The Ontological Argument Works! (Sort of)

Abstract

very teacher of introductory philosophy knows she can anticipate a laugh when she lays out St Anselm's (c. 1033-1 109) ontological argument for the existence of God:Everyone ha5 an idea of a being than which no greater can be conceived.Either that being exists or it does not If it did not, then a greater being could be conceived: namely one that does exist.Therefore, it must exist.Any college freshman can sense that the argument is absurd on its face, though few would be able to say exactly why. Later they will learn the classic explanation, that "existence is not an attribute." They may also "learn," probably in spite of their instructor's intentions, that St Anselm was not very smart. Yet, St Thomas (c. 1225-74), hardly a "dumb ox" despite his handle, also employed the ontological argument, as did the twentieth-century American plulosopher, Charles Hartshome (1 897-2000).Even Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) reputedly once stopped in his tracks in the middle of the quad and exclaimed to no one in particular, "The ontological argument works!" Charity alone would seem to dictate that we find an explanation other than dull-wittedness for these philosophers' acceptance of the ontological argument. Could it be that the argument, with a little clarification, actually does in some sense work? Exploring this question may have an additional benefit beyond exculpating Anselm and Aquinas: It may tell us something important about the nature of religious discourse.Anglo-American philosophers have not listened very carefully in recent centuries to religious thinkers who have told us that faith does not really Thomas W. Cathcart has taught philosophy and comparative religion at Westbrook College (Portland, ME) and is the author, with Daniel Klein, of Mucho Mrditutions ( I 997), a parody of self-help literature.