F a i r D e a l i n g ( S h o r t E x c e r p t )

Reading: Ch. 3. Does God Exist? Anselm's Ontological Argument (excerpt) (Philosophy: Asking Questions -
Seeking Answers)

Author: Stich, Stephen P.; Donaldson, Tom

Editor: N/A

Publisher: Oxford University Press Publication Date: 2019 Pages: 46-49

Course: PHIL 101 001 2020W Introduction to Philosophy

Course Code: 001 Term: 2020W1

Department: PHIL

Copyright Statement of Responsibility

This copy was made pursuant to the Fair Dealing Requirements for UBC Faculty and Staff, which may be found at
http://copyright.ubc.ca/requirements/fair-dealing/. The copy may only be used for the purpose of research, private
study, criticism, review, news reporting, education, satire or parody. If the copy is used for the purpose of review,
criticism or news reporting, the source and the name of the author must be mentioned. The use of this copy for any
other purpose may require the permission of the copyright owner.

For more information on UBC\'s Copyright Policies, please visit UBC Copyright

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

46 P h il o s o p h y : A s k in g Q u e s t io n s 一S e e k in g A n s w e r s Does G od Exist? 47

We won’t offer a final verdict on the design argument. Rather, we sug­ extremely common in mathematics. For example, the standard proof of
gest that you dig more deeply into the contemporary debate and decide for the irrationality of the square root of two is a reductio ad absurdum.
yourself.10However, before leaving the design argument, we want to em ­
phasize an important logical point. Even if it is true that Darwins theory, Second Point: Anselms definition o f God
and the work of many other biologists, has shown that the design argu­ Anselm in effect defines “God” as the greatest possible being. “Greatest”
m ent is untenable, this does not show, or even begin to show, that theism here doesn’t m ean “largest,” it means “m ost perfect.” For example, you
is false or that God does not exist. At most, what Darwinian arguments are not God because a being greater than you is possible: for example,
can show is that one im portant argum ent/or theism is not convincing. a stronger and sm arter version of you would be greater. If God exists at
all, according to Anselm’s definition, he is so great that nothing greater
7. Anselms Ontological Argument is possible.
An eleventh-century monk, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, gave an ex­ It seems that according to this definition, God must be omnipotent,
tremely ingenious argument for theism, which we discuss in this sec­ if he exists at all. For if God exists and is not om nipotent, something
tion. The argument is now often called the ontological argument greater than God is possible (namely, a being that is like God in every
(ontology is a branch of philosophy concerned with existence). Later respect except that it is om nipotent). In much the same way, it seems
philosophers have given similar arguments, which are often also called that given Anselms definition, if God exists at all he is perfectly good
ontological arguments—but w ell stick to Anselms original. Anselms and omniscient.
argument is complicated, so w ell need to explain a few points before we On the other hand, Anselms definition doesn’t seem to imply that
get to the argument itself. God created the world—you might think this is a fault with the defini­
tion. However, when Anselm tells us that this is his definition of the
First Point: Reductio ad absurdum term “God,” we cannot sensibly disagree. We might think that Anselm is
Anselm s ontological argum ent is an argum ent by reductio ad absur- using the term “God’ in an eccentric or unusual way, but Anselm is free
dum. In a reductio argument, you show that some claim is false by to use the word however he likes.
assuming it is true and then deriving a contradiction from that as­
sum ption. Heres an example. Suppose that a program m er brags to you Third Point: The distinction between *existence in the mind”
that he’s written a piece of software that plays chess faultlessly. He tells and “existence in reality”
you that the program can be installed on a norm al personal com puter This distinction is best explained with examples. Here are some things
and that it is guaranteed to win every single game against any oppo­ that exist in the m ind but don’t exist in reality:
nent, w hether it plays as black or white. It will never lose a game, and
• unicorns
it will never draw: it will win every single time. He boasts that several
• Sherlock Holmes
grandm asters have taken on his program, and all of them have lost.
• Middle Earth
It’s easy to see that the program m ers claim cant be right. Suppose
that what the program m er says is true. Then it is possible to install the Here are some things that exist in reality:
program on two computers and have the two computers play chess
• horses
against each another. Then both computers will win the game. But this
• the moon
is absurd, because the rules of chess allow at most one winner.
• Canada
This is a reductio argument. We started off by assuming that what the
programmer says is true, and we derived a contradiction from that assump­ It is generally agreed that God exists in the mind. The big question is
tion, thereby showing that the assumption is false. Reductio arguments are whether he exists in reality too.
48 P h il o s o p h y : A s k in g Q u e s t io n s — S e e k in g A n s w e r s Does God Exist? 49

Fourth Point: Existence and greatness We have found that God exists in the m ind only. If he existed in reality, he
would be greater—just as a date that exists in reality is greater than an oth­
Here’s a key premise in Anselms argument:
erwise similar date that exists in the m ind only. Here’s the next premise:
If God exists in the mind only (and not in reality), then he would be
greater if he existed in reality too. (f) God could exist in reality.

To see that this is plausible, imagine you are approached by a guy from There are some things that could not possibly exist. For example, it
a dating agency. He tells you that (fo ra fee, of course) he will arrange a seems that there could not possibly exist a square circle. But—Anselm
perfect date for you. He or she will be as good-looking as it is possible to argued—God is not an impossible being, like a square circle. Even if he
be, charming, smart, funny, and—well, perhaps its best not to get into doesn’t exist, he could have existed. The claim that God exists, even if
too much detail here. You agree, and pay the fee. A week later, he sends false, is not contradictory, like the claim that a square circle exists. From
you a description of the perfect date. (e) and (f), we can infer:
You ask, “W hen will I actually get to m eet the date?” and the (g) God could be greater than he is.
guy tells you th at the date exists in the m ind only, not in reality. It
seems that you’d be justified in feeling cheated. You’d say that you But now remem ber that “God” is defined as “the greatest possible being,”
paid him to arrange the perfect date for you, and he failed to deliver. so from (g) we can infer:
It would be a m uch better date if he or she existed in reality and not (h) The greatest possible being could be still greater.
just in your m ind.
But this is a contradiction—of course nothing could be greater than the
Okay, now were ready to tackle the argument itself. Since the argu­
m ent is complicated and somewhat confusing, we label the steps with greatest possible being.
Remember how reductio arguments work: by deriving a contradic­
letters as we go. As we said, it is a reductio argument, so we start by as­
tion from some claim, you show the claim is false. We derived a contra­
suming that God does not exist in reality:
diction from the assumption that God does not exist in reality, and so it
(a) God does not exist in reality. seems that we are in a position to infer that He does exist in reality after all.
If we can derive a contradiction from this assumption, w ell have shown
that the assumption is false—that is, we will have shown that God does 8> What, if Anything, is Wrong with Anselms
exist in reality. Next, we assume: Ontological Argument? （
(b) God does exist in the mind. Ontological arguments like the one we looked at in the previous section
have been the subject of philosophical controversy for almost a millen­
This seems uncontroversial. As noted, fictional characters like Sherlock nium. Some philosophers are convinced either by Anselms argument
Holmes exist in the mind, and even atheists agree that God “exists” in or by one of its more sophisticated descendants. Opponents of these
this sense. Putting (a) and (b) together we infer: arguments sometimes argue that there must be something wrong with
(c) God exists in the m ind but not in reality. them, by producing parodies of the argument.
A contem porary of Anselm, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, devised the
We already discussed this next premise:
following parody. We define “Utopia” as “the best possible island,” and
(d) If God exists in the m ind only (and not in reality), then he then argue as follows:
would be greater if he existed in reality too.
(a) Utopia does not exist in reality. (Assumption, for reductio)
From (c) and (d), we can infer: (b) Utopia does exist in the mind. (Premise)
(e) If God did exist in reality, he would be greater than he is.