To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Anselm's ontological argument, as described in part (a), faced early criticism from Gaunilo during his lifetime. Gaunilo's objection, presented in a reduction ad absurdum, contended that applying the logic of Anselm's argument to entities other than God led to invalid conclusions. While Gaunilo did not pinpoint a specific fault, he argued that something must be amiss since, without correction, the same logic could be used to prove anything without reason to believe it true.
Gaunilo raised a compelling point by constructing a parallel argument in the same form as the ontological argument.
He proposed an argument for the existence of a perfect island, drawing a logical similarity to Anselm's reasoning. If the ontological argument held, Gaunilo argued, so should his perfect island argument. However, the flaw in Gaunilo's proposal lies in the lack of a compelling reason for the existence of this 'perfect island.'
The weakness becomes apparent as Gaunilo challenges theists to identify a relevant difference between Anselm's argument for God and his argument for the perfect island.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Arguments
5 (876)
“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”
If no distinction is found, both arguments stand or fall together. This poses a dilemma for the theist, potentially leading to the abandonment of not only Anselm's ontological argument but also Gaunilo's, creating an intellectual vulnerability for theists.
Immanuel Kant, in a critical objection, questioned the fundamental premise of Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments, asserting that existence is not a predicate. Kant observed that existence does not contribute to the definition of something; it does not enhance our understanding of that thing.
This supports atheism, as theists cannot a priori ascribe existence to the definition of a perfect being without empirical evidence or demonstration.
Kant's objection challenges the very essence of Anselm's argument, and the implications echo through the realm of belief. Atheists find support in the notion that existence is merely a quality that does not inherently belong to a definition and that, without empirical evidence, it is unreasonable to claim a perfect being exists.
Bertrand Russell expanded upon Kant's observations by proposing that 'existence' is not a predicate but a term indicating the instance of something in the spatiotemporal world. According to Russell, saying something exists only signifies its presence in the physical world, making it a tautology. For example, stating 'Cows are brown, and exist' tells us they are brown, with the addition of 'and exist' merely confirming their tangible presence on Earth.
This tautological nature of existence, according to Russell, challenges Anselm's transition from the definition of God to His existence. Thomas Aquinas had previously questioned this transition, accusing Anselm of a 'transitional error.' Russell's critique aligns with Aquinas, reinforcing the idea that understanding the term 'God' does not necessitate God's existence in reality. This, again, provides support for atheism, suggesting that belief in God should be grounded in empirical evidence.
Thomas Aquinas' critique further dissects Anselm's argument by asserting that Anselm made a 'transitional error' by moving from the definition of God to the assertion of His existence. Aquinas pointed out that Anselm's assumption about the definition of God was not universally shared among all believers. This diversity in belief raises the question: if people hold different views on the right or wrong definition of God, could they all be wrong? This uncertainty adds weight to atheistic perspectives.
Aquinas argued that understanding the term 'God' implies God's existence in the understanding, not necessarily in reality. To establish God's existence in reality, evidence or experience is required. This a posteriori demonstration aligns with empirical reasoning, providing an avenue for atheists to challenge the purely a priori nature of the ontological argument.
The collective weaknesses in the ontological argument contribute significantly to the support for atheism. The alternatives and flaws identified in the argument provide atheists with strong counterpoints, fostering a belief that the ontological argument, and by extension, arguments akin to it, lack the persuasiveness required to establish the existence of God.
Moreover, the fact that the ontological argument is a priori, devoid of empirical evidence, plays into the hands of atheists. The lack of a tangible basis for belief allows atheists to maintain skepticism and assert that if empirical evidence were available, their stance might be swayed. This underscores the importance of empirical support in the evaluation of arguments for the existence of God.
In conclusion, the weaknesses in Anselm's ontological argument, highlighted by Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Thomas Aquinas, collectively lend support to atheistic perspectives. The logical flaws, tautological nature of existence, and the diversity in believers' definitions of God contribute to a growing skepticism regarding the ontological argument's efficacy. As atheists interpret these critiques, they find substantial grounds to assert that the ontological argument, being a priori and lacking empirical support, fails to establish the existence of God convincingly.
Weaknesses in Anselm's Ontological Argument. (2016, May 21). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/the-weaknesses-of-the-ontological-argument-give-support-to-atheism-discuss-this-statement-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
