Home » Academics » Nerds' Corner

Nerdy Article #1: Anselm's Ontological Argument

Welcome Nerds!

My B.A. took me 6.5 years and, along the way, I made a lot of good memories.

I remember arguing about natural theology with Dr. Moore. I remember tossing Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in the trash to show Dr. O'Connor how useful I thought pragmatism was. I remember looking at my classmates with eyebrow raised when Dr. Wood called an argument of Descartes a piece of "skullduggery." And I remember laughing after a friend said, in hushed tones, that he didn't believe beauty was objective — a scandalous thing to say at Wheaton College.¹

Since graduating, I've come to realize that I'm a bona fide nerd. I've come to realize this as a result of the fact that my best college memories (see above) are of classes and conversations about those classes. I can't tell you what I did for spring break my senior year, and I'm not sure if Wheaton had a football team or not, but Dr. Wood's pencil-sketch rendition of Descartes' internalism is burned into my memory forever.² I get nostalgic just thinking about it.

My column is called "Nerds' Corner." A new article will appear in Nerds' Corner every month. The reason it's called "Nerds' Corner" is because — well — I am a nerd, and because my articles aren't going to appeal to you unless they appeal to the nerd in you.

That said, in this first of my Nerds' Corner articles, I'm writing about St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God — a nerdy subject indeed.³

The ontological argument — first formulated by Anselm but reformulated many times since⁴ — is 927 years old and still attracts the attention of the smartest people on earth. In contrast, the articles in this morning's newspaper are only a day old and they'll be largely forgotten by tomorrow — completely forgotten in a year. Da Vinci Code will be forgotten in 10. If you have to choose between them, you'd be better off reading Anselm than the newspaper or Da Vinci Code, I'd say.

Here's part of the most philosophical prayer of all time, compliments of Anselm: 

Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"?

But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that an object actually exists.

Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it.

However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.

And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.

If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is impossible.

Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality.⁵

And, of course, God is that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, from which it follows — if Anselm's argument works — that there's no doubt that God exists, both in the mind and in reality.

So, what do you think? Is this a good argument? More specifically, should atheists be convinced by it?⁶

That-Outline-Than-Which-None-Could-be-More-Helpful

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of Anselm's argument, let's take a look at it in outline.

Anselm starts the argument with two claims:

(1) Even the Fool understands "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought."
(2) What is understood exists in the mind.

Anselm then notes that, if (1) and (2) are true, then so is:

(3) Something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind.

Next, Anselm makes another claim:

(4) If something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.

He then points out that, if (4) is true, then so is:

(5) If that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, then this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought.

But this is obviously impossible, says Anselm. Therefore:

(6) That-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality.

God, however, is that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought. Therefore:

(7) God exists both in the mind and in reality.

Therefore:

(8) Atheism is false.

As can be seen from (1) through (8), the significance of Anselm's argument is that, if it works, we can see that atheism is false just by thinking about the word "God." To see what all of this means, check out the nifty Venn diagram in Figure 1.

I  Venn Diagrams

If you take a look at Figure 1, you'll see that Anselm is arguing that God must be in section C, the green area. God is that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought; that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot be thought to exist in the mind alone; therefore, God cannot be in section A, since A contains things that exist in the mind alone.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

Does Anselm's argument work? If not, what's wrong with it?

Join the discussion!

In other words, God isn't an imaginary creature like Big Foot, Nessy or Brad Pitt. He's real. He actually exists. He's not a figment of the imagination or Hollywood's latest fabrication.

But that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought doesn't only exist in reality, since that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is understood. Therefore, God cannot be in section B either, since section B contains things that exist in reality alone. So God must be in section C, which contains those things that exist both in the mind and in reality.⁷ See?

Now I'll be daggumed if this isn't terribly interesting!⁸ I'm inclined to think Anselm's argument doesn't work — that it takes more than just reflection on the word "God" to see that atheism is false — but I'll share my objections later. In the meantime, think about the argument and, if you have the guts, try it out on your non-Christian profs and friends. At the very least, you'll get your mind set on important things and have some great conversation along the way.