Talk on Anselm and the Ontological Argument

1. Anselm in his context
Dr Brendan Larvor
www.herts.ac.uk/philosophy

2. Arguments in general
Why do we prove anything?
When we prove a statement, it might not be to remove doubt about that statement
Why did Russell & Whitehead prove that 1+1=2?
Why prove the Jordan Curve Theorem?

3. A Mathematical Analogy
Explanatory and non-explanatory proofs

4. Arguments in general
Why do we prove anything?
The system of Euclid (around 300CE) added no new theorems but brought
geometry into the logical shape required by Aristotle (i.e., proved from a
very small set of axioms).
Mathematicians often produce new proofs of theorems that they have
already got sound proofs for.
Descartes offers two proofs of the existence of God in the Meditations
Empirical arguments may benefit from additional evidence but a priori
proofs either work or don’t (so there’s no extra security from an additional
proof).

5. Arguments in general
Why do we prove anything?
Therefore, we cannot assume that Anselm was trying to remove doubt
about the existence of God. Maybe he was:
• Systematising his knowledge and making sure he has the right
concepts to achieve that (ἐπιστήμη is systematic)
• Trying to show that Christianity can compete intellectually with
Judaism and Islam
• Seeking understanding! (but what does that mean?)
At this point, we don’t know!

6. Arguments in general
What can arguments prove?
Mathematical proofs prove mathematical theorems.
(This includes formal logic.)
Scientific arguments by experiment, observation, explanation and
deduction establish scientific results.
What about speculative proofs of the existence of God? If the ontological
argument is a piece of formal logic, the conclusion is a theorem. If the
cosmological argument is empirical, then the conclusion is a scientific
theory. Could either of these be a proper object of worship?

7. Arguments in general
What can arguments prove?
Arguments are abductive if they have something in the conclusion that was
not already contained in the premises.
e.g., All our experiments, observations and calculations support the theory
of relativity. Therefore, the theory of relativity is true at all times and
places. (Abductive because the experiments and observations are
restricted to here and now, but the conclusion is universal.)
Not abductive:
Simon is rat, all rats are hypochondriacs, therefore Simon is a
hypochondriac.
Can an a priori argument be abductive?

8. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Recap
1. God is a being than which none greater can be conceived (Definition)
2. God exists in the mind (Premise, observed)
3. A being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that
exists only in the mind (Premise)
4. Thus, if God exists only in the mind, then we can imagine something
that is greater than God (3)
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than the greatest
possible being that can be thought (1)
6. Therefore, God exists.

9. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Objections
Gaunilo’s island
The maximal evil
God is incomprehensible, so premise 2 is false (Aquinas)
Existence is not a predicate (Kant)
Are the perfections consistent (Leibniz—yes, Broad—no)
Note: Gaunilo and Aquinas were monks, while Kant and Leibniz were believers.
The existence of God doesn’t hang on the outcome of this analysis!

10. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Replies
The argument is about necessary existence. Something that exists necessarily
is greater than something that exists contingently.
This works better formally, but exposes Anselm’s debt to Greek philosophy in
general and Platonism in particular, where it is assumed that the eternal,
unchanging, unmoved, simple, etc. are all better than that which is temporal,
changing, subject to influences, composite, etc..
Is this true? Is the number seven better or greater than Pele? What does that
even mean?
At this point, we must look more closely at Anselm, his text and his times.

11. Where did he live and work?
1033/34-1109
1033/34: born Aosta, Lombardy
1057: entered the monastery at Bec
1077: Monologion
1077-8: Proslogion
1078: became abbot of Bec.
1093: became archbishop of
Canterbury
1099: Cur Deus homo?
1109: died, possibly at Canterbury

12. What else was going on?
• 1054 split between Rome and
Constantinople.
• 1066 William I of Normandy conquers
England.
• 1095 First crusade
• Doctrinal disputes within Christianity and
competition from Judaism, Islam and
paganism.
• Challenge (of all three monotheisms) to
reconcile religious teaching with science and
logic (which were mostly of pagan origin)

13. Distribution of religions

14. Importance of Context I
• Why is the crucifixion of Jesus necessary for our
redemption?
• (Naively, this looks like a miscarriage of justice.)
• Anselm rejected the old view that humanity owes a
debt to the Devil
• Anselm developed the Satisfaction Theory of
Redemption
• Human sin is an insult to God’s honour.
• ‘Satisfaction’ depends on the status of the offended
person. But God is infinite, so requires infinite
satisfaction. Finite humanity cannot supply this
alone.
• This theory assumes the feudal social order
Cur Deus Homo [Why did God become Man?]

15. What is the point of the ontological argument?
• Clearly not an evangelizing text!
• Reason cannot replace faith: each requires the other
• These texts are addressed to God i.e. in a sense they are
prayers
• They were (according to the prefaces) requested by other
monks, so helpful to whatever it is that the monks were doing.
• But they are not merely working out the consequences of
premises adopted by faith. Anselm claims that the arguments
should work as logic even if faith is necessary.
• God’s help is needed because we are in sin.
Faith seeking understanding

16. Proslogion
1. Arousal of the mind for contemplating God.
2. God truly [i.e., really] exists.
3. [God] cannot be thought not to exist.
4. How the Fool said in his heart that which cannot be thought.
Contents: the ontological argument
Note the connection in Psalm 53
between error and sin!

17. Proslogion
5. God is whatever it is better to be than not to be. Alone existing through Himself, He makes all
other things from nothing.
6. How God is able to perceive even though He is not something corporeal.
7. How He is omnipotent even though He cannot do many things.
8. How He is merciful and impassible.
9. How He who is completely and supremely just spares those who are evil. He is justly merciful
to them.
10.How He justly punishes and justly spares those who are evil.
11.How “all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth,” and yet, “the Lord is just in all His ways.”
12.God is the life by which He lives, and similarly for similar [attributes].
13.How He alone is unlimited and eternal, although other spirits are [also] unlimited and eternal.
Contents: divine attributes; paradoxes

18. Proslogion
14.How and why God is both seen and not seen by those who seek Him.
15.He is greater than can be thought.
16.This is the inaccessible light in which He dwells.
17.Harmony, fragrance, succulence, softness, and beauty are present in God in their own
ineffable manner.
18.There are no parts in God or in the eternity which He is.
19.He is not in place or in time; but all things are in Him.
20.He is before and beyond all things—even eternal things.
21.Whether this [eternity] is one aeon or more than one.
22.He alone is what He is and who He is.
Contents: further attributes and paradoxes

19. Proslogion
23.The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally this [supreme] good. It is the one
necessary [Being], which is every good, complete good, and the only good.
24.A conjecture about what kind of good this is and about how great it is.
25.The kinds and the quantity of goods for those who enjoy this [Good].
26.Whether this is the full joy which the Lord promises.
Contents: trinity, no longer incomprehensible

20. Importance of context II
• We need to know what the key terms mean (‘greater than’, ‘in the mind’
vs ‘in reality’, ‘exists’, ‘fool’)—many of the attempted refutations turn on
precise meanings.
• We can work out the intended meanings of these words only by reading
the whole text and the Monologion, and Cur Deus Homo (and the reply
to Gaunilo).
• In isolation, the definition of God in the ontological argument seems
arbitrary (and coldly logical).
• Both texts are full of attempts to resolve apparent paradoxes about the
nature of God—so the definition of God and the argument that it
enables must unpack the nature of God comprehensively, in a way that
resolves these paradoxes. That is why Anselm chooses precisely that
definition.
How does all this help us read the ontological argument?

21. Importance of context II
He wants:
“a single argument that needed nothing but
itself alone for proof, that would by itself be
enough to show:
• that God really exists;
• that he is the supreme good,
• who depends on nothing else, but
• on whom all things depend for their being
and for their well-being; and
• whatever we believe about the divine
nature.”
(preface)
How does all this help us read the ontological argument?

22. Importance of context II
• Suggestion: Anselm wants something like an explanatory proof of the existence of God
• Reading the whole work shows that this definition gives Anselm a unified account of the
attributes of God, including necessary being, the Trinity and His uniqueness.
• Anselm generalises the definition to “God is whatever it is better to be than not to be.” This
allows him to re-run versions of the ontological argument for all the divine attributes. It is an
argument schema.
• This gives him an account of God from a single principle, as Greek intellectual tradition
required.
• He hopes it will resolve the paradoxes
How does all this help us read the ontological argument?

23. Importance of context III
Team Plato or Team Aristotle?

24. Anselm’s proof compared with modern logic versions
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible
world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and
wholly good in W. (Definition)
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal
excellence in every possible world. (Definition)
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal
greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an
omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being
exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom 5 of modal logic system S5) it is
necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and
perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly
good being exists.
Plantinga’s formulation

25. Anselm’s proof compared with modern logic versions
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible
world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and
wholly good in W. (Definition)
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal
excellence in every possible world. (Definition)
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal
greatness. (Premise)
Note: this argument assumes that the perfections are
consistent and builds them in to the premises.
Anselm was trying to derive the properties of God from
his definition and show their consistency. It was a far
more ambitious project.
Plantinga’s formulation

26. Further Reading
• Translations of Monologion and Proslogion
by Jasper Hopkins, free pdfs at
http://jasper-hopkins.info/
• Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021
/entries/ontological-arguments/
• Williams, Thomas, "Saint Anselm", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020
/entries/anselm/
Always, always, read the original text