“It is impossible to argue for the existence of God from his attributes”. Discuss

This essay was submitted by one of my students. At first glance, the ontological argument seems a bit odd: is it really possible to argue God exists by just using defintiions and philosophical ideas? But perhaps Anselm is not trying to prove God exists, more giving grounds for havingthe id ea of a supreme being as something great, profound and on the edge of human understanding. I give my comments as the essay progresses. PB

Arguably, we cannot derive the existence of God from His definition due to the inherently ambiguities of the predicate, existence, and indeed the nature of the subject Himself, God. Beyond this, the definition that would be used – a supremely perfect being – deeply undermines the theological idea of an epistemological space (extolled by John Hick), which allows us to develop a more meaningful relationship with God based on faith.

Excellent opening paragraph which brings in the idea of epistemic distance, introduced by John Hick, and hits at an attack on Anselm’s first premise, that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.

This type of argument, an ‘ontological argument’ is  a priori, and deductive. Medieval Platonic Monk Anselm produced one, which tries to show that God is ‘de dicto necessary’ (i.e. necessary through language). It begins with Anselm, who argues (in his ‘Prosologion’) that God is ‘that – thus – which – nothing – greater – can – be – conceived’. He makes the case that if we were to compare a log to a horse they might say that the horse is greater (i.e. having movement). Likewise, if they were to compare a horse to a human, they might conclude that the human is greater (i.e. having faculties of reason). Therefore, there must be some ‘supreme good’ which allows these comparisons to be drawn, and from which other matter confers value. This, he knows to be God (akin to Plato’s ‘Form of the Good’).

Again, a good paragraph, which is really discussing the issue of placing a comparison (greater than) at the heart of the first discussion in Prosologion. 

From this definition in Anselm’s ‘Proslogion’, he argues that things can either exist in the mind (in re)/continually or in the mind AND reality (in re & in intellect)/necessarily. And, as God is that – thus – which – nothing – greater – can – be – conceived, He must therefore exist both in the mind AND in reality, for this must be better than to exist in the mind alone (and God is a supremely perfect being. In other words, by virtue of the way we define God, Anselm believes His existence to be necessary; alluding to Psalm 14 (the fool says in his heart, “there is no God”).

Yes, and of course, the idea of the necessary being is something Anselm discusses further in the second version of his ontological argument. Sometimes this is expressed in terms of an a analogy with a triangle. A triangle necessarily has three sides, whereas many attributes (predicates as Kant calls them) of a thing are just contingent (ie grass is only contingently green because if there’s a draught it is actually brown).  Anselm’s argument is that only God has certain qualities by necessity (and so in the end the Gaunilo analogy of the island, see next paragraph, is a false analogy, says Anselm).

A contemporary of Anselm, Gaunilo, responds by writing (his ‘On behalf of the fool’) that this allows anything to be ‘thought into existence’. He imagines a perfect ‘lost island’, with warm seas, white sandy beaches and so on. This island could either exist in the mind, or in the mind AND reality. Since it’s better to exist in the mind AND reality, this island must therefore exist in reality (i.e. being perfect). Clearly, as this island doesn’t exist, the argument falls short for God too (a ‘reductio ad absurdum’). However, this is one of the weaker criticisms of the Ontological argument, as it doesn’t make sense to think of islands necessarily. They are, by definition, dynamic landforms which shift and come into or go out of existence over millions of years. That is, they are wholly contingent.

Exactly Anselm’s point and beautifully expressed here.

As aforementioned, the greatest drawback of this type of argument is its assumption that existence is a predicate at all. As an existent God appears not to add anything to our understanding of Him. A well-educated Theologian and a well-educated atheist have exactly the same conceptions of God, even if there’s disagreement over His existence.

Again this is an excellent point as an atheist would simply reply to Anselm that God necessarily does not exist.

This was the argument set out most notably by German Philosopher Kant, in response to a reformulation of the Ontological argument by Descartes (in brief, that a supremely perfect being must have the ‘perfection’ of existence’). Beyond existence appearing not to be a predicate, there’s arguably no reason why we cannot believe that if such a supremely perfect being existed, He would have existence. (But, since He doesn’t, He does not). For example, one can describe the perfect mermaid as being half-human, half-fish and as having existence, whilst still rejecting the concept of a perfect mermaid in its entirety.
Therefore, the problems with understanding both the nature of existence and the essence of God mean that we cannot derive the existence of God from His definition, Anselm argues, that things can either be self-evidently true in themselves, or self-evidently true in themselves and to us. Although, for them to be self-evidently true in themselves and to us, we must have complete understanding of existence and God (i.e. the predicate and the subject), which we do not. As such, one can make the case that God’s definition makes His existence self-evidently true in itself but this form or argument (from definition) does not convincingly show that God’s existence is self-evidently true to us.

Very good paragraph, clearly argued and correctly linking Kant to Descartes, whose version of the ontological argument is not quite as subtle as Anselm’s. It is a good point to stress that something defined as self-evidently true is not the same as something established as self-evidently true. And the whole basis of the argument is rejected by thinkers like Aquinas who felt that God is beyond understanding and so applying such logical and linguistic categories was misplaced.

Finally, many theologians write about a ‘self-limitation’ of God’s divine attributes, in order for Him to allow us a more genuine relationship to develop. In other words if God’s existence was completely known to us by definition, we would have no choice as to whether to believe in Him or not. What makes a relationship with God valuable is the fact that we freely choose to believe in it through faith. 1 Corinthians (i.e. St Paul) refers to this ambiguity when it is written that we ‘see God through a glass, darkly’. There is scant Biblical evidence to the contrary, that God’s definition is completely known to us. Theologian John Hick refers to this as our epistemological space’ (or ‘knowledge gap’) in which to operate.

Yes, sometimes referred to as ‘epistemic distance”.

To conclude, we certainly cannot derive God’s existence from His definition due to the problematic logic, with which He is referred and because taking this to be true would critically undermine our freedom to engage in a relationship with Him. Or, as DZ Phillips suggests, perhaps it doesn’t make sense to question God’s existence at all. Instead, we shall take this as the starting point for theology, in the same way that other academic subjects of integrity have axioms on which further investigation rests (e.g. Maths, Physics, Chemistry).

Excellent essay, very clearly and throughly argued. The student might have referred to some modern thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga who has sought to rehabilitate the ontological argument by defining  God as ‘maximally excellent’, or Norman Malcolm, who argues that that Kant’s criticism of the argument is quite misleading, since the question is not whether existence is a predicate but whether necessary existence is a predicate (1960). Reference might have been made to Anselm’s second version because this embraces the idea of necessary existence being an attribute of God’s perfection.

AO1 14/16

AO2 23/24

Total 37/40 A*