Anselm and Gaunilo - argument and objection

An outline of Anselm’s ontological argument and Gaunilo’s objection, and whether Gaunilo’s objection successfully refutes Anselm’s argument.

Anselm
image source

Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) put forward an argument (later termed the ‘ontological’ argument) to reason out the existence of God, as he was a philosopher and theologian of the Christian Church. Soon after, his theory was disputed by a contemporary, a Benedictine monk by the name of Gaunilo of Marmoutiers with his now famous ‘perfect island’ rebuttal as a counter-argument which he wrote as a reply to Anselm’s claim “on behalf of the Fool” – the atheist in the Psalms who has stated in their hearts “there is no God”.

Anselm was focused on proving the existence of God. He was a philosopher who wrote many theistic proofs, but then wanted to find a single argument to show irrefutable proof of God’s existence, and so came up with what his contemporaries later called ‘that argument of Anselm’s’. He made this argument by way of a priori - trying to use reason and intuition – first used by the medieval philosopher, Avicenna.¹

Anselm reasoned that basically God is a being “that than which none greater can be conceived”². In other words, He is a being who is unsurpassed in all areas we could possibly think of. Anselm then goes on to lay out his reasoning by way of a reductio ad absurdum. He tried to show that if you think about there being a God, then He exists in your understanding and there can be none greater, but if He existed in reality that would be greater than existing in your understanding, so if the Fool can understand the concept of God then he must exist within that understanding and then therefore exist in the Fool’s reality, thus proving that God exists.

Gaunilo was quick to come up with a reply which was aimed at shooting holes in Anselm’s carefully thought-out theory. He used his own reductio ad absurdum and substituted the subject matter of God for a mythical Lost Island, the greatest island one could possibly conceive of, into the same arguments that Anselm had listed. So if I take the previous explanation and substitute the subject, it would read like this: “If you think about there being a Lost Island, then it exists in your understanding and there can be none greater, but if it existed in reality that would be greater than existing in your understanding, so if the Fool (non-believer) can understand the concept of this Lost Island then it must exist within that understanding and then therefore exist in the Fool’s reality, thus proving that the Lost Island exists.”

Using what is termed an ”overload objection” (this being that for an argument to be true then it would apply under all circumstance, but then give an overload of the subject matter) with the example of the Lost Island put forward by Gaunilo, the so-called island of perfection, there is no clearly defined boundary with which the ‘perfect’ island concept could be used. It is subjective inasmuch as that which is deemed perfect for one person may not be for another. There is also no plateau for this perfection – such as the number of trees on the island, or beaches, or types of food available, or number of waterfalls, and so on. Our idea of the perfect island could also be fluid, depending on our mood, our changing ideals and even input from others. Anselm’s idea of God is static – it does not change in its ideal of perfection.

Perhaps one thing wrong with his thesis was that Anselm assumed there was only one way for a perfect God to be. Just as the ‘perfect island’ is subjective to the seeker, then perhaps the perfect God could also be seen that way? So I think that Gaunilo’s objection is valid to a point, in that as much as one person can list what they see as God’s highest attributes, another could list other things, depending on how they themselves view the world – this is the very reason why we have so many different religions, and even breakaway off-shoots of various Churches.

If we ask “Which is greater, to exist as an idea in the mind or to exist in reality too?”2 would we not have to know that the idea would actually work? If I had an idea for an invention then I would have to bring that idea into reality to know that it is a functioning idea. But how can God be brought into reality? By his very nature He is a non-physical being. Some people have attributed the confirmation of his existence to the deeds He has done. Perhaps we could liken this to living with an invisible man – we cannot see him, but know he exists because of what he does around the house, the signs he leaves.

Could Gaunilo in fact have chosen a better subject matter with which to make his rebuttal? Perhaps, if you can get anything close to the concept of God and the perfection which He is said to have which is the essence of being God. I tried to use a mythical being as the subject matter, to make a comparison: Santa Claus. If I use the same substitution to Anselm’s argument as earlier, then: “if you think about there being a Santa Claus, then he exists in your understanding and there can be none greater, but if he existed in reality that would be greater than existing in your understanding, so if the Fool (non-believer) can understand the concept of Santa Claus then he must exist within that understanding and then therefore exist in the Fool’s reality, thus proving that Santa Claus exists.” I know plenty of children who would be happy about that! But, is there a plateau of the greatest Santa Claus that could possibly exist? I could certainly list some of his well-known attributes, his job, and what he is supposed to look like (thanks Coca-Cola), but would my awareness make him the greatest for everyone who thinks of him? I doubt it.

To conclude, I think that Gaunilo’s objection to Anselm’s ontological argument is valid to a point. Just because you can think something is so doesn’t automatically bring it into reality; but he could have used a better and closer subject matter to try and make his point, although finding another subject which even comes close to having a plateau of perfection is certainly difficult.

image source

---

This essay was one I wrote as an assignment, while obtaining my University degree. I have included the reference list and bibliography - reference materials I used while writing - just as I’d had to for its submission. It has never before been published anywhere public, though. Images have been added for visual interest.

References:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

2 as mentioned in our study guide material (Massey University)

Bibliography:
Anselm of Canterbury, retrieved 3 August 2009, from:
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/anse.htm

Saint Anselm, retrieved 3 August 2009, from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, retrieved 3 August 2009, from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers

Ontological argument, retrieved 3 August 2009, from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

---

Mannabase UBI - sign up, via referral link:

(extra tags: #philosophy #theology #religion #culture #minnowsupport)