The Ontological Argument Revisited

The Ontological Argument, first proposed by the Islamic scholar Avicenna, but made popular by the archbishop of Canterbury Anselm of Bec (c. 1033-1109) in the late 11th century in his philosophical tracts the Monologion and Proslogion, is the metaphysical premise that purports to prove the existence of God through rational means. At its core, the argument states that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" or, put another way, that God is a necessary assumption in the nature of the universe and that as a necessary being, God is something that can not be thought not to exist. Anselm begins with the premise that "that than which nothing greater can be thought can be thought" and that "if that than which nothing greater can be thought can be thought, then it exists in reality", therefore, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in reality." This convoluted language oftentimes obscures the true nature of the argument and foundation on which Anslem's belief rested, and it is perhaps easier to begin with the man Anselm and his beliefs before attempting to understand the argument.

Anslem is often considered the father of Scholasticism, a medieval technique in which logic and reason were used in service of Christian theology, and the formulation of the Ontological Argument is considered the primary early example of this modus operandi in action. Obviously, the Middle Ages was a time in which the Christian institution dominated thought, and at the time the theory was somewhat controversial, primarily because many of the more conservative churchmen of the day considered it a type of blasphemy to attempt any "proof" whatsoever as to the existence of God, claiming faith alone was sufficient. This argument also helped to lead Anselm to perhaps his most famous statement of faith and one which had a considerable amount of influence on medieval Christian philosophy and still exerts influence to this day: "Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam"--"Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this too I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand." Building from Augustine, Anslem contended that no true understanding of any philosophical topic was possible without faith in God, for faith was not the end of understanding but the beginning, and without this foundational grounding, one could never be intellectually fulfilled. Anselm's motto, fides quaerens intellectum ("faith seeking understanding"), implies a priority on faith and that a love of God will, out of necessity, lead to a greater wisdom of Him and of the universe. This has remained, in Catholicism, a particularly important point, that belief should come first and foremost and that, given orthodox consideration, metaphysical and ontological understanding will follow.

The theory is, of course, not without its critics and almost immediately after it inception, it was attacked vociferously by the the famous Gaunilo de Montmourtiers. Anslem, in his formulation of the argument, had quoted the first verses of Psalms 14 and 53, which state that "the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" and Gaunilo poignantly titled his rebuttal In Behalf of the Fool. In it, he argued that, simply because he could envision the most perfect island in existence, this did not mean it did exist. Simply imagining an existence did not make it so, and this entire premise ran counter to Anslem's, and many others', prevailing notions of faith. Nevertheless, the Ontological Argument remained an edifice of Christian philosophy relatively unscathed by Gaunilo's criticisms for two centuries until is was rejected by the even more influential Christian Scholastic Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas rejected the argument on the grounds that God is never specifically defined in the argument and thus only those who have already conceived of God in the same way may be convinced by Anselmm's argument. The argument, and the rebuttals, have since then undergone heavy criticism, especially in the early modern era by Rene Descartes, Gottfreid Leibnitz, and most fervently by Immanuel Kant, the originator of the phrase "ontological argument" (the medievals simply called it argumenta Anselmi, or "Anselm's argument"). Descartes, faintly echoing the Platonic concept of forms, reaffirmed the argument on the basis of certain ideas inherent in the structure of the universe. For example, we cannot envision a triangle whose interior angles do not add up to a sum of 180 degrees, just as the existence of the cosmos cannot exist without some originator, who may be defined as God. Leibnitz attacked this view by claiming that perfection was not analyzable and, much like Aquinas, claimed that the inconsistency of the definition of God, or perfection, rendered this argument meaningless. It is Kant, however, who is considered by many philosophers to have laid the argument to rest for good with his rebuttal of the idea of "existence" as a property to begin with. In short, Kant cries foul on the basis of circular logic: since Anselm has already endowed God with the property of existence, his argument proves nothing and he merely repeats himself by presuming to prove existence through the faculty of existence itself. And, in defining existence as a predicate, Kant takes to task the moral and subjective claims that existence is somehow more perfect than nonexistence.

Modern philosophers have added to the debate, but it has been less in the purely metaphysical realm and more in the validity of the argument itself. The Ontological Argument is regarded by its critics, especially those in the scientific fields, as the penultimate a priori argument, or argument based on rationalization independent of empirical experience. In short, logic can be, and has been, employed to prove anything, but without evidence, these arguments amount to nothing more than suppositions and word games. Perhaps this is why so many scientists have a natural disdain for philosophers, who often arrive at truth simply "by thinking about it." In any case, the Ontological Argument was highly influential in the Central Middle Ages and was essential in creating the ontological branch of metaphysics, dominant for nearly a thousand years, which remains among the most studied fields in philosophy.