St. Anselm: Blasphemer ?

"Well, I argue, alongside St. Anselm of Canterbury, that the very conception of God may demonstrate the necessity of His existence. For, a maximally perfect being is one that exists. Isn't it better to exist than to not exist? It is at least better for a good being to exist than to not exist. Therefore the very notion of a perfect being is a notion of a being that exists. The conception of God, is the conception of a God that exists. God, if He exists, has the property of existence, necessarily. This is not meant as a proof, but as a demonstration that the very order of this place, the nature of our thoughts and the existence of anything, including our ability to think, all coheres with and is evidence of God's existence."    -L

Anselm's ontological argument has popped up in two separate posts here at Raw Theology, and while those presenting it may not have directly meant it as proof of God's existence, Anselm did. Rather than covering it everytime it popped up I felt I should address it in a separate post. So here we are, and here I go.

I first heard the argument a few months ago in an interview with philosopher Collin McGinn. He went over it briefly as one of a few examples of some of the arguments for God's existence. Himself an atheist, McGinn didn't spend much time on it and seemed to feel it was an antiquated self-evidently daft argument that was no longer considered a worthwhile line of reasoning by modern theists. He was interestingly enough not able to produce a clear refutation of it, but my feeling was that he hadn't really bothered to look into one for the already stated reason. Having had no other encounter with the argument myself, I accepted the impression of the argument he portrayed. The argument immediately struck me rhetorical slight of hand, but I didn't at the time reason out why or really even think too much about it because what are the chances someone would bring up a 10 century old argument that I assumed was largely unknown.

Imagine my surprise when it happened. Twice.

It would seem Anselm is now in front of me waiting for an answer, and after a little thought I've come up with one (or two).

The Argument:

1. God is defined as "something of which nothing greater can be imagined".

2. If someone can imagine God, then God exists in the imagination.

3. Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist. (example, you'd rather have a real $100 than an imagined $100)

4. Therefore if "something of which nothing greater can be imagined" exists just in the imagination, then something greater than "something of which nothing greater can be imagined" can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be.

5. Therefore this "something of which nothing greater can be imagined" must exist in reality as well as the imagination.


To be honest, my initial thought upon hearing this was, well, "poppycock." My second thought was Anselm has just given us the ability to conjure stuff out of thin air by adding "perfect" in front of or "of which nothing like it but greater can be imagined" behind it's description.

1. The 'Teleportron 9000' is a perfect teleportation machine. Being perfect, no greater teleportation machine can be imagined.

2. If someone can imagine the 'Teleportron 9000', then the 'Teleportron 9000' exists in the imagination.

3. Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist.

4. Therefore if 'Teleportron 9000' exists just in the imagination, then a teleportation machine greater than 'Teleportron 9000' can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be.

5. Therefore the 'Teleportron 9000' must exist in reality as well as the imagination.

Or even more on topic...

Imagine there exists an irrefutable proof of God's existence of which no greater such proof can be imagined. Now imagine there exists irrefutable evidence disproving God's existence greater than any such evidence imaginable. According to Anselm we've just popped into existence two things which can't co-exist.

or just for fun...

Imagine there exists an imaginary friend of which no greater imaginary friend could be imagined. Wait.....wait...that actually kinda works. Huh. Anyway, I later found I wasn't the first to think of this. This refutation is known as "Gaunilo's Island" after a contemporary of Anselm's who answered him by calling into existence the perfect island.

Anselm's argument has for almost one thousand years failed to convince anyone who's heard it that god exists. The people who accept it's conclusion were invariably believers before they heard it and it's rejecters invariably dis-believers.


The shorter version of the Anselm argument is:

1.God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2.Existence is a perfection.
3.God exists.

As I thought about it from a theological perspective, something about that second point kept bugging me. Then it hit me. Romans 3:23,"for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". Maybe not directly applicable but it got me thinking. I am far from a theologian but isn't there a general notion in the Abrahamic religions that man is in every way inferior to God? Assuming this be the case, then by Anselm:

1. God exists and man by necessity of being in every way inferior to him is proved to not exist. Or...

2. Both Man and God exist. Man being in every way inferior to God proves that existence is not a perfection. Therefore the argument is void. Or...

3. Man exists and is therefore in that regard equal to God.


But then that would be blasphemy.

Anselm's ontological argument is at best unconvincing and at worst seems an afront to the religion it was creatd to validate.

-Chris