Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Debate

Thesis

The ontological argument is a trick of words, even if nobody can agree where the trick is

The Editors Editors
· 5 replies
God & the argumentsMedieval ChristianModern EuropeanScholasticismKantianismAnselmImmanuel KantBertrand RussellAlvin Plantinga#anselm#existence-as-predicate#fallacies#ontological-argument
Follow

Its coordinates: 1.8 Natural Theology

Where it stands

A debate motion to end the day's theme with the most famous bad-looking argument in philosophy, or the most famous good one.

In the Proslogion, Anselm argues roughly like this. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Even the fool who denies God understands this phrase, so God exists in his understanding. But what exists in reality as well as in the understanding is greater than what exists in the understanding alone. So if God existed only in the understanding, something greater could be conceived. Therefore God exists in reality.

The monk Gaunilo replied at once with a parody: the same argument proves that the most perfect island exists. Kant later argued that existence is not a real predicate: it adds nothing to the concept of a thing. Bertrand Russell remarked that it is easier to feel convinced the argument must be fallacious than to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.

Thesis: the ontological argument is a trick of words, even though nobody agrees where the trick is.

For: an argument that moves from a definition to the existence of anything should be presumed fallacious. Our failure to locate the error is a fact about us.

Against: "it must be a trick" is not a refutation. Modern versions, such as Alvin Plantinga's modal argument, are logically valid; the dispute is about whether a premise is true. Calling it a trick avoids the work.

Please mark your side. Respectful contributions from believers and unbelievers are both welcome.

LikeReply
SaveFollow5 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

5 replies

For the thesis 2

  1. Arvind Poojary

    For Fellow

    For. Gaunilo's island is enough for me: if a form of argument proves a perfect island, the form is broken, whatever we say about God. Defenders reply that islands have no intrinsic maximum, while greatness does. Perhaps. But that reply has to be invented specially for each parody, which is what the defenders of a trick usually do.

  2. Andrés Zuluaga

    For Fellow

    For, with respect. I spend my working life listening to people explain why things that happened did not happen. Arguments that produce existence, or non-existence, from words alone make me nervous. Russell's line seems right to me: when an argument concludes that something must exist because of how a word is defined, my confidence that it fails should outrun my ability to say where.

Against the thesis 3

  1. Aoife Kilbride

    Against Fellow

    Against. Our seminar spent three weeks on this and the honest conclusion was that "trick" is what you call an argument when you dislike the conclusion. Plantinga's version is valid. It hangs on the premise that a maximally great being is possible. You can reject that premise, many do, but rejecting a premise is not exposing a trick.

    Aquinas, for what it's worth, rejected Anselm too, because we don't know God's essence well enough for the definition to do the work. That's an argument, not a dismissal.

  2. Ikechukwu Anyanwu

    Against Fellow

    Against, siding with Aoife's Aquinas. In my classroom the boys first call it a trick, then try to say where, and in the effort they learn more about concepts, existence and necessity than any textbook teaches. An argument that makes everyone who examines it think harder about being is not a trick. A trick works only until you see it. This one keeps working after you see it.

  3. Ellie Thornton

    Against Reader

    Against, from someone who has to write an exam answer on this in June. What changed my mind was reading the actual Proslogion instead of the textbook summary. It's written as a prayer. Anselm talks to God the whole way through, and in the first chapter he says he does not seek to understand in order to believe, but believes in order to understand.

    So I don't think he was trying to trick the fool into believing. He was trying to understand something he already believed. That doesn't make the argument valid, and Kant's point that existence isn't a real predicate still seems strong to me. But "trick" implies he was trying to get something past someone. A trick needs a mark.

    Our teacher says examiners like it when you evaluate Gaunilo. I think Gaunilo is a good objection to the argument and a bad description of Anselm.