I'd be interested to hear how Anselm's argument is dismissed quickly; it
has two levels, the "easy, word-magic" level, and a more difficult level.
On the easy level, sure it's easy to dismiss it as Kant does, saying that
I can imagine 100 thalers, but that doesn't mean that there really ARE
100 thalers. This is the same as Gaunilo's grouchy response that he can
imagine a perfect island, etc. This leads to the refutation based on
existence not being a predicate, which is sound enough when you're talking
about only actual beings.
>From that, one can launch into an examination of "that being greater than
which cannot be conceived" meaning necessary being, in which case, you have
to address Anselm on a fairly serious philosophical level. For an explication
of Anselm's argument in which its shown to involve assumptions about necessity
that demand a fair amount of respect, see Alvin Plantinga's The Nature of
Necessity.
I guess this response is only to show that Anselm's argument CAN be taken as
an easily thwarted word-magic, but that on a seriously modal level, it's worth
quite a bit of respect...
I'd recommend Aquinas' arguments in the beginning of the Summa Theologiae
concerning God's existence for arguments meant to convey to the non-specialist
the rudiments of philosophical reasoning about divine being.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|