Not every great writer can be correct in what he or she is saying. This is the idea that Gaunilo had in mind when he wrote his criticism to St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument which states that if something greater than anything else that could be thought of is conceived in the understanding then it must exist. Gaunilo says it is foolish to believe in the existence of something just because it is understood.
He says there must be some kind of other explanation. In this paper, I will try to explain both Anselm’s theory and Gaunilo’s argument by first breaking each of them down in simpler terms. I will attempt to show what Gaunilo is trying to discredit with his objection. One of St. Anselm’s theological topics deals with the Ontological Argument in which discusses the idea of existence.
He gives a definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” (69). His idea being that God is the ultimate being or “the greatest possible being” (68). He says there is nothing anyone can possibly imagine that could be better than Him. This argument gives God the highest human qualities possible.
He is omnipotent as well as omniscient. Anselm suggests that there is no one or nothing in this world that is greater than God is (69). This perfection that God possesses leads into the fact that He must exist. He is trying to create the idea that God exists and nothing can be better than he can be. However, one must ask where Anselm gets his proof.
What evidence does he have to back up his argument? If nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyone’s understanding, God is said to be humanly perfect. Since to be perfect, in part, is to exist; something that does not exist cannot be perfect. Something that exists has to be better than something that does not exist simply because it is here. If a child imagines the greatest toy he can think of and then is able to play with it, it has to be better than just the image of the toy in the child’s mind. He can feel it and hold it and play with this perfect thing that nothing, in his eyes, can beat. He says it is perfect and part of that perfection comes from the fact that he can play with his creation.
If God is perfect in human terms then he must exist, because if he did not then one can imagine something greater that does. What Anselm is saying is that God is perfect, to be perfect is to exist; therefore, God exists. Anselm uses an analogy of a fool to try and display what is meant by his idea. First, he says, “Truly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (68).
The fool is questioning whether or not God exists. He understands what God is, and he knows that God is the greatest being that can be conceived. He understands that this being known as God possesses every human perfection possible. This then, puts God into his understanding or rather, into his mind just as the toy was in the mind of the child.
However, the fool cannot understand God to exist. He knows what the greatest being is; he just cannot see that being in front of him. He does not understand that something can exist in reality without being a concrete item or being. He cannot touch God or talk to or listen to God. He can only see God in his mind, so he is confused as to whether God really exists in the world (69). If the boy can see the toy in his mind and yet cannot touch and play with the toy, he is going to have a tough time trying to understand that the toy really does exist.
Anselm also tells the story of the painter in which he is explaining the same idea. He says a painter who has an idea of a picture understands it to exist in his understanding or in his mind. He does not understand it to exist in the world because he has not yet painted it. After he paints the picture and puts his idea onto the canvas, he can understand it both in his mind and in reality because it is in front of him. The painter can touch the painting and pick it up or move it (69). In the child’s case, if he is presented with the toy, he can understand it in the world and in his understanding.
He can picture it, and he can touch it. Returning to the fool, he can see God in his understanding or imagine Him in his mind, but cannot understand God to exist because he has never seen Him in person. He was never able to look directly at God or touch Him or talk to Him. Hence, he questions the existence of such a being.
How can this being exist if I have never seen it? Anselm’s story about the painter attempts to explain the difference between an existence in the mind and an existence in reality. There are two ideas of the existence of the painting and the toy, just as there are two ideas of the existence of God, one in the understanding and one in the world. The painter, the child and the fool have difficulty grasping the idea of the first concept. Gaunilo introduces a short objection to Anselm’s argument. He uses an analogy of a perfect island to explain his idea.
He describes a perfect island in the middle of the ocean that remains undiscovered. One of the attributes that makes this island perfect is that it is uninhabited. He says that this “lost island” contains more wealth and riches “than is told of the Islands of the Blest,” another attribute of perfection. He says that since the island is not owned by anyone or inhabited by anyone then it is greater than any other place that can be imagined (70). The island in this case is representing God.
By definition, God’s perfection came from the idea the He existed. Similarly, by definition, the island’s perfection came from the idea that it is undiscovered. Gaunilo says that if a person told him this, he can understand their words because it is easy to imagine this place. Just as the boy could imagine the toy, he could imagine the island. He says it would be ridiculous to suppose since he has this idea in his understanding, it exists (70).
He is saying that just because the boy thought of the idea in his mind does not mean that the toy is actually in reality. Simply because the boy thinks the toy would be better if he was actually able to play with it does not mean that he is able to have it. Gaunilo contradicts Anselm when he describes his island. The island is defined as the greatest undiscovered place that can be imagined.
If you claimed that you know that this place did exist then you have been there, you have discovered the island. Therefore this island is not the greatest thing imaginable because you discovered it. Gaunilo is not saying that God does not exist because someone has seen Him. He is saying that a person cannot come to the conclusion that God exists through Anselm’s argument. He brings up the idea that Anselm’s is an impossible argument. The idea of something existing just because you believe it or conceive it to is ridiculous to Gaunilo.
Anyone can think of something they want to imagine and say that since it is said to be perfect then it exists somewhere in this world. To Gaunilo, Anselm’s idea consists of a great deal of wishful thinking. There has to be more concrete evidence to back up the argument for it to be believed. God’s existence remains a question to many. All sorts of people have an opinion.
Whether or not you agree with Anselm’s approach on the existence of God does not mean you doubt that He really does exist. If you disagree with his method, like Gaunilo, you simply want more accurate evidence to support the idea. God, like your island or toy, is not just there because you wished it to be or because it would be better and more perfect if these things did exist. If you agree with his method, you understand that you do not always have to touch everything you conceive of in your mind. Things in life exist for a reason.
The question remains: whose reason are you going to believe? Bibliography Bibliography Gaunilo. “Gaunilo’s Criticism.” Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman ed.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. USA.
1999: 70. St. Anselm. “St. Anselm’s Presentation.” Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman ed.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
USA. 1999: 68-69. Religion Essays.
