Biting Gaunilo’s Bullet
[Name Omitted]
Gaunilo tells us that Anselm’s ontological argument proves too much: The perfect island does not exist. If two arguments rely on the same (or sufficiently similar) premises and have the same logical form, then if one of those arguments proves the existence of the perfect island, then both arguments are unsound. Gaunilo gives an argument that the perfect island exists, and his argument uses the same logical form and the same (or sufficiently similar) premises as Anselm’s ontological argument. So it follows that Anselm’s ontological argument is unsound. Let us grant that the perfect island argument and the ontological argument have the same logical form and the same (or sufficiently similar) premises. …show more content…
I don’t know, but if it does, they had better be perfect islands. So even a theist who isn’t totally on board with Platonism can bite Gaunilo’s bullet without any great additions to his or her ontology. If this sounds a little circular, it isn’t. I’m not suggesting that only someone who’s already a theist can accept Anselm’s argument. Rather, I am saying that anybody who is convinced of theism by Anselm’s argument will, ipso facto, be quite likely to believe in heaven. So, when confronted with Gaunilo’s objection, they need not regard it as an objection at all, but rather a glimpse into the details of the heaven in which they now believe. So a belief in the existence of heaven is not a reason to accept Anselm’s argument, but it could be a reason to reject Gaunilo’s objection to Anslem’s argument. And hecnce my second, more general, thesis: biting the bullet is an acceptable and independently well-motivated strategy for any theist in response to Gaunilo’s criticism. The perfect island does exist, so Gaunilo’s objection is no problem at