In class today we looked at Anselm’s first version of the ontological argument (from Proslogion 2). We then looked at Gaunilo’s attempt at a “refutation by parody” and showed how Anselm could respond by saying that there can be no “greatest conceivable island” because the qualities that go into that do not have intrinsic maxima (if there’s no upper limit, then there can’t be a “greatest”).
Here’s another parody:
- Let “Satan” (or, if you prefer, Zod) =def. the worst conceivable being. (Premise)
- Satan exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
- Satan’s existence in reality and in the understanding would be worse than his existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
- A being having all of Satan’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
- A being worse than Satan can be conceived. (From 2, 3, and 4)
- It is false that a being worse than Satan can be conceived. (From 1)
- Hence, it is false that Satan exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From 2, 5, and 6)
- Satan exists in the understanding. (Premise)
- Hence, Satan exists in reality. (From 7 and 8)
Is this a successful parody of Anselm’s argument? Does the notion of “worst conceivable being” have an intrinsic maximum (or is intrinsic “minimum” more appropriate here?) Is there any way in which Anselm can block this counterexample without undermining his own argument?
I will have to agree that this is a good parody of Anselm’s argument. To the Christian religion Satan is the opposite being of god, god being good and Satan being evil. Many also believe Satan to be the worst conceivable being since he is the opposite of God. I will also go so far as to say that the notion of Satan = “worst conceivable being” is an intrinsic maximum since God = “best, or greatest, conceivable being” is also one. Anselm could not block this counterexample without undermining his argument since both are polar opposites.
I also agree that this is a successful parody of the ontological argument. However, I am not entirely convinced that this proves the argument problematic (as does the Atlantis version) and that Anselm needs to block this counterexample at all. Aren’t there people who DO BELIEVE that Satan exists? Even though we would rather this not be the case, Satan COULD very well exist in the same way God COULD exist. Are they not similar TYPES of beings, of course at polar opposites? Have I misunderstood something? Also, I think we can indeed conceive of a worst possible being, unlike the problem we discussed about conceiving the greatest island.
I disagree that this is a good parody. First of all, the Christian idea of Satan is not the polar opposite of God. Satan thought he was equal to God, and because of his arrogance and want for power was banished to control the underworld. It is the bad things that happened in peoples’ lives that were blamed on something outside of themselves that lead to the idea of Satan (Zod) being the worst possible being. Plus, IF a worst possible being were to exist, what would it’s properties be? In this being’s perspective, would God be considered to be the worst possible being and itself the best? Would it have values, or the ability to be pleased?
I cannot conceive of a worst conceivable being, nor can I agree that the “opposite of God” is even possible. Consider a magnet. Is the south pole (polar opposite of the North) any worse than the north pole? Is the center of the Sun any worse than the center of an ice planet? The only way I can reconcile even the idea of a worst conceivable being would be a most powerful being that does nothing (i.e no creation). There is obvoiusly a lot of creation, therefore a worst conceivable being could not exist.
I would have to agree with Nathan. Another point to bring up is that in the conception of the greatest possible being, it seems as if existence is part of greatness. I would think that the opposite of greatness, or worst, would be non existence.
ANother idea: I might just be restating Kant’s response, and thus refuting Anslem, but if we replace greatness/worstness with any word, such as greeness this argument would work. There could be a being that is the most green, and something green is surely more green if it exists. If it then exists, and we percieve it, then we can allways think that something be more then what we see. Now greatness also, if it is to be percieved, I think that something more great can allways be percieved. I actually think that it is more great of somehting only to be in the understanding. We fool’s can believe all kinds of things in the understanding that are better than in reality. Sorry that was very long winded.
oops, just re-read my comment, i didnt mean attribute greeness to a being, but only a thing. I don’t know if it matters, but just wanted make that change.
Interesting discussion, so far.
Nathan’s right that theistic religions do not consider Satan (or for Muslims, Iblis) to be equal to God in either power or knowledge. Satan, so the story goes, is a created being, very powerful, but neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
It is important, therefore, to distinction the “Satan” of this parody argument from the Satan of theistic theology. IF this parody works, then it shows that there is a necessarily existing evil being that is omnipotent and omniscient. That result is incompatible with traditional forms of theism, which do not allow for the possibility of multiple omnipotent beings.
I think the parody of Anselm’s argument is good. Needless to say, it is easy to conceive God’s polar opposite. The premises work, Satan’s existence would be worse than his non-existence. As far as Rob and Nathans comments are concerned, i would have to respectfully disagree. First, I would like to raise one question. Is our existence nihilistic? If so, which is feasible, then it seems that we may be looking at everything the wrong way. For instance, if this being is all evil, it could be possible for Satan to be the creator. Is it more evil to create without any meaning, or not to create at all? Thus, when it comes to the idea of opposites, such as creation vs non creation, i think it is not valid to say that Satan does not exist due to the question of non-creation i.e. doing nothing.
Response to Eric:
To bring the concept of nihlism into the argument, than we may have to apply it to both Ontological arguments. Im goin to suppose that both of us have similar definitions of what god is and what the devil is, ie. The worst possible being, and the greatest possible being. In using a nihilistic apporach to Anslems argument, how great is this God if he created us with out any purpose? You commented about what is more evil, to create something without meaning or to create nothing at all. GOd and the devil are one in the same in this nihilist view of our existence. The Devil is the worst possible being and god is the greatest possible being but creates us without meaning thus making him evil. How do we reconcile this contradiction?
Satan is just doing a job he didn’t even want to do in the first place. If we want to talk about the worst conceivable being, let’s look at the guy who gave him the job, who lit the fire, who casts us into eternal hellfire.
How often do we hear of “the wrath of Satan?” If God really is omnipotent, then doesn’t he have the power to put a stop to anything Satan does?
When Edmund Burke said the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, he may as well have been referring to God.
If God has the power to stop evil, and doesn’t, wouldn’t that make him the worst conceivable being?
How do you know that God hasn’t already given us the power to stop Human evil, and we (as individuals and cultures) haven’t figured it out yet?
I would suggest that what we call evil is something that we create. Natural events are not evil, they are Natural. The beauty exists in our ability to choose not to do evil, to recognize and respect the beauty of nature (From atoms, to cells, to exploding stars, and so on), and thus enter into relationship with God.
The existence of evil does not prove the existence of a worst conceivable being. It simply proves that we can provide a construct for our behavior.
I would say that it is a successful parody of Anselm’s Ontological Argument. I think the worst possible being has the same intrinsic maximum as greatest possible being, or a polar opposite.
In my opinion I think the ontological argument for Satan or for God accomplishes nothing. I think if someone is an atheist they will not except the definition and if someone believes in god they already do believe god exists. So the argument does not change anyones perspective, it confirms with the reader what they believed before they read the ontological argument that god either necessarily exists or has impossible existence (does not exist).
A question thats in my head I can’t figure out if it makes sense is, If god created the universe non-existent wouldn’t that make him greater then a god who created everything while existing?
This parody is fine, though I don’t care for the wording used. The greatest conceivable being is described as possessing the MAXIMUM of power, knowledge etc. So wouldn’t the worst conceivable being possess the MINIMUM of power, knowledge etc? Or is the “worst conceivable being” meant to be the “greatest conceivable evil being?”
As for the final question: “Is there any way in which Anselm can block this counterexample without undermining his own argument?”
My answer would be no because Anselm is dead.
Thoughts on some of the above comments:
Rob:
Interesting thought about parallel arguments for other superlatives (e.g., greenest). Not all superlatives are well-defined, however, because they have no intrinsic maximum. Thus, there can be no such thing as the “biggest”, “tallest”, “most numerous”, etc. possible being. I’m thinking that “greenest” may fall into the same category, but I’m not altogether sure.
Jack:
You seem to be commenting on Judeo-Christian theology. If so, then let me correct you on a couple points. First, according to these religions, Satan was not created as an evil being. He freely rebelled against God. So he’s not “doing a job he didn’t want to do”. Second, hell is believed to be not an arbitrary punishment, but rather a natural consequence of turning away from, God, the source of all goodness. To turn away from the light (God) is ipso facto to embrace the darkness (hell).
The rest of your comment pertains to the problem of evil, which we’ll get to in short order.
Brad:
I’m not sure what you mean by “if God created the universe non-existent”. How can a non-existent being create?
Jayme:
Cute answer at the end, but I would have thought it clear that “Anselm” is elliptical for “a defender of Anselm’s argument”.
I’d like to suggest that an Anselmian might be able to reply to this parody by taking hints from Plato and from Augustine.
Augustine famously argued that “evil is a privation”. It is the absence of a good that ought to be there. If that’s right, then to get evil you have to start with something good and break it (corrupt it).
Plato famously argued in the Republic that evil is invariably harmful to the evil doer in much the same way that sickness or injury harms the body.
If Augustine and Plato are right, then a maximally evil being would be maximally messed-up, sick, and infirm, and hence could not be omnipotent or an evil counterpart to God.