Anselm's Argument Reconsidered

Review of Metaphysics 64 (1):31-54 (2010)
Anselm’s argument for the existence of God in Proslogion 2 has a little-noticed feature: It can be properly formulated only by beings who have the ability to think of things and refer to things independently of whether or not they exist in reality. The authors explore this cognitive ability and try to make clear the role it plays in the ontological argument. Then, we offer a new version of the ontological argument, which, we argue, is sound: it is valid, has true premises, and does not beg any questions against the atheist. However, the new reconstruction of the argument falls short of Anselm’s goal of producing “a single argument that would require no other for its proof than itself alone; and alone would suffice to demonstrate that God exists.” The new reconstruction requires a subsidiary argument to show that God exists in the understanding. The subsidiary argument relies on premises that are both contingent and known a posteriori. However, the somewhat amplified argument, if it is sound as the authors believe it to be, does show that God exists in reality. Moreover, the new reconstruction escapes an important recent criticism by Peter Millican (2004, 2007) against ontological arguments generally.
Keywords God  objects of thought  reductio arguments
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI revmetaph201064123
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,037
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Hugh S. Chandler (1993). Some Ontological Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 10 (Jan):18-180.
William L. Rowe (2009). Alvin Plantinga on the Ontological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (2):87 - 92.
Eric Entrican Wilson (2010). The Ontological Argument Revisited: A Reply to Rowe. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 15 (1):37 - 44.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

57 ( #78,682 of 1,934,364 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

13 ( #41,714 of 1,934,364 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.