PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE & THOUGHT
You cannot any more doubt that this island that is more excellent than all other lands truly exists somewhere in reality than you can doubt that it is in your mind; and since it is more excellent to exist not only in the mind alone but also in reality, therefore it must needs be that it exists’ - Gaunilo
How does this affect the Ontological Argument?
This argument is also a reductio ad absurdum because it shows that to deny the existence of this island is a logical absurdity. Gaunilo has substituted the term "God" for ‘island’ to show that the logic of the argument can be used to define anything into existence - which is absurd. Gaunilo's parody argument is appropriate because the ontological argument is a priori so it functions entirely on its logical structure. If you keep the argument's essential structure but change the premises mutatis mutandis then you can show that the argument isn't really valid.
|
P1. Kim Possible is the girlfriend than which no greater can be conceived.
P2. She's a fictional character. P3. It's greater to exist in reality than just as a fictional character. C. A Kim Possible that existed would be greater than a fictional Kim, so P2 must be false and Kim Possible is a real girlfriend! But clearly, Kim Possible IS a fictional character, so if the argument suggests she's real, there must be something wrong with the argument!
|
|
Anselm also argues that God is objective. Islands are subjective. One person’s idea of the perfect island may not match up to another person’s: I may like an island with volcanoes and dinosaurs but you might like beaches and dolphins. Therefore, there can be no OBJECTIVELY perfect island.
You may feel that not everyone’s idea of God is the same. For Anselm, God exists objectively and his nature does not vary from person to person: there is one, objective, true God. He's not "a matter of opinion" the way a perfect island is.
|
Obviously, Gasking’s argument is flawed, but that's the point; it seems to be making the same sort of errors that standard ontological arguments make – assuming that existence is a predicate or a perfection, confusing factual with logical impossibility, moving from possible states to actual states without evidence, etc.
Gasking's parody argument became famous when it was described by Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion (2006):
Gasking didn't really prove that God does not exist. By the same token, Anselm didn't prove that he does. The only difference is, Gasking was being funny on purpose - Richard Dawkins |
|
Surely it is quite easy to imagine even more marvelous achievements—e.g., the creation of many worlds at least as good as this one! - Graham Oppy
one cannot conceive of a non-existent being's actually creating something: that is literally inconceivable - Graham Oppy
William Lane Craig expands on Oppy's criticism, saying that it is incoherent and therefore impossible for a being to creates things while not existing: there is no possible world which includes a non-existent being who creates the world. William Lane Craig takes this as proof that the concept of God is a coherent idea and that therefore God's existence is not impossible. This backs up the ontological arguments of Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga.
this parody, far from undermining the ontological argument, actually reinforces it! - William Lane Craig |
William Lane Craig explains Plantinga's ontological argument and refutes Gasking's parody (as quoted in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion)
|