The Ontological Argument: A Critical Analysis

The ontological argument, initially articulated by St. Anselm in the 11th century, represents an intriguing approach to proving the existence of God through deductive and a priori reasoning. Anselm's formulation hinges on the concept of God as a being than which none greater can be conceived, providing a response to the skeptic who denies the existence of God. In this essay, we will delve into the intricacies of the ontological argument, exploring its historical context, criticisms, and responses from various philosophers.

St. Anselm's Formulation and Gaunilon's Critique

St. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury and a prominent figure in the Benedictine Order, posited that for God to be truly great, His existence must extend beyond the confines of the human mind into reality. The crux of his argument lies in the assertion that a being "than which none greater can be conceived" must necessarily exist. However, this ontological demonstration faced immediate opposition from Gaunilon, a contemporary critic.

Gaunilon countered Anselm's argument by proposing that if the same logic were applied, one could conceive of various perfect beings or even idyllic places, such as a perfect island "blessed with all manners of delight.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Arguments

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

" Gaunilon argued that mere conception did not necessitate existence. Anselm, in response, highlighted the crucial distinction between contingent entities, like the perfect island, and God, who possesses aseity—a self-sufficiency that makes His existence not contingent but necessary and independent.

Descartes' Contribution and Critiques by Kant and Hume

René Descartes, in his 'Meditations,' presented his version of the ontological argument, emphasizing God as an infinite and perfect being.

Descartes drew an analogy between God's necessary existence and the perfection of a triangle, positing that just as a triangle ceases to be a triangle without its defining angles, God, to remain perfect, must necessarily exist.

However, critics like Immanuel Kant challenged the ontological argument's use of analytic reasoning to define God's existence. Kant argued that existence, as a predicate or property, cannot adequately define God. Drawing a parallel with tautological statements like "a spinster is an unmarried woman," Kant asserted that the addition of existence as a predicate does not contribute meaningfully to the statement.

David Hume furthered this critique, questioning whether existence could be considered a positive attribute. While we acknowledge the existence of phenomena like 'evil,' Hume raised the question of whether this type of existence could be equated with the existence of God. According to Kant and Hume, the ontological argument falls short in attributing meaningful significance to the concept of God's existence.

Responses from Frege and Aquinas

Despite the critiques, other philosophers have offered counterarguments in defense of the ontological argument. Gottlob Frege, for instance, contended that existence is a first-level predicate capable of explaining second-level predicates. He illustrated this by comparing the perception of the "greenness of the apple" through the senses with the statement "the greenness exists," suggesting that adding existence allows us to understand the predicate's reality.

However, the empirical perspective presented by Thomas Aquinas challenges the ontological argument's attempt to demonstrate God's existence. Aquinas argued that Anselm's reliance on "de dicto" instead of the "real" weakens the argument. While some may assert the strength of the ontological argument in establishing God as a necessary being, Aquinas posited that the flaw lies in attempting to prove God's existence through linguistic constructs rather than empirical evidence.

Evaluation and Conclusion

Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the ontological argument, it becomes evident that its deductive nature raises both strengths and weaknesses. The argument leads to the conclusion that "God is a necessary being" and "a being than which none greater can be conceived." However, this definition, once understood, reveals its potential applicability to proving the existence of numerous entities.

Richard Dawkins, a contemporary critic, dismisses the ontological argument as an "infinite playground argument" that fails to conclusively demonstrate God's existence. While the argument asserts the necessity of God's existence, it stops short of providing empirical evidence or a compelling reason for accepting that God actually exists.

In conclusion, the ontological argument, though a fascinating intellectual exercise, remains a subject of debate and skepticism. While proponents argue for its logical coherence, critics highlight its reliance on conceptual constructs rather than empirical realities. The journey through the ontological argument invites us to ponder the nature of existence and the limits of human reasoning in contemplating the divine.