I’m going through a number of ‘proofs of God’ at the moment and am really impressed with the logical ‘sleight of hand’ employed. I have to admit, I find it difficult to believe that anyone has come up with a sound a priori argument, otherwise the dominance of atheism in modern philosophy would not be what it is.
In my opinion, it is in chapter II of Proslogion (English or Latin) were Anselm’s argument falls down. Here is SH Moore’s analysis:
- One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived.
- We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
- If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a “being than which none greater can be conceived”.
- A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality.
- Failure to exist in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived.
- Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.
It is clear that Anslem’s premises 1-4 are either contradictory or question begging.
In chapter II, Anselm uses the analogy of how one can conceive of a painting (it then exists in understanding) before it is painted (and then exists in reality). This leads us nicely from premises 1 to 2. Yet this principle is conveniently ignored when referring to God. The non-believer – the fool, is asked to conceive of a being than which none greater can be conceived (in understanding). Once this is accepted, it is then ignored by 3 & 4 as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ must exist in reality. If we are to accept 3 and 4, then we cannot accept 1 without presupposing God’s existence. If we accept 1 without presupposing God’s existent, then 3 & 4 do not logically follow. If we are to accept all the premises, then Anselm is begging the question.
Its a clever little argument that I’m sure is quite effective at convincing those that already believe. Personally, I’d prefer an argument to be sound before I’m willing to accept it. But perhaps Anselm does have a point with the contradictions – anything follows from ex falso quodlibet.