Critiquing St. Anselms Ontological Argument: Existence as a Predicate and Beyond

Introduction

St. Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Argument is one of the earliest and most influential philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Despite its enduring appeal, the argument has faced significant criticisms over the centuries. This article will explore the main critique centered around the concept of existence as a predicate, as well as other objections from figures such as Gaunilo and Immanuel Kant.

Existence as a Predicate

Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument is based on his assertion that existence is not a real predicate or property that adds anything to the essence or attributes of a being. According to Kant, saying that something exists does not imply that it possesses any additional qualities beyond its existence. For example, imagining a perfect triangle tells us nothing more about its properties than its triangularity; asserting its existence does not change our conception of it.

This suggests that the leap from a perfect being as a concept in our minds to its existence in reality is flawed. Just because we can conceive of a being that is perfect in every conceivable way, it does not necessarily follow that such a being must exist in actuality. Kant's argument underscores that the ontological argument relies on a misstep in logical reasoning, failing to bridge the gap between our mental concepts and the physical reality outside our minds.

Definitional Circularity

One of the key criticisms of Anselm's argument is the circularity in its definitional approach. Anselm defines God as the "greatest conceivable being," with existence being a necessary part of this greatness. This definition effectively assumes what it sets out to prove, as philosophers like Wittgenstein and others have pointed out. Simply stating that God must exist because it would be less perfect or greatest without it does not constitute a valid logical proof.

Gaunilo's Island Objection

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm, presented a classic counter-argument by suggesting an "ideal island" that would be the greatest conceivable island. He argued that if we can conceive of such an island, it cannot be criticized for not existing because that would make it lesser in our concept. This objection highlights the difficulty in applying the ontological argument to different cases and suggests that the argument is context-dependent.

Logical Leap from Concept to Reality

Critics argue that the leap from a concept in our minds to the actual existence of something in the real world is a non sequitur. Just because we can imagine a perfect being does not logically entail its existence. The distinction between conceptual existence (existing only in our minds) and actual existence (existing in the real world) is crucial. This gap, as pointed out by critics like Kant, exposes the fallacy in Anselm's reasoning.

Summary of the Flaw

The primary flaw in Anselm's ontological argument is its reliance on the assumption that existence is a predicate that enhances the greatness of a being. Critics like Kant and Gaunilo challenge this by demonstrating that merely defining something as existing because it would be greater if it exists is debatable and does not logically compel belief in its actual existence. This exposes the argument to criticisms of definitional circularity and a failure to bridge the gap between conceptual and actual existence.

Conclusion

While Anselm's ontological argument has been a rich source of intellectual discourse and philosophical theology, the various critiques discussed here highlight the argument's inherent limitations. Philosophers and theologians continue to debate the validity and soundness of the ontological argument, with each critique adding to the body of knowledge and prompting further reflection on the nature of existence and the existence of God.