The Shakiest Gun in the West is a hilarious old movie starring Don Knotts (of Mayberry fame) in which he plays a dentist heading into the western frontier of America during its pioneer days. His character is mistaken for a quick drawing gunslinger able to deal with the toughest of bad guys when, in reality, it is his female counterpart in the movie (played by Barbara Rhoades) who does all the work. She does such a good job surreptitiously shooting bad guys when he pulls his gun that he actually begins to believe he is doing the work himself!
The Ontological Argument for God’s existence has been both loved and hated by thinkers since the 11th century. Some have championed it as the most definitive proof of God’s existence while others have seen it as something akin to a logical sleight of hand or pure sophistry. Those who oppose the argument might liken it to Don Knotts firing wildly into the air while being convinced of hitting his target. Of all of the classical arguments for God in the Western tradition we might ask, “Is this one the shakiest, the best, or somewhere in between?” The Ontological Argument has made believers out of many skeptics and many skeptics out of believers!
As is true with all of the classical arguments for God (i.e. Teleological, Cosmological, Moral, etc.) there is really a family of arguments under one heading. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of “being.” It asks, roughly, “what exists?” and “what does it mean to have existence?” The Ontological Argument(s) makes the case that once you properly understand the idea of God you must also acknowledge that he necessarily exists.
Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109 A.D.) is recognized as the father of the Ontological Argument. In his work of Christian devotion, Proslogion, Anselm explains that God is “something than which a greater cannot be thought.” Here is an excerpt from his classic work of devotional theology.
Therefore, Lord, you who grant understanding to faith, grant that, insofar as you know it is useful for me, I may understand 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. So can it be that no such being exists, since “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ”? (Psalm 14:1; 53:1) But when this same fool hears me say “something than which nothing greater can be thought,” he surely understands what he hears; and what he understands exists in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it exists [in reality]. For it is one thing for an object to exist in the understanding and quite another to understand that the object exists [in reality]. When a painter, for example, thinks out in advance what he is going to paint, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand that it exists, since he has not yet painted it. But once he has painted it, he both has it in his understanding and understands that it exists because he has now painted it. So even the fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood exists in the understanding. And surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater. So if that than which a greater cannot be thought exists only in the understanding, then that than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought. But that is clearly impossible. Therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality.
It may be helpful, for clarity’s sake, to move the content of Anselm’s argument out of his prosaic fashion into a more formal expression. Here is his argument:
God is, by definition, a being of which none greater can be conceived.
A being which exists in reality is greater than one that only exists in thought.
Therefore God exists in reality.
And now for a bit of commentary.
Premise one: This understanding of God is consistent with theism as expressed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (the three main theistic religions in history and today) which all hold the idea that God is unlimited in his perfections. If you could conceive of a being greater than the God of theism then that would simply be to say either: 1. Your new conception is logically impossible (and therefore actually inferior) or 2. It is corrective to our prior thinking about God which should replace our prior conception. There is no being greater than God and there is no perfection which God lacks.
Premise two: This seems obvious to most people. Would you like $10,000 or just the idea of $10,000? The idea of something good is not as good as the thing itself. Being, that is to say existing, is better than non-being. The whole tradition of western philosophy consistently holds this view.1 From Plato and Aristotle to Augustine and Boethius to Anselm and Aquinas, being has been accounted as a fundamental good. So something that is merely in the imagination is certainly not as great as that which has actual being.2 Absolute being would be that which is not contingent (dependent) upon anything else for its existence and therefore the highest good. Since the highest good is God, God is absolute being.
Conclusion: This is where people get excited and start declaring that some sort of trickery is at play. “Surely,” they will say, “we have skipped a premise or two!” But, no, there is no need. To admit premise one and two is to admit this conclusion which follows logically from them.
As is true with any valid3 logical argument the soundness4 of the argument depends on whether or not the premises are true and the cogency5 of the argument depends on whether or not you believe them. This argument is valid.6 Is it sound? Obviously this is the debatable point. It all hangs on the definition of God in premise one. If this is the correct definition of God then it would seem the argument is sound and demands that we find it cogent. This is, however, a major criticism of Anselm’s initial formulation of the ontological argument, that it seems to assume the definition of God. Many think this assumption smuggles the conclusion into the premise thereby making the argument circular.
Much has been said in Anselm’s defense but it would take a great deal of time to go over all of the “back and forth” that has gone on. I heartily recommend THIS EDITION of Anselm’s Proslogion because it includes Guanilo’s reaction to Anselm’s argument entitled On Behalf of the Fool (which is the original criticism of this argument) as well as Anselm’s reply to Guanilo. Thomas Aquinas,7 popularly known for his “five ways” of demonstrating God’s existence, was also not a fan of the ontological argument. You can read his rebuttal of the argument in Summa Theologica (Pt. 1, Q. 2, Art. 1).
Despite some notable detractors, since the time of Anselm there have been many others who have seen value in his attempt and who have taken the kernel of his thought and developed it. There is now a whole branch of philosophical theology called “Perfect Being Theology” or sometimes “Necessary Being Theology.” They discuss concepts like wha “great making properties” a perfect being would have. Many perfect being theologians are Christians but there are plenty of others who are Jewish, Muslim, or just minimally committed to some kind of theism. Christian supporters of the argument, however, believe that this philosophical reasoning is consistent with the revelation of the Christian Scriptures and that the one “whom none greater can be thought” is YHWH, the God of the Bible.
Two noteworthy defenders (my personal favorites) of a version of the Ontological argument are Rene Descartes’ (in his book Meditations) and Alvin Plantinga with his “Modal Ontological Argument.” Both men’s work on this matters is worthy of its own article and I will, Lord willing, write about each of their particular versions of the Ontological Argument in the “nearish” future. If you are impatient for more you can go HERE to keep learning about the back and forth concerning the Ontological Argument and its history of proponents and detractors.
Regardless of what you think about the Ontological Argument in its various forms there are many other arguments to be considered in favor of God’s existence. Certainly God’s existence does not rise or fall upon this argument.8 Some think this is the best in the Christian arsenal and some think it’s the worst. What do you think? Is it a real sharpshooter or only “the shakiest gun in the West?”
Admittedly there is, in the Eastern tradition of philosophy and religion, a certain level of commitment to the opposite idea. Because of the teaching of Buddhism, which declares “all of life is suffering,” there are those who argue that to cease to be is better than to continue to be. To rebut this would take more time than I want to give it in a footnote. For now I’ll assume that the majority who read this article will probably not be very attracted to this Eastern ideal.
The question as to whether ideas themselves have a kind of being is very interesting. If they do then, in finite creatures, their being is limited and unsustained. Where are your thoughts of the color red when you are not thinking about it? God’s thoughts, however, are not like man’s. It may be the case that God holds all thoughts in a sustained fashion simultaneously and therefore his thoughts have real being whereas ours either do not have being or they are constantly coming in and out of being.
Validity, in formal logic, refers to the form of the argument. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. A valid argument form guarantees that if the premises are true then the conclusion is also true. It’s important to note, however, that valid arguments can still be false if one or more of the premises are false.
Soundness, in formal logic, refers to the overall truth of an argument. Only valid arguments can be sound. An argument is sound when it is valid and all the premises are true and therefore the conclusion is also true.
Cogency, in formal logic, refers to the reception of an argument by an individual. To say you find an argument cogent is to say that you personally believe it is both valid and true.
This argument can be expressed in the mood and figure of an AAA-1 argument which is valid.
One of the most formidable minds in Christian history.
In reality God’s existence does not depend on arguments of any kind. If something exists it does so whether or not anyone is arguing in favor of it. Your existence is not contingent upon other people knowing you are real nor upon someone demonstrating it to others. Arguments do not make reality, rather, they are demonstrations attempting to persuade others to align their beliefs with reality.