The proposition ‘God exists’ is a priori/deductive – it can be known to
the premises are true, then the be true without reference to sense experience, just by thinking about
conclusion must be true. God’s nature.
● In the proposition ‘God exists’, the subject ‘God’ contains the predicate
necessary A necessary truth ‘exists’, so God must exist.
is a proposition that could not
● God’s existence is a necessary truth, not a contingent one.
possibly be false. A necessary
thing is something that could Do not worry if this sounds too technical (the Ontological Argument is
not possibly have failed to exist. technical!): these points will become clear as we look at Anselm’s argument.
contingent A contingent truth Bear in mind before we start that most of the terminology we have just
is a proposition that happens
looked at is not used by Anselm. When he says, for example, that ‘God
to be true but might have been
cannot not-exist’, we would generally say that God exists ‘necessarily’,
otherwise. A contingent thing
is one which does not exist whereas all things exist ‘contingently’. The modern wording has been
necessarily and so could have used for clarity, but Anselm’s wording can be found in many of the larger
failed to exist. commentaries and online. Elsewhere in this book, the various writers have
generally been left to speak for themselves.

●● Anselm’s a priori Ontological Argument

and criticism from Gaunilo
Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm needs to be considered alongside Anselm’s
argument, since Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo was part of his formulation of
the argument.

Anselm (c. 1033–1109) His Ontological Argument appears in

Anselm is famous (some students might say Proslogium (1077–1078) Chapters 2–4
infamous) for inventing the Ontological Argument. and also in his Responsio to Gaunilo.
19
Very much to his credit, Anselm made a meticulous (Note 1)
and positive analysis of religious language about 800 Gaunilo was a contemporary of
years before the logical positivists (of whom you will Anselm. He was also a Benedictine
learn more at A Level) were even thought of. Anselm monk in the Marmoutier Abbey
was many things: a Benedictine monk, Archbishop of in France. He wrote On Behalf of the Fool, which
Canterbury from 1093 until his death, and of course, essentially rejected Anselm’s attempt to give an a
eventually, a saint of the Church. priori proof of the existence of God.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 19 12/09/16 11:52 am
 Draft
Anselm’s Ontological Argument comes in two parts, the whole being
couched in a prayerful meditation to God, which we look at later.

Anselm part 1 The Ontological Argument

from Proslogium 2
God is ‘… a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ (Note 2)

Here is a summary of Anselm’s argument in relatively modern English.

P1 God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
P2 This is a definition which even a fool understands in his mind, even
though he does not understand it to exist in reality.
P3 There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing
that this idea exists in reality.
P4 For example, a painter has an idea in his mind of what he wants to
paint; but when he has painted it, that idea now exists both in his
mind and in reality.
P5 It is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality than to exist only
in the mind.
Philosophy of religion and ethics

P6 If God existed only in the mind, I could think of something greater,

namely a God who existed in reality also.
C Therefore in order to be the greatest conceivable being (P1), God must
exist both in the mind and in reality.
The two really important claims here are those in P1 and P5.
In P1, by describing God as:
‘ … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … ’
Anselm means ‘greatest’ in every possible respect: God is omnipotent and
omniscient, and in fact must possess every great-making quality to the
highest possible level.
Component 1

In P5, Anselm claims that it is greater to exist both in the mind and reality
than to exist only in the mind. This seems like a reasonable claim. You can
imagine the necessities of life such as food and water, but to be able to eat and
drink in reality is surely a much greater thing than simply thinking about it.
We can therefore reduce Anselm’s arguments to two essential premises and
a conclusion.
20 P1 God is the greatest conceivable being.
P2 It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
C Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.

Criticism of Anselm by Gaunilo: On Behalf of the Fool

Anselm’s argument was criticised by a fellow monk, Gaunilo of
Marmoutiers. Anselm appears not to have minded the criticism, since it
gave him the chance to emphasise a second stage of his argument in his
Responsio; so from early on, Anselm arranged that the Proslogium should
appear with Gaunilo’s criticisms attached. (Note 3)
© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 20 12/09/16 11:52 am
 Draft
Gaunilo’s attack used a parody of Anselm’s argument. He gave an
Ontological Argument for the existence of a ‘perfect lost island’ – an island

1.2
than which nothing greater can be conceived – in which he used the
structure of Anselm’s argument.

Arguments for the existence of God

The following puts Gaunilo’s argument in parallel with that of Anselm,
using the shorter form above:
P1 It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island.
P2 It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
C Therefore the most perfect and real lost island must exist in reality.
Gaunilo clearly believes that the concept of ‘the most perfect and real lost
island’ makes no sense, since we know that such an island cannot exist.
Gaunilo is using a method of argument called a reductio ad absurdum,
which is Latin for ‘argument to absurdity’. He is suggesting that Anselm’s
argument can be used to prove the existence of an endless number of
perfect objects – perfect lost cricket bats, perfect oak trees, perfect what
you like, and so the real fool would be anybody who argued in this way.

Anselm part 2 Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo: The Ontological

Argument from Proslogium 3 and the Responsio

Activity
In order to get the gist of Anselm’s response to Gaunilo, try the following
exercise.
Your idea of a perfect island might include some of the following: lots of
sunshine, shady palm trees, coconut trees, grape vines, surfing beaches, sun-
bathing beaches, swimming beaches, the most magnificent bars, restaurants,
hotels and night clubs, swimming pools and an absence of exams.

21

01_02_02 AQA A-Level Religious Studies

What is your idea
Barking Dog Artof a perfect island?

Now answer these two questions.

1 Would you ever decide once and for all what your idea of a perfect
island would be like, or would your definition change from day to day?
2 If you lived for a million years, would you ever find anybody else with
exactly the same definition as yours?

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 21 12/09/16 11:52 am
 Draft
The chances are that you have answered ‘No’ to both questions in the
activity, and therein lies the clue to Anselm’s rejection of Gaunilo’s
argument.
● Anselm’s reply is drawn out of his second version of his Ontological
Argument in Proslogium 3:

God cannot be conceived not to exist – God is that, than which nothing
greater can be conceived – That which can be conceived not to exist is not
God. (Note 4)

● This is developed further in the Responsio, where Anselm points out

the difference between necessary and contingent existence (see the
technical terms from earlier).
First: as you have probably seen from the Activity, everything that you
might want to exist on your ‘perfect’ island is contingent – it can exist
or not exist. What is a beautiful palm tree will one day rot to pieces. A
beautiful bar will eventually weather and fall apart or at the very least it
will need constant repairs, until eventually it is no longer the same bar.
Second: it is impossible to quantify the idea of a perfect island. How many
trees must it have to be perfect? If you decided on a number and then
Philosophy of religion and ethics

change your mind and added one more, would that number still be perfect?
If your perfect drink is a tequila sunrise, but after a few years of drinking
you grow to dislike the taste and change to lemonade, what has become of
your perfect drink?
We can formulate Anselm’s response to Gaunilo in the following way:
P1 To be perfect, an island would have to be ‘that island than which no
greater can be conceived’.
P2 An island than which no greater can be conceived would have to exist
necessarily, since a contingent island would be less perfect than an
island that existed necessarily.
P3 But islands are contingent, and by definition no contingent thing can
exist necessarily.
Component 1

C Therefore that which can be conceived not to exist is not God.

Further:
P1 God is the greatest conceivable being.
P2 The greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist.

22 C1 Therefore, God, and God alone, possesses necessary existence: God

cannot not exist.
In summary, Anselm gives a clear refutation of Gaunilo’s ‘perfect lost island’
argument. He shows that necessary existence is a predicate only of God,
and not of things.
Kant’s objections to Ontological Arguments are not so easy to dismiss.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 22 12/09/16 11:52 am
 Draft
●● Criticisms from Kant

1.2
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)

Arguments for the existence of God

Kant was without doubt one of the most influential
of ‘modern’ philosophers. He lived (and died) in
Königsberg, Prussia, which after 1946 became
part of Russia. When you refer to him, do resist
the urge to reproduce some of the popular stories
about him, for example, that he was so regular in
his daily walks his neighbours set their clocks by
him, or that he never travelled more than 10 miles
from home – the second of these is certainly false. Simply, cherish such
information to flesh out your picture of Kant’s possible character.
Also, do not make the unfortunate mistake of rendering his first name as
‘Emmanuelle’. As a matter of fact Kant was christened ‘Emanuel’ but he
later changed it to ‘Immanuel’, that being a more faithful transliteration
of the original Hebrew, which means ‘God (is) with us’. (Note 5)

Kant had two major criticisms of the Ontological Argument. These were
directed not at Anselm, but at the version of the Ontological Argument
written by the French philosopher René Descartes in the mid-seventeenth
century, although to some extent they apply also to Anselm’s version of the
argument. In other words, do not make the mistake of thinking that Kant is
offering direct criticism of Anselm’s argument.

Objection 1: Existence is not a predicate

Descartes defined God as ‘the supremely perfect being’, meaning that God
must possess all the perfect predicates such as omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, and so on. In addition, therefore, God must possess the
perfection of existence:
‘… it is quite evident that existence can no more be separated from
the essence of God than the fact that its three angles equal two
right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or that
the idea of a mountain can be separated from the idea of a valley.
Hence it is just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is,
a supremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lacking a
perfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley.’ (Note 6)
You will see that this is similar to the argument made by Anselm’s
Proslogium, where he states that the greatest conceivable being must possess
the perfection / predicate of existence, because it is greater for such a being 23
to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
Kant’s objection is simple: existence is not a real predicate, because it adds
nothing to the concept of a thing. Real predicates give us new knowledge
of a subject. If your teacher brings a black cow into the classroom and tells
you that it is an Aberdeen Angus, you have gained useful knowledge. If
your teacher then tells you that the cow exists, nothing new has been added
to the subject. If somebody bursts into a room and shouts out, ‘it exists’,
‘exists’ tells you nothing at all about the nature of ‘it’.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 23 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Kant’s example was to invite you to imagine 100 Thalers (a coin used in his day).
If you are imagining something like this, you can describe the predicates of
Thalers (they are round, metallic, possibly gold, have an image of the king,
and so on), and each new predicate adds to our concept of the Thalers. But
if you then say, ‘Oh, and by the way, the Thalers exist’, nothing has been
added: there is no difference between our concept of 100 Thalers and our
concept of 100 Thalers that exist.
▲ A Prussian Thaler from the time of Kant Now apply this to Anselm’s concept of God.
Anselm tells us that God is the greatest conceivable being, so we can
imagine God with all the predicates that Descartes lists, and each predicate:
omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and so on, adds to our concept
of God. But if I then say, ‘Oh, and by the way, God exists’, nothing has been
added: there is no difference between our concept of God and our concept of
a God that exists. Moreover, the only way I can know that Thalers really do
exist is to experience them: to touch, smell, see and even taste them, and to
hear them if I drop them on the floor. Equally, the only way I can know that
God exists is by sense experience. Logic alone gets me nowhere.

Objection 2: We can accept the proposition that

‘existing necessarily’ is part of what we mean by
Philosophy of religion and ethics

‘God’, but it does not follow from this that God

exists in reality.
We will put this into an understandable sequence. If any of the words
confuse you, go back to the definitions of terms at the start of this section.
1 Anselm’s Ontological Argument in effect claims that the proposition ‘God
Key terms exists necessarily’ is analytic – in other words, that it is true by definition.
analytic statements /
propositions that are true by 2 Think, for example, of the statement that ‘A bachelor is an unmarried
the meaning of the words used. man’. This is obviously analytic – true by definition – because that’s how
For example, ‘A bicycle has two we define a bachelor.
wheels’ is analytic because by Think further, for example, of the statement that ‘A unicorn is a horse
definition a bicycle is a two-
with a horn’. This is also obviously analytic / true by definition, because
wheeled vehicle. In short,
analytic statements are true by
that’s how we define a unicorn.
Component 1

definition. 3 Now take the two following propositions:

● bachelors exist
● unicorns exist.
How do we know that there are any bachelors? The answer can only be:
‘by experiencing them’. If you have an unmarried male in your family of
24 marriageable age, then clearly ‘bachelors exist’ is true, because you’ve seen one.
Now try it with unicorns. How do you know that there really are any
unicorns? When did you last see, touch, taste, smell or hear a unicorn?
People claim to have seen them, but those claims have never been
substantiated. Perhaps at some point in the future somebody will indeed
find unicorns; but the obvious point is that this will only happen by
sense experience: it can never happen by logic.
4 Now turn your attention to the proposition ‘God exists necessarily’,
which Anselm claims is analytic / true by definition. It follows from 3,
above, that I can only know that there is a God by experiencing God

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 24 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
through my senses. Some people do indeed claim to have experienced
God, and this may be true or it may be false; but in either case it is a

1.2
matter of experience and not of logic.
5 To make this as clear as possible:

Arguments for the existence of God

‘A unicorn is a horse with a horn’ is logically true because that’s how
we define a unicorn, but it does not follow that there really are any
unicorns.
Equally, ‘God exists necessarily’ is logically true, because that’s how we
define God, but it does not follow that there really is a God.
6 Clearer still:
The Ontological Argument fails because it omits one small but powerful
word: ‘If’.
With unicorns: If there are unicorns, then they will be horses with
horns.
With God: If there is a God, then God will exist necessarily.

●● The strengths and weaknesses of

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Strengths
1 It is a deductive argument, so if it succeeds, it is a proof of the existence
of God. Put another way, unlike other arguments for God’s existence,
such as the design and Cosmological Arguments, it does not depend on
anything we observe, and since human observation is not always reliable,
that can be seen as a good thing.
In the debate about the Design Argument, for example, it is very
difficult to decide whether the appearance of order that we observe in
the universe is really the result of design or not. With the Ontological
Argument, there is no ambiguity – the argument either succeeds or fails
by its logic.
2 The argument can be taken in a different way, namely the interpretation
put upon it by Karl Barth, who claimed that Anselm never intended the
argument to be a proof of God’s existence. Instead, Barth argued that it
was the result of a religious experience given to Anselm in which God
revealed his nature as:
‘ … that than which nothing greater can be conceived … ’
25
In other words, for those with faith, the Ontological Argument is clearly
true, because it is an expression of their faith.
We shall assess Barth’s argument in the following section on the value of
Key term Anselm’s argument for religious faith.
synthetic synthetic statements /
propositions are those whose 3 There is no doubt that the Ontological Argument is a good training
truth or falsity are determined ground for learning about the difference between analytic and synthetic
by sense experience. propositions, necessary and contingent beings, and so on. In other words
it is useful in the art of learning how to do philosophy!

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 25 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Weaknesses
1 Although there are several scholars who still defend the Ontological
Argument, notably Alvin Plantinga, the majority of scholars reject it,
largely on the basis of the two major objections made by Kant, that:
● Existence is not a predicate: to say that something exists, such as,
‘Cows exist’, tells you nothing about cows that you have not found out
from sense experience.
● Even if ‘existing necessarily’ is part of what we mean by God, it does
not follow that God exists in reality. From what we said above about
unicorns and God, Kant’s objections seem to defeat the Ontological
Argument.
You should bear in mind that Kant’s objections do not disprove the
existence of God: they simply make it extremely unlikely that God’s
existence can be proved by logic.
2 The starting point of Anselm’s argument is that God can be defined as:
‘ … that than which nothing greater can be conceived … ’
Some would argue, however, that any attempt to define God would
be to limit God. Anything that can be classified and analysed can be
understood by humans, and many Christians would argue that this is
Philosophy of religion and ethics

at best futile and at worst irreligious. Thomas Aquinas, the great Roman
Catholic theologian, insisted that we do not know God’s definition, so
Anselm must be wrong.
You might want to question this, because to say that God is:
‘ … that than which nothing greater can be conceived … ’
is really to say that God has no limitation at all, and that this is indeed a
concept that we can understand.

●● The status of Anselm’s argument

as a ‘proof’
Think back to what we said about the status of the Design Argument as a
Component 1

Key terms
proof of God’s existence: the argument is inductive, so cannot be a proof of
inductive argument which is
God, because all inductive arguments are probabilistic. Some people will
probabilistic, because the truth
of its conclusion cannot be
observe design in the universe; others will not. The former will think that
guaranteed by the truth of its God is the most probable explanation; the latter will not.
premises. Anselm’s Ontological Argument, you will now have realised, is a completely
a posteriori arguments which different way of arguing.
26
depend on sense experience:
● It is deductive rather than inductive. In a deductive argument, if the
think of ‘posterior’ – behind /
after sense experience. For
premises are true, then the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed.
example, that ‘oak trees grow ● Unlike the Design Argument, it claims to be true without having to use
from acorns’ can only be known any fallible sense experience, so is a priori rather than a posteriori.
by sense experience and not by ● Anselm argues that ‘God exists necessarily’ is analytic – it is true by
logic. definition / logically true.
● So, if the premises of Anselm’s argument are true, then it is a proof of the
existence of God.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 26 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Is it a proof?
● This is disputed, because various scholars claim that the argument works,

1.2
including Anselm and Descartes, although most argue that it does not.
● For most scholars, Kant’s objections show that the argument is not a

Arguments for the existence of God

proof: it merely shows that ‘If’ God exists, then he exists necessarily.
● Compare the ‘proof’ of Anselm’s argument with mathematical proof, for
example, that 2 + 2 = 4. Nobody doubts that 2 + 2 = 4, but lots of people
doubt that Anselm’s Ontological Argument is true. If it was really a proof,
there would be no doubt.
● Some might argue that it is a proof in Karl Barth’s sense, as a faith-based
acceptance.

●● The value of Anselm’s argument for

religious faith
1 Karl Barth’s view is that Anselm’s argument is about faith, not logic.
In looking at the strengths of Anselm’s argument, we did refer to Karl
Barth’s interpretation of the argument as a religious experience given by
God to Anselm.

Karl Barth (1886–1968)

Barth was a Swiss Protestant theologian. He was
emphatically opposed to the liberal Protestantism
of his time, primarily since it seemed bent on
interpreting the message of Jesus in line with
modern culture, whereas Barth insisted that the
only allegiance of the Church should be to God (and
especially not to the likes of Adolf Hitler).
Barth insisted that God can only be known by revelation, and not by
logic, and this led him to have a novel approach to Anselm’s Ontological
Argument. In 1931, Barth wrote a book on Anselm called, Faith Seeking
Understanding, in which he claimed that Anselm’s argument was never
intended to be a logical proof of the existence of God. Rather, and as you
can see by the title of his book, Barth saw the Ontological Argument
as a way for faith to seek understanding. In other words, according to
Barth, Anselm used the Ontological Argument as a way of trying to
understand the God he believed in.

Barth’s argument in brief:

● At the end of Chapter 1 of the Proslogium, Anselm says:
27
‘I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order
to understand. For this too I believe: that unless I believe, I shall not
understand.’ (Note 7)
In other words, for Anselm, belief in God comes before reasoning about God.
● Thus Anselm began with a prayer, praying that God would reveal himself
to his understanding.
● Moreover, God revealed a name to Anselm:
‘ … that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 27 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Anselm’s definition of God, according to Barth, was not based on logic –
it was given to him by a religious revelation.
● You can see Barth’s point if this understanding of Anselm is right: if
humans could prove the existence of God purely by logic, then we would
not need God’s revelation, and God himself could be just another object
of human knowledge.
Against Barth’s interpretation:
● Anselm’s Proslogium is a prayer directed towards the ‘fool’ in Psalm 14:4,
who says that there is no God. In other words, the prayer is directed at
an atheist. If his Ontological Argument is not intended to be a logical
proof to convince the atheist, then why does he go to so much trouble to
demonstrate the truth of the argument?
Discussion point ● In the preface to the Proslogium, Anselm mentions that he is looking for a
proof; not that he is merely reinforcing some kind of religious revelation.
Look at the text of Anselm’s
● Perhaps the most convincing argument against Barth is that Gaunilo
Proslogium, for example, http://
bothers to respond to it. To make that clear: if Anselm was just telling
www.fordham.edu/halsall/
basis/anselm-proslogium. people about his faith in God, why would Gaunilo object to that?
asp#CHAPTER1, and form your Gaunilo objects to Anselm’s argument precisely because he thinks it is a
own judgement. Do you think logical ‘proof’ that fails, so Gaunilo is telling him why he fails. Moreover,
that Anselm is talking mainly Anselm then responds by telling Gaunilo that only God has necessary
Philosophy of religion and ethics

about logic or faith? existence. In other words, they are having an argument about logic, and
not a discussion about faith.
2 To some extent Anselm’s Ontological Argument has value for those
who believe in God already, since perhaps they are more likely to
accept it as a logical proof.
3 Bear in mind, however, that many fideist Christians disagree with
this last point.
Fideism is the view that faith does not depend on reason, so if faith
points one way and reason points another, then the fideist is justified in
following what they believe. Fideists might therefore reject any attempt
to ‘contain’ God within a system of logic. They would argue that if we
could prove God’s existence by logic, then faith would lose all of its
value: we would not need faith in God if we could show logically that
Component 1

God must exist.

4 To give Anselm the last word, although Anselm is seeking for a logical
proof of God’s existence, this is not an attempt to replace faith with logic,
despite Barth’s claims. Faith for Anselm is a volitional state (an act of the
will) motivated by love of God:
‘ … and a drive to act as God wills … ’
28
So ‘faith seeking understanding’, which is Anselm’s ‘motto’ in the
Proslogium, means something like:
‘ … an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God.’ (Note 8)

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 28 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Summary of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

1.2
For a start, remember the technical terms and how C Therefore the most perfect and real lost island
they define the argument: must exist in reality.

Arguments for the existence of God

● a priori and a posteriori So Gaunilo is saying that the real fool would be
anybody who argued in this way (e.g. Anselm!)
● inductive and deductive
Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo from Proslogium 3 and
● synthetic and analytic the Responsio:
● subject and predicate P1 To be perfect, an island would have to be ‘that
island than which no greater can be conceived’.
● necessary and contingent.
P2 An island than which no greater can be conceived
1 The basis of the argument in thought
would have to exist necessarily, since a contingent
The Ontological Argument is based on the claim island would be less perfect than an island that
that God’s existence can be deduced from his existed necessarily.
definition: once God is correctly defined, there
P3 But islands are contingent and by definition no
can be no doubt that he exists. Using the list of
contingent thing can exist necessarily.
technical terms above:
C Therefore that which can be conceived not to exist
● The Ontological Argument claims that the is not God.
proposition, ‘God exists’ is a priori / deductive –
you do not need sense experience to know that it Further:
is true: you know it is true just by thinking about it. P1 God is the greatest conceivable being.
● In the proposition, ‘God exists’, the subject ‘God’
P2 The greatest conceivable being cannot be
contains the predicate ‘exists’, so God must conceived not to exist.
exist. It’s as clear as knowing that ‘bicycles’
(subject) ‘have two wheels’ (predicate). C1 Therefore, God, and God alone, possesses
● God’s existence is a necessary truth, not a necessary existence: God cannot not exist.
contingent one. In summary, Anselm gives a clear refutation of
Gaunilo’s ‘perfect lost island’ argument. He shows
2 Anselm’s a priori Ontological Argument and
that necessary existence is a predicate only of
criticism from Gaunilo
God, and not of things.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument from
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo seems very powerful,
Proslogium 2:
but it is hard to see how Anselm would have replied
Use the shortened form of the argument as a basis to Kant’s objections, given here, which most scholars
for remembering the whole: think defeat Anselm’s argument.
P1 God is the greatest conceivable being. 3 Criticism from Kant
P2 It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in Objection 1: Existence is not a predicate
the mind.
● Kant attacks Descartes’ Ontological Argument,
C Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God that as the supremely perfect being, God must
must exist in reality. possess all the perfect predicates, such as
Now add the bits about fools and painters and you’ve omnipotence and omniscience and perfect (i.e.
got it! necessary) existence. 29
● But existence is not a real predicate (think
Criticism by Gaunilo: On behalf of the Fool:
‘Thalers’ and think ‘it exists’), so if we list all of
This uses a parody of Anselm’s argument to show God’s predicates (omnipotence, omniscience,
that it is absurd: and so on) and then add ‘existence’, we add
P1 It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and nothing to the concept of God. The only way I
real lost island. can know that Thalers exist is to experience
P2 It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in them; so the only way I can know that God
the mind. exists is by sense experience, not logic.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 29 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Objection 2: We can accept that ‘necessary ● The Ontological Argument does not seem to
existence’ is part of what we mean by ‘God’, but it work, since most agree that Kant’s objections
does not follow from this that God exists in reality defeat it; moreover it does not have the status of
● Think ‘unicorn’. ‘A unicorn is a horse with a horn’ a mathematical proof, where the truth of
is logically true, because that’s how we define 2 + 2 = 4 is obvious to everyone. If the Ontological
a unicorn, but it does not follow from this that Argument was really a proof, there would be
there really are any unicorns. no argument about the Ontological Argument
● Equally, ‘God exists necessarily’ is logically true, either.
because that’s how we define God, but it does ● You might want to argue that it is a ‘proof’ in
not follow that there really is a God. Barth’s sense – that it is obvious to faith.
● Think ‘if’: If there are unicorns, then they will be 6 The value of Anselm’s argument for religious
horses with horns. If there is a God, then God faith
will exist necessarily i This is primarily about Barth’s interpretation of
4 Strengths and weaknesses of Anselm’s Anselm’s argument, that:
Ontological Argument ● It is cast in the form of a prayer rather than a
logical proof.
Strengths ● It is based on a religious experience in which
● The argument is deductive, so if it works, it is a God revealed a name to Anselm:
proof. ‘ … that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’
● Not only that, according to Karl Barth and
● If we could prove God’s existence by logic,
others, the argument succeeds precisely
there would be no need for faith or for trust
Philosophy of religion and ethics

because it is not meant to be a logical proof: it’s in God.

a confession of faith. For those with faith, the Nevertheless:
Ontological Argument is clear to their faith. ● Anselm’s prayer is directed towards the
● The Ontological Argument is a good training atheist ‘fool’ in Psalm 14:4. If the argument is
ground in learning how to do philosophy! not intended to give an atheist a logical proof
of God’s existence, why does Anselm go to so
Weaknesses
much trouble to show that his argument is
● Most agree that Kant’s two objections defeat all right?
Ontological Arguments. They do not disprove the ● In the preface to the Proslogium, Anselm says
existence of God, but they do show that God’s that he is looking for a proof.
existence cannot be shown by logic. ● Why else would he bother to respond to
● Some reject Anselm’s definition of God as ‘the Gaunilo? Gaunilo constructs a reply to
Anselm’s logic and Anselm replies in kind:
greatest conceivable being’, but Christians such
they are arguing about logic, not about faith.
as Aquinas would reject any attempt to define
For Anselm, ‘faith seeking understanding’
Component 1

●
God, because if we were able to define God that means:
would limit him. Against that, some would say
that Anselm’s definition is a good place to start ‘ … an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge
and we know what it means. of God.’

5 The status of Anselm’s argument as a ‘proof’ ii The argument has value for those who believe in
God already, since they are more likely to accept
● Here you should contrast the deductive / a it as a logical proof.
30 priori Ontological Argument with inductive / a iii But many Christians disagree about the last
posteriori arguments (like the Design Argument). point: fideists would argue that if we could prove
● Inductive arguments can only be probability God’s existence by logic, faith would lose all of
arguments, but the deductive Ontological its value.
Argument is a proof if we agree that the
argument works.

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 30 12/09/16 11:53 am
 Draft
Three suggestions for practice and development

1.2
Use one or more of these three questions / claims as a homework
assignment, a class essay, or as a focus for practice.

Arguments for the existence of God

1 Explain why Christians have differing attitudes towards Anselm’s
Ontological Argument.
2 Explain what it means to say:
a that the Ontological Argument is a priori / deductive
b that in the proposition: ‘God exists’, the subject ‘God’ contains
the predicate ‘exists’
c that God’s existence is a necessary truth.
3 ‘Anselm’s Ontological Argument proves nothing.’ How far do you
agree?

31

© Hodder Education
873959_1.2_AQA_A_level_RS_017-031.indd 31 12/09/16 11:53 am