Anselm’s argument has been criticised by several philosophers, one of the first being Gaunilo, who said that just because he could imagine his perfect island, it doesn’t mean that it exists somewhere. Anselm replied by saying that Gaunilo simply hadn’t understood; - God isn’t an object like others, his existence above all is necessary.
Hume and Kant also criticised Anselm, Hume stated that nothing in existence is logically necessary – just because you can understand the concept of what it is to be necessary it doesn’t mean that it is so. Kant said that existence is not a predicate of God, and also that it is a logical mistake to use a premise (Perfect Godliness includes existence) in a conclusion (God exists).
Bertrand Russell also attacked Anselm’s argument, but in a different way, Russell believed that Anselm used the word ‘exist’ wrongly – he – like Kant – stated that existence cannot be a predicate, and he gave the following (syllogism) example:
Men exist
Santa Claus is a man
Therefore, Santa Claus exists
The idea that Russell is trying to get across is that, existence cannot be a property of things, just of the idea of them; - the idea of Santa Claus exists, but a material incarnation of him clearly does not. This is what Anselm has – in Russell’s view – confused when it comes to God; the idea of God exists in our heads, but this does not mean that God exists in the material world along with tables, houses and other such things. Russell believed that existence could only be an extension of an intention – he agreed with Anselm that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ but he did not believe that this led us on to the conclusion that God exists in ‘reality’.
As I have shown above, the original version(s) of the ontological argument were open to frequent criticism, however several philosophers have attempted to present modern versions of the argument, here I will explain these versions:
Norman Malcolm (an anti-realist) disagreed with Anselm’s argument as presented in Proslogian 2 but felt that he could adapt the second version (which stated that God’s existence is necessary). He believed that the second version is not open to same criticism as the first as Anselm does not present existence as a predicate, but rather states that existence of God, by his very nature, is necessary. Malcolm demonstrated a more logical argument for the existence of God based on this necessity. By this definition there could never be a time when God didn’t exist, and there can never be a time when he will go out of existence.
For a statement to be impossible there has to be a contradiction in terms or a logical fault, for example it does not make sense for me to say “wow look at that funky triangle with 4 sides”. This is because there is a contradiction in terms, triangles, by definition, have 3 sides meaning that a 4 sided triangle can never be. If we apply this to the idea of a necessary God (as Malcolm did) we can see that this idea is not impossible because there is no faulty logic or contradictions in terms present.
If we then consider the statement “God possibly exists” and apply the above procedure, it is clear to see that this is impossible due to a contradiction with the phraseology – as the idea of a possible necessity is logical nonsense.
The only other possibility is that God doesn’t exist, this is not impossible as there is nothing wrong with the logic. This leads to the conclusion of Malcolm’s argument – that either God does not exist, or that he exists eternally.
However I do not find this argument particularly convincing, it is true to say that all of his reasoning is sound, but his argument doesn’t come to a definitive conclusion, he has merely ‘proved’ that a necessary God either does not exist or exists eternally. This is no more convincing than the original version in my view, and what if we reject the idea that God is necessary? Malcolm’s whole argument hinges on the belief that God is necessary, and I feel that he is open to the same criticism as Anselm for using necessity as a predicate just as Anselm used existence as a predicate.
Plantinga also attempted to make a modern version of the ontological argument, he presents the idea of there being many different possible worlds besides our own (by his use of the word world he means the same as our concept of the universe). It is possible that there is man in our world who goes by the name of Gordon, has purple hair, drives a Mustang, and works for Roadrunner Records. However Gordon’s existence is not necessary and he need not exist in any other worlds.
The chances are that all of the possible worlds are very different, in fact there are infinite possible differences between the worlds, and indeed there are an infinite number of possible worlds.
Plantinga suggests that there is a being in one of the worlds that possesses the attribute of ‘maximal greatness’. But of course the implications of a being with maximal greatness is that they would have to exist (with maximal greatness) in every possible world. However at this point in his argument this being does not have to be God, as there may be other beings in possible worlds who posses greater moral integrity or are simply better at playing the drums! The fact that these beings only exist in one world is of course irrelevant.
Plantinga however did not leave his argument here, he developed the concept of ‘maximal excellence’, he stated that maximal greatness entails maximal excellence, and that maximal excellence entails omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection.
He then draws the following conclusion:
1. There is a possible world in which there exists a being that is maximally great.
2. It therefore has maximal excellence
3. It therefore exists in our world.
Therefore God exists.
I personally find this argument unconvincing, as I do not see the relevance of including the notion of other possible worlds, this surely just confuses the situation and does not add to the weight to the argument. And even if we follow Plantinga’s argument and agree that it is possible for such a being to exist, it does not follow that this being actually exists.
So in conclusion I do not find the modern versions of the ontological argument much more convincing than Anselm’s versions. Whilst it can be argued that Normal Malcolm in particular has presented a coherent progression in the ontological argument – and I do feel that his argument is coherent – I do not find that any of the modern versions lead on to the conclusion that God exists. For example Malcolm’s conclusion is a 50-50 split between an eternal God and no God!
Jack Hines-Dedman U6R Mrs Grill
