thesis statement for ontological argument

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.4: The Ontological Argument

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 52235

The Argument

Lord, I acknowledge and I thank thee that thou hast created me in this thine image, in order that I may be mindful of thee, may conceive of thee, and love thee ; but that image has been so consumed and wasted away by vices, and obscured by the smoke of wrong-doing, that it cannot achieve that for which it was made, except thou re- new it, and create it anew. I do not endeavor, O Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity, for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that ; but I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, — that unless I believed, I should not understand …

              And so, Lord, do thou, who dost give understanding to faith, give me, so far as thou knowest it to be profitable, to understand that thou art as we believe ; and that thou art that which we believe. And, indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God? (Psalms xiv. i). But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak — a being than which nothing greater can be conceived — understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it exist.

              For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it.

              Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone : then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.

              Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

              God cannot be conceived not to exist. — God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. — That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.

              And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist ; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord, our God.

              So truly, therefore, dost thou exist, O Lord, my God, that thou canst not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than thee, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except thee alone, can be conceived not to exist. To thee alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist. Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms xiv. i), since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that thou dost exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool?

              How the fool has said in his heart what cannot be conceived. — A thing may be conceived in two ways : (i) when the word signifying it is conceived ; (2) when the thing itself is understood As far as the word goes, God can be conceived not to exist; in reality he cannot.

              But how has the fool said in his heart what he could not conceive ; or how is it that he could not conceive what he said in his heart? since it is the same to say in the heart, and to conceive.

              But, if really, nay, since really, he both conceived, because he said in his heart ; and did not say in his heart, because he could not conceive ; there is more than one way in which a thing is said in the heart or conceived. For, in one sense, an object is conceived, when the word signifying it is conceived ; and in another, when the very entity, which the object is, is understood.

              In the former sense, then, God can be conceived not to exist ; but in the latter, not at all. For no one who understands what fire and water are can conceive fire to be water, in accordance with the nature of the facts themselves, although this is possible according to the words. So, then, no one who understands what God is can conceive that God does not exist; although he says these words in his heart, either without any or with some foreign, signification. For, God is that than which a greater cannot be conceived. And he who thoroughly understands this, assuredly under- stands that this being so truly exists, that not even' in concept can it be non-existent. Therefore, he who understands that God so exists, cannot conceive that he does not exist.

              I thank thee, gracious Lord, I thank thee; be- cause what I formerly believed by thy bounty, I now so understand by thine illumination, that if I were unwilling to believe that thou dost exist, I should not be able not to understand this to be true.

Response by Gaunilo

              The fool might make this reply : This being is said to be in my understanding already, only because I understand what is said. Now could it not with equal justice be said that I have in my understanding all manner of unreal objects, having absolutely no existence in themselves, because I understand these things if one speaks of them , whatever they may be ?

              Unless indeed it is shown that this being is of such a character that it cannot be held in concept like all unreal objects, or objects whose existence is uncertain: and hence I am not able to conceive of it when I hear of it, or to hold it in concept; but I must understand it and have it in my understanding; because, it seems, I cannot conceive of it in any other way than by understanding it, that is, by comprehending in my knowledge its existence in reality.

              But if this is the case, in the first place there will be no distinction between what has precedence in time — namely, the having of an object in the under- standing — and what is subsequent in time — namely, the understanding that an object exists; as in the example of the picture, which exists first in the mind of the painter, and afterwards in his work.

              Moreover, the following assertion can hardly be accepted : that this being, when it is spoken of and heard of, cannot be conceived not to exist in the way in which even God can be conceived not to exist. For if this is impossible, what was the object of this argument against one who doubts or denies the existence of such a being ?

              Finally, that this being so exists that it cannot be perceived by an understanding convinced of its own indubitable existence, unless this being is afterwards conceived of — this should be proved to me by an in- disputable argument, but not by that which you have advanced: namely, that what I understand, when I hear it, already is in my understanding. For thus in my understanding, as I still think, could be all sorts of things whose existence is uncertain, or which do not exist at all, if some one whose words I should understand mentioned them. And so much the more if I should be deceived, as often happens, and believe in them : though I do not yet believe in the being whose existence you would prove.

              Hence, your example of the painter who already has in his understanding what he is to paint cannot agree with this argument. For the picture, before it is made, is contained in the artificer's art itself ; and any such thing, existing in the art of an artificer, is nothing but a part of his understanding itself. A joiner, St. Augustine says, when he is about to make a box in fact, first has it in his art. The box which is made in fact is not life ; but the box which exists in his art is life. For the artificer's soul lives, in which all these things are, before they are produced. Why, then, are these things life in the living soul of the artificer, unless because they are nothing else than the knowledge or understanding of the soul itself?

              With the exception, however, of those facts which are known to pertain to the mental nature, whatever, on being heard and thought out by the understanding, is perceived to be real, undoubtedly that real object is one thing, and the understanding itself, by which the object is grasped, is another. Hence, even ii it were true that there is a being than which a greater is inconceivable: yet to this being, when heard of and understood, the not yet created picture in the mind of the painter is not analogous.

              Let us notice also the point touched on above, with regard to this being which is greater than all which can be conceived, and which, it is said, can be none other than God himself. I, so far as actual knowledge of the object, either from its specific or general character, is concerned, am as little able to conceive of this being when I hear of it, or to have it in my understanding, as I am to conceive of or understand God himself: whom, indeed, for this very reason I can conceive not to exist. For I do not know that reality itself which God is, nor can I form a conjecture of that reality from some other like reality. For you yourself assert that that reality is such that there can be nothing else like it.

              For, suppose that I should hear something said of a man absolutely unknown to me, of whose very existence I was unaware. Through that special or general knowledge by which I know what man is, or what men are, I could conceive of him also, according to the reality itself, which man is. And yet it would be possible, if the person who told me of him deceived me, that the man himself, of whom I conceived, did not exist ; since that reality according to which I conceived of him, though a no less indisputable fact, was not that man, but any man.

              Hence, I am not able, in the way in which I should have this unreal being in concept or in understanding, to have that being of which you speak in concept or in understanding, when I hear the word God or the words, a being greater than all other beings. For I can conceive of the man according to a fact that is real and familiar to me : but of God, or a being greater than all others, I could not conceive at all, except merely according to the word. And an object can liardly or never be conceived according to the word alone.

              For when it is so conceived, it is not so much the word itself (which is, indeed, a real thing — that is, the sound of the letters and syllables) as the signification of the word, when heard, that is conceived. But it is not conceived as by one who knows what is generally signified by the word; by whom, that is, it is conceived according to a reality and in true conception alone. It is conceived as by a man who does not know the object, and conceives of it only in accordance with the movement of his mind produced by hearing the word, the mind attempting to image for itself the signification of the word that is heard. And it would be surprising if in the reality of fact it could ever attain to this.

              Thus, it appears, and in no other way, this being is also in my understanding, when I hear and under- stand a person who says that there is a being greater than all conceivable beings. So much for the assertion that this supreme nature already is in my understanding.

              But that this being must exist, not only in the understanding but also in reality, is thus proved to me : If it did not so exist, whatever exists in reality would be greater than it. And so the being which has been already proved to exist in my understanding, will not be greater than all other beings.

              I still answer: if it should be said that a being which cannot be even conceived in terms of any fact, I is in the understanding, I do not deny that this being is, accordingly, in my understanding. But since through this fact it can in no wise attain to real existence also, I do not yet concede to it that existence at all, until some certain proof of it shall be given.

              For he who says that this being exists, because otherwise the being which is greater than all will not be greater than all, does not attend strictly enough to what he is saying. For I do not yet say, no, I even deny or doubt that this being is greater than any real object. Nor do I concede to it any other existence than this (if it should be called existence) which it has when the mind, according to a word merely heard, tries to form the image of an object absolutely unknown to it.

              How, then, is the veritable existence of that being proved to me from the assumption, by hypothesis, that it is greater than all other beings? For I should still deny this, or doubt your demonstration of it, to this extent, that I should not admit that this being is in my understanding and concept even in the way in which many objects whose real existence i§ uncertain and doubtful, are in my understanding and concept. For it should be proved first that this being itself really exists somewhere ; and then, from the fact that it is greater than all, we shall not hesitate to infer that it also subsists in itself.

              For example : it is said that somewhere in the ocean is an island, which, because of the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of discovering what does not exist, is called the lost island. And they say that this island has an inestimable wealth of all manner of riches and delicacies in greater abundance than is told of the Islands of the Blest ; and that having no owner or inhabitant, it is more excellent than all other countries, which are inhabited by mankind, in the abundance with which it is stored.

              Now if some one should tell me that there is such an island, I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty. But suppose that he went on to say, as if by a logical inference: "You can no longer doubt that this island which is more excellent than all lands exists somewhere, since you have no doubt that it is in your understanding. And since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist. For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it ; and so the island already understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent. "

              If a man should try to prove to me by such reasoning that this island truly exists, and that its existence should no longer be doubted, either I should believe that he was jesting, or I know not which I ought to regard as the greater fool : myself, supposing that I should allow this proof ; or him, if he should sup- pose that he had established with any certainty the existence of this island. For he ought to show first that the hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact, and in no wise as any unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain, in my understanding.

Anslem's Response

            A criticism of Gaunilo's example, in which he tries to show that in this way the real existence of a lost island might be inferred from the fact of its being conceived.

              But, you say, it is as if one should suppose an island in the ocean, which surpasses all lands in its fertility, and which, because of the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of discovering what does not exist, is called a lost island ; and should say that there can be no doubt that this island truly exists in reality, for this reason, that one who hears it described easily understands what he hears.

              Now I promise confidently that if any man shall devise anything existing either in reality or in concept alone (except that than which , a greater cannot be conceived) to which he can adapt the sequence of my reasoning, I will discover that thing, and will give him his lost island, not to be lost again.

              But it now appears that this being than which a greater is inconceivable cannot be conceived not to be, because it exists on so assured a ground of truth ; for otherwise it would not exist at all.

              Hence, if any one says that he conceives this being not to exist, I say that at the time when he conceives of this either he conceives of a being than -which a greater is inconceivable, or he does not conceive at all. If he does not conceive, he does not conceive of the non-existence of that of which he does not conceive. But if he does conceive, he certainly conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist. For if it could be conceived not to exist, it could be conceived to have a beginning and an end. But this is impossible.

              He, then, who conceives of this being conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist ; but he who conceives of this being does not conceive that it does not exist ; else he conceives what is inconceivable. The non-existence, then, of that than which a greater cannot be conceived is inconceivable.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 Meditation V: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

• Published: April 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

this chapter discusses Descartes's Ontological Argument—a thesis considering the existence of God, which was first developed by St. Anselm. Descartes's version refers to God as a “supremely perfect being,” whose perfection is defined by existence. Existence is perfection, therefore a perfect being that cannot exist is not perfect at all. There are many weaknesses in the Argument, however, as pointed out by the likes of Gaunilo, Kant, and Caterus. Unfortunately, the Ontological Argument remains implausible in light of their scholarship, however it may only compromise some of Descartes's discourse later on.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel

Kevin J. Harrelson, The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel , Humanity Books, 2009, $39.98 (hbk), ISBN 9781591026396.

Reviewed by Charles Taliaferro, St. Olaf College

In 1945, Bertrand Russell announced in his famous The History of Western Philosophy (a brilliant but sometimes eccentric and flawed book) that the ontological argument has been proved to be invalid, despite the fact that the soundness of the argument would be very good news indeed for philosophy:

The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thoughts. Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher’s job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. 1

While Russell pronounced the argument dead (albeit with regret), perhaps Anthony Kenny was wiser in his four volume New History of Western Philosophy when he ended the fourth volume with a warning to those who think the argument has been refuted:

Plantinga’s reinstatement of the [ontological] argument, using logical techniques more modern than any available to Russell, serves as a salutary warning of the danger that awaits any historian of logic who declares a philosophical issue definitively closed. 2

Kevin J. Harrelson has written a welcome historical and critical analysis of the ontological argument in early modern European philosophy. In the Introduction, he writes:

In the following chapters I argue that the strategy for proving a priori the existence of God that remains in place during this period, from Descartes’ initial argument in the Discourse on the Method (1637) to Hegel’s final lectures in Berlin (1831), is both internally consistent and free of any easily identifiable error. More importantly, I try to show that the most common objections to the modern ontological proof, raised by the likes of Gassendi, Hobbes, Hume, and Kant, fail to identify any conclusive and universal fallacy. (p. 18)

His book is not, however, “an outright defense of the ontological argument”, for Harrelson is convinced most versions of the ontological argument face serious obstacles and are not persuasive to those not already committed to what he finds philosophically problematic. The book is rich with historical references and nuanced readings of canonical texts, and is packed with arguments and counter-arguments.

The book opens with a compact overview of the ontological arguments found in Anselm, the scholastics, Descartes, and Leibniz. Some of the arguments’ exposition is a bit hard to follow. In discussing the relationship between perfection and necessary existence (which Anselmians usually seek to secure on the grounds that existing necessarily is a perfection or great-making attribute), Harrelson writes: “If God is indeed identical to his own existence, then it could only represent a shortcoming of human reason to distinguish the notion of a ‘perfect being’ from that of ‘necessary existence’” (p. 25). Why is this a problem? Can’t a case for the ontological argument begin with a consideration of great-making properties and an inquirer come to reason that necessary existence plus theistic attributes would be (or is) more excellent than theistic attributes and contingent existence? If one does not realize this prior to entertaining the argument, perhaps that is a “shortcoming”, but no worse than if someone did not realize 6 is the smallest perfect number before she reasoned that 6 is equivalent to 3 + 2+ 1.

In the same chapter, and on the same page as the claim just considered, Harrelson writes, “the peculiar identification of ‘God’ and ‘necessary existence’ renders misleading all theological statements about the existence of the deity” (p. 25). It is not clear, however, which philosopher (if any) claims that what we mean by “perfection” is “necessary existence” (as in “grandmother” is “a female whose child has a child”). Harrelson writes:

In early modern philosophy we find rather that theological propositions are understood to be akin to identical statements, and the philosophers in question fall just short of claiming that “perfect being” and “necessary existence” have the same meaning. “Necessary existence,” like God’s other predicates, is identical with God’s whole nature. This identity of subject and predicate would seem to exempt theological statements from the rules governing normal attributive statements. (p. 25)

Why, however, would a defender of the ontological argument claim that “necessary existence” means the same as “perfect being”, or claim that necessary existence “is identical with God’s whole nature”, rather than claim that necessary existence (or existing necessarily) is a mode of being distinct from being contingent (or having the property being contingent) ? Presumably, for an Anselmian theist, claiming that God exists necessarily involves claiming that there necessarily exists a being of unsurpassable excellence or perfection. I do not yet see how linking necessity and perfection is a theological disaster. At the least, some clarification of how the thesis of divine simplicity comes into play on this issue would have been desirable.

In the same chapter, Harrelson has an interesting treatment of Descartes’ analogy about the idea of a triangle in discussing the idea of God. The format Harrelson employs in clarifying the points at issue is complex.

The following is a short list of those objections, other than the possibility and Thomistic, that are prevalent in the modern period. After each objection I give a caricature of the kind of reply that is frequently found among proponents of the modern argument. I also give a brief explanation of the debate, in which I try to indicate, very roughly, the historical contexts in which the respective objections and replies appear and reappear. (p. 29)

The deliberate use of caricature made the reasoning less easy to follow (for me, anyway).

Thus, the problem with the argument is that it involves the existence of God (!), experience and/or intuition (perhaps especially theological intuition), and insight. One difficulty readers will have so far is that it is not easy to see “the downfall” of the argument without seeing more of “the rise”.

First, from the fact that our perception is incorporated in the premise of the argument it follows that the conclusion is not true for everyone. In other words, whoever does not actually perceive the connection between “a supremely perfect being” and “necessary existence” cannot assent to the claim in the minor premise, in which case the conclusion remains undemonstrated. It is not the case that these individuals fail to grasp a premise that is objectively true; rather, their perceiving a certain “truth” is itself part of the premise. The premise is in fact false in any instance in which the perception is lacking. The ontological argument is thus unsound in those cases. Regardless of whether the ontological argument is ever sound, then, it will sometimes be unsound. The objections will always be, in some sense, in the right, despite their inability to discover an internal flaw in the argument. (p. 67)

This strikes me as odd. Any argument in philosophy might well be considered unsound if not everyone grasps its entailment relations. Even a simple entailment like “if all humans are mortal, no immortal being is a human” might sometimes be unsound because someone, somewhere does not accept the entailment.

In “Refutation of Atheism”, there is a welcome discussion of Cambridge Platonist treatments of the ontological argument. Harrelson has some sympathy with Henry More and Ralph Cudworth, even if he thinks both present arguments with fatal flaws or fail to persuade. As before, I find Harrelson’s autopsy of the argument neither obvious or clear. Here is an analysis of More:

Like Descartes, [More] assents to the following maxim: "we are first to have a settled notion of what God is , before we go about to demonstrate that he is." The various subsidiary arguments to the minor premise (the proof of innateness, the deduction of necessary existence from the idea of God, etc.) serve this end, comprising a preliminary examination of the essence or notion of God. The inference to God’s actual existence appears only at the end of this discussion. This last fact, however, represents the fatal consequence of the systematic presentation of the ontological argument: in order to clarify the various steps in the argument, it was necessary to distinguish the essence of God (i.e., “what God is”) from his existence (“that he is”). The systematic presentation of the ontological argument thereby contradicts the basic presupposition of that same argument, viz., that the essence and existence of God are inseparable. (pp. 87-88)

I do not quite see the problem. More does not think God’s essence and existence can be metaphysically separated, but he thinks one can epistemically consider God’s essence and then come to see that it (together with the thesis that God exists either necessarily or God’s existence is impossible , plus the premise that God’s existence is possible ) entails that God exists.

Harrelson offers a helpful exposition of the work of Ralph Cudworth and Samuel Clark. He is probably correct that Locke’s attack on innate ideas undermined the popularity of the ontological argument, though there are many versions of the argument that do not require or presuppose the existence of innate ideas.

In the chapter “Being and Intuition”, Harrelson takes up the work of Malebranche. There is a useful examination of how Malebranche advances the ontological argument beyond Descartes. At least one of Harrelson’s objections to Malebranche seems strained: “the revised form of the argument is indefensible against the nominalist’s objection that ‘being’ is a mere concept” (p. 115). It is indefensible, unless of course nominalism turns out to be deeply problematic and then the objection carries no weight.

Chapter four contains a helpful analysis of Spinoza’s work, showing how his version of the ontological argument is closely tied in with the whole of Spinoza’s philosophy: "No one can accept [Spinoza’s] argument without accepting his other doctrines in toto , or at least without offering alternative versions of them." (p. 135)

Chapter five offers a detailed exploration of the ontological argument in pre-Kantian German philosophy. Arguments by Leibniz, Wolff, Baumgarten, and Crusius are addressed.

Chapter six on Kant is excellent. Harrelson places Kant’s famous criticism of the ontological argument in perspective and shows why it is not decisive. Harrelson thinks Kant was effective in challenging the authority of the ontological argument largely because of Kant’s general case about the limits of human thought:

The ontological argument, in 1785, is still not the object of any directly successful critique. Its temporary disappearance is a product only of the belief that humans are incapable of obtaining any genuine cognition beyond the field of “experience,” as this term is defined in the opening chapters of the Critique of Pure Reason . (p. 191)

The final chapter on Hegel provides a good context for Harrelson’s thesis that the ontological argument might work for some people. If one can (in Hegel’s terms) “elevate” one’s mind to God, the argument succeeds:

Whoever “grasps” or comprehends that “being is the concept,” i.e., whoever gazes from the summit of absolute knowledge and thereby understands the inferences of Hegelian logic, also perceives the existence of God via participation in God’s self-knowledge. (p. 220)

In Harrelson’s view, while (to echo Russell) every philosopher would like to have such elevation, few of us succeed and so Hegel’s ontological argument (like Descartes’) fails in its ambition as a demonstration or proof.

Graham Oppy, editor: Ontological arguments

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, x and 284 pp, $34.99 (paper)

• Book Review
• Published: 27 June 2019
• Volume 86 , pages 91–96, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Kevin J. Harrelson 1  

243 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

The Many - Faced Argument (ed. Hick and McGill, Macmillan 1967). A very large volume, edited by Miroslaw Szatkowski, appeared in 2013 ( Ontological Proofs Today, Ontos Verlag). That includes much advanced work, but is expensive and much less accessible than the volume under review.

See especially p. 57.

“The Ontological Argument as Cartesian Therapy,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35(4), pp. 521–562.

“Ontological Arguments” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ , accessed May 22, 2019.

Lewis, David, "Anselm and Actuality," Nous volume 4, number 2 (1970), pp. 175–188.

The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 221.

See his “Three Versions of the Ontological Argument” in Ontological Proofs Today, Miroslaw Szatkowski (editor), Ontos Verlag 2012, pp. 143–162.

NB: Descartes gives such a restriction, but this involves “clear and distinct perception” by the meditator.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ball State University, Muncie, USA

Kevin J. Harrelson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin J. Harrelson .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Harrelson, K.J. Graham Oppy, editor: Ontological arguments. Int J Philos Relig 86 , 91–96 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-019-09720-3

Download citation

Published : 27 June 2019

Issue Date : 15 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-019-09720-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God Essay

The ontological argument, the cosmological argument for the existence of god, the allegory of the cave, hume and kant on synthetic a priori judgments, hume, locke and berkeley on empiricism.

The ontological argument is an a priori argument that attempts to prove God’s existence based purely on reason. The argument sees no reason for attempts to prove the existence of God using empirical approaches. Instead, it seeks to prove God’s existence using essence. According to the ontological argument, the existence of God is a necessary property of God in the same way that a triangle comprises three sides. Anselm, for instance, believes that the claim of God’s non-existence is in itself self-contradictory as it implies that God is imperfect. Other philosophers who adopt the same line of argument as Anselm include Spinoza, Leibniz, Godel, Descartes, and Hegel.

The ontological argument adopts a modal technique to reasoning using the concepts of necessity, possibility and actuality. The argument assumes that supreme perfection necessitates existence. It starts by defining God as a supremely perfect being who is omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent. In the view of ontological theorists, God must exist since existence is perfection and God is perfect.

Kant’s objection to the ontological argument stems from his view of the concept that a being that is conceived in the human mind, and which exists in the real world, is superior to an idea of a being that is merely conceived in the mind. Kant questions the ontological perception of existence as a predicate that necessarily applies to the concept of God in the same way that the three angles of a triangle necessarily belong to the triangle. In contrast, Kant argues that, though existence applies as a predicate in the grammatical sense, it differs from other predicates. Kant views existence as a property, unlike all ordinary properties, and argues that existence is merely the conjecture of a thing.

What Kant’s argument means is that when one asserts that God exists, he is not alluding that there is a God, or that he holds the property of existence. On the contrary, to say that a thing exists is to allude to the notion of that thing being typified in the universe. If Kant’s take on the ontological argument that existence is not a property that can be inherently possessed is correct, then we cannot compare an existent God with a non-existent God.

I believe that Kant’s position regarding the ontological argument (that a God that exists is essentially similar to a God that does not exist) is considerably defensible. An existent God is similar to a non-existent God, since they are both omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This implies that the ontological claim that ‘an existent God is greater than a God who does not exist’ is essentially wrong. More than anything, the ontological argument succeeds in providing the definition of God as a supremely perfect being.

Because existence is a logical predicate rather than a grammatical one, it cannot belong to the concept of God as postulated by the ontological theorists. On the contrary, existence is a predicate that merely fulfills the definition of the concept of God. What this means is that existence is not a property like the green property of a leaf that belongs to the leaf. Even if existence is to be perceived as a property, it is not the property that impacts the essence of the thing which possesses the existence. Therefore, I do not believe that the ontological argument succeeds in proving the existence of God.

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is founded on a posteriori reasoning drawn from empirical experience of the universe. Thomas Aquinas formalizes the argument in his ‘Summa Theologica.’ Aquinas outlines five arguments in an attempt to prove the existence of God. Three arguments of Aquinas can be described as cosmological.

The first form of the cosmological argument for the existence of God is referred to as the first cause argument. This argument asserts that all things are caused by something else. If we go back through the causal sequence, we are likely to arrive at a first cause from which all else is caused. The cosmological philosophers argue that the supreme cause is God. It is important to note that the cosmological proof of God’s existence dismisses the idea of infinity or an infinite regression.

The second form of the ontological argument stems from the concept of contingency. This argument asserts that things can either exist or fail to exist. This argument implies that there is a possibility of a time when nothing existed, and some external being must have created what exists. Cosmological theorists call this external being God.

The third ontological argument considers the possibility of a prime mover or an unmoved mover. Aquinas states that everything in the world is in a constant state of motion. Since a thing cannot ‘actually be’ and ‘potentially be’ at the same time, everything that is in a state of motion must have been put in motion by a mover. Going by the trend of denying infinite regression, there must be a first mover who sets all movements in motion.

The fact that the cosmological argument applies an a posteriori system of reasoning works against as well as to the soundness of the position. Being a posteriori, the cosmological argument is easily testable using empirical data. For instance, we can test the argument by observing changes and processes in phenomena and seeking an explanation for the nature of events. The argument seems convincing since it answers the insatiable human desire to seek an explanation for natural events.

However, the knowledge acquired a posteriori cannot be absolutely trusted. Human desire to explain existence is not a reason enough to embrace the cosmological argument, since the empirical universe is filled with probabilities. What we know about the universe is obtained from the things we perceive today, rather than what existed at the time of creation. We cannot ascertain the sequence of events that took place at the time of creation to relate them with what we experience today.

Science also has the potential of working for or against the cosmological proof of God’s existence. Though science has failed to explain the happenings before the Big Bang, modern scientists have proved that there are some items, such as a particle generated by a vacuum, which can exist without being caused. This implies that God is not the only uncaused thing.

The problem raised by the ontological argument is that, even if there is a prime cause that caused the Big Bang, there is no absolute way of confirming that the cause of the Big bang is the theist God. To assume that the first cause is the theistic God requires one to take a leap of faith without logical or factual support systems.

In the allegory of the cave, Plato paints a picture of prisoners held in a dark cave. The prisoners are chained around their feet and necks in a way that inhibits their movement. Plato describes a world outside the caves and a wall separating the cave and the outside world. There are shadows of people moving outside the cave which are cast on the cave walls. Since the prisoners are chained, they are unable to raise their heads to see the real people moving outside the cave and only have access to the shadows. Consequently, they believe that the shadows are real. When one of the prisoners escapes, he is not able to see anything since he is blinded by the brightness of the sun. As he stays in the outer world, the prisoner comes to realize that the outside world is the real world and that the things to which he has been accustomed are mere illusions.

The prisoner believes that it is better to live as a slave in the real world than to live like a king in the cave. When the escapee returns to the cave, the other prisoners ridicule him for leaving the world of the cave since they cannot understand a reality they are yet to experience. The prisoners warn the escapee of possible death in case he tries to release them.

The cave in the allegory signifies people who are so accustomed to what they know from empirical faculties that they do not conceive any other way of life. The shadows in the allegory signify knowledge obtained from sense perception. In his portrayal of the game played in the cave, Plato implies that those perceived as masters actually have limited knowledge of reality. The breakout prisoner in Plato’s allegory represents a philosopher who has moved away from reliance on sense perception and who seeks knowledge that is outside the realm of the senses. While the sun represents truth obtained through philosophical inquiry, the intellectual journey of the escaped prisoner represents the path followed by philosophers in their pursuit of wisdom and truth. The reactions of the other prisoners depict how most people are afraid of seeking philosophical truth and prefer to stay in their ‘safe’ worlds.

To explain true knowledge, Plato presents his model of the Forms. Plato’s forms are fixed objects described as the most real objects conceivable. The world as we perceive it is just a shadow of the real Forms, which can only be grasped through rationality. For instance, the property shared by all triangles is the Form of triangularity, which is the essence of what is called a triangle. For instance, for two or more things to belong to kind X, they must share in the Form of X-ness.

Plato, being an idealist, believes that true knowledge can only be acquired through rational faculties, rather than through sense perception. Unlike physical objects, the Forms presented by Plato are unchanging and are universally knowable.

The sun in Plato’s allegory represents a philosopher’s understanding of the Forms, particularly the Form of good. A philosopher needs to appreciate the Form of good so that he can identify and comprehend the goodness available in other Forms. I agree with Plato that the knowledge we use to understand the world is inborn and cannot be acquired by sense perception. Ideas such as roundness exist in the human brain.

Before we can understand the concept of synthetic a priori judgment, we must define what is meant by analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. In Kant’s view, the terms ‘analytic’ and ‘synthetic’ are merely different types of judgments, which are assertions or propositions. Analytic propositions do not give us any new information about reality, but merely state that a property is encompassed by an object as part of its meaning. An example of an analytic statement is ‘husbands are male.’ The concept ‘husband’ contains the concept ‘male’ as part of its definition.

Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are statements whose predicating concept is not part of the definition of the subject concept. For instance, the proposition that ‘all matter is heavy’ is synthetic in the sense that having weight does not form part of the definition of matter. Synthetic a priori judgments are statements that are verifiable independent of empirical experience, and which are not logically encompassed as part of the definition of the subject.

Hume builds his philosophy around an empiricist assumption that all propositions can be known through sense experience. In Hume’s view, causality is not founded on a priori judgments. On the contrary, Hume believes that the concept of causality is completely unfounded. He asserts that there is no foundation in experience to imply that a specific event must necessarily follow another event. He concludes that the causality cannot, therefore, be justified rationally.

What Hume implies is that there is no contradiction in rejecting the alleged necessity of causality. However, the refutation of a proposition is what demonstrates it to be necessary, especially when the refutation occasions a visible inconsistency. Since there is no inconsistency in refuting the assumed necessity of causality, such refutation is not tantamount to inconsistency. Since there is no inconsistency in refuting the necessity of causality, the causality cannot be said to be a priori.

In Hume’s postulation, the human mind develops a pattern when it is used to seeing an event follow another. The mind, therefore, assumes a causal relationship between the two events. Causal relationships, in Hume’s view, are just assumptions created by the human mind and are not certifiable by experimentation. Necessity of causal relations, therefore, lacks reasonable backing and must be psychologically defended.

I believe that Hume’s dismissal of the hitherto popular laws of causality and induction is what inspires Kant to try to save natural science from the implications of Hume’s philosophy. The reason Kant refutes Hume’s view on causation and induction is because Hume rejects the certainty upon which natural science is built. Kant, therefore, tries to address the problem raised by metaphysics by designing a framework of transcendental idealism that can enable people to avoid skepticism.

Kant admits that causation seems impossible, but suggests a different approach in understanding causality. Instead of looking at causality as a metaphysical process involving the organization of natural events, Kant suggests that causality should be viewed as a universally and necessarily occurring property, impressed by the human mind upon reality. This view of causality as a requirement for the intelligibility of occurrence seems more plausible than Hume’s dismissal of causality in its totality. Synthetic a priori propositions are, therefore, depicted as rationally validated since they serve as preconditions for comprehensibility.

I believe that Kant is right in his postulation that certain rational categories ought to typify objects of sense perception so that the wholeness of a person’s experience can be consistent. These innate a priori intuitions (for instance, spatial-temporal intuitions) are assumed in any act of acquiring knowledge, and are validated as sources of all conceivable experience. To reject the innate intuition of causality causes sense perception to be incomprehensible.

Hume, Locke and Berkeley are all British empiricist philosophers who believe in weeding out any concept that portray inconsistency with empiricism and believe that knowledge must be drawn from experience. This results in skepticism about most of the things that we generally assume to know. Locke, Berkeley and Hume all adopt a technique of constructing a corpus of knowledge using modest building blocks.

Locke’s philosophy seeks original and certain knowledge as well as the levels of belief. He attacks the principle of innate ideas, which asserts that human infants are born with some amount of knowledge that is not obtained from sense perception. Locke argues that the human infant is born with an empty mind, which is gradually filled with knowledge acquired through experience.

Locke also believes that the human mind resembles a mirror that only reflects objects presented to it. In his view, knowledge can be classified as sensitive, intuitive and demonstrative. Human beings often possess instinctual knowledge concerning their personal existence, sensitive knowledge about the presence of specific finite objects and demonstrative knowledge about the existence of divinity. Locke attempts to reason that human beings have knowledge of sensible things from simple ideas. However, Locke fails to support how we acquire this form of knowledge.

Locke also distinguishes between primary qualities and secondary qualities of objects. While primary qualities such as shape and motion exist in the world, secondary qualities depend on the person perceiving the object. Secondary qualities of objects include taste, smell and color as perceived by an individual.

From his arguments, Locke is depicted as an empiricist in the limited sense who believes that all materials upon which knowledge is attained are acquired through sense perception. His limitation as an empiricist stems from his acceptance of the possibility of rational, a priori knowledge of objects outside the realm of the senses.

Berkeley discards Locke’s categorization of objects according to primary and secondary qualities, and asserts that all experiences fall under the secondary category. He believes that the distinction between the qualities of objects generates unwarranted skepticism. Berkeley’s epistemological postulation only recognizes the existence of minds, in which God inputs ideas. He dismisses the concept of independently existing objects. However, Berkeley concedes that we have some amount of knowledge that we acquire through sense perception such as knowledge concerning God’s existence.

Berkeley believes that God is the greatest mind who controls the world of ideas. He distinguishes between the universe of God and human universe. Human beings cannot acquire knowledge about God’s universe except through fantasy.

David Hume improves on the premises proposed by Berkeley. In my view, Hume is the most consistent of all the three empiricists. Though he adopts the empirical approach to epistemology as developed by Locke, he refuses the idea of any knowledge obtained outside sensory experience. Hume asserts that though the human epistemological realm is limited to sensory experience, the possibility of any other realm (including God) is unknowable.

Hume also dismisses the concept of common sense since it is based on indefensible beliefs formed by the mind. He dismisses anything that cannot be empirically verified, including the idea of causation and the concept of induction. In terms of consistency and adherence to the empirical principle, Hume is the most commendable of the three British empiricists.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 31). The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

"The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God." IvyPanda , 31 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God'. 31 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God." December 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God." December 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God." December 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/.

• Clarke's Cosmological Argument
• Heat Cannot Exist Unperceived: Berkeley’s Argument
• Berkeley’s Argument on Materialism Analysis
• Philosophy of Zen' Thoughts
• "Crito" by Plato - Politics and Philosophy
• Emmanuel Kant’s Philosophy
• Philosophy Issues: Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism
• Epicurus and Aristotle Philosophical Views on Emotions

recommendation letter for phd student

• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• JEE Main 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Main Question Paper
• JEE Main Mock Test
• JEE Main Registration
• JEE Main Syllabus
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• GATE 2024 Result
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Registration
• TS ICET 2024 Registration
• CMAT Exam Date 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• DNB CET College Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Application Form 2024
• NEET PG Application Form 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• LSAT India 2024
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top Law Collages in Indore
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• AIBE 18 Result 2023
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

• Animation Courses in India
• Animation Courses in Bangalore
• Animation Courses in Mumbai
• Animation Courses in Pune
• Animation Courses in Chennai
• Animation Courses in Hyderabad
• Design Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Design Colleges in India
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• Free Ebooks
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• DDU Entrance Exam
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET PG Admit Card 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Application Form 2024
• CUET PG Syllabus 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Syllabus 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• IGNOU Result
• CUET PG Courses 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Letter of Recommendation (LOR) for PhD Students (with Sample) - Need, Parts, Qualities

Letter of Recommendation for PhD Students: For PhD students, a letter of recommendation is a crucial component of the application documents. While other admissions materials, like transcripts and test results, are factual, a letter of recommendation for PhD students integrates the plans and facts of a CV and statement of purpose. A résumé is a summary of your accomplishments, transcripts are evidence of your achievements, and an SOP describes the significance of the course and your readiness for it. A reference letter for a PhD is an unbiased opinion on everything mentioned above. TOP EXAMS : IELTS | TOEFL | GRE | GMAT Country Guide : UK | Ireland | Australia | Canada

What is the need for a letter of recommendation for PhD students

Select the right person to write recommendation letter for phd, letter of recommendation for phd students: qualities to focus on, parts of a lor for phd students, elements of letter of recommendation for ph.d. students.

A PhD application usually requires at least two letters of recommendation for students from their professors. This allows the admission committee to know the applicants as people with skills that would otherwise be difficult to know from their resumes, transcripts and SOP. A letter of recommendation for PhD students should mention at least three qualities of the applicant – a social quality and at least two technical or subject-related qualities.

Moreover, as a PhD is an advanced specialised programme, the subject-related quality should be focused on projects carried out and specialised courses that will aid his/her PhD research. Read the complete article to know all the details about PhD letter of recommendation, PhD reference letter samples, and more.

MET Institute of International Studies BBA Admissions 2024

B.Sc (Hons)/BA (Hons) Business Administration, is an International BBA programme offered at MET Institute of International Studies, Mumbai

Universities inviting applications | Get expert guidance

A recommendation letter for PhD student from professors holds much more importance than those applying for undergraduate or master's courses. Grades and GRE scores play a big role in receiving admission from a university. The recommendation letter for PhD admission is usually the deciding factor when choosing between candidates with similar credentials. Go through the key points to be included in the reference letter for PhD students from the professor to gain an understanding of what it is before you ask your professor to write a PhD reference letter for you.

Before asking someone for a recommendation letter for PhD application, you should know whom to ask. PhD is purely an academic degree and therefore you need to have a recommendation letter for PhD from those who can vouch for your academic inclination and strengths. PhD recommendation letter should be written by academicians with whom you have worked or someone who has supervised or taught you. If you are aspiring for a PhD programme or want a lor for PhD post-doctoral research, you should ideally ask your master's project guide or PhD guide to be one of the referees for your letter of recommendation for PhD students.

Your faculty must go through a sample recommendation letter for a PhD from a professor before sitting down to write one recommendation letter PhD for you. Other letters of recommendation for PhD students from teachers and professionals can be taken from persons who are from the same field or specialization in which you intend to do your PhD. You can also take your recommendation letter for doctoral programs from your supervisor who has an understanding of your academic capabilities.

Friends and relatives are not supposed to write your LOR for PhD students for a number of reasons; first, they do not have first-hand information about your academic capabilities. Second, as they have not professionally or academically worked with you, they would not be able to present relevant information in the PhD letter of recommendation about you. Also, the recommender might not have in-depth knowledge of the discipline you intend to do a PhD. Last but not least, relatives cannot be objective about your qualities. That's why it is not a great idea to take your student recommendation letter from them. So a letter of recommendation for PhD students from teachers, professors, supervisors, coaches, etc., is only applicable.

The person who is writing a letter of recommendation for PhD students would be a professional who has known the applicant academically for no less than one year. The recommender should not only know you as one of the students in the department, but they should also know you as a person, your capabilities as a student, as well as your control over the subject they have been teaching. They should also be aware of your plans.

Recommendation letters for Ph.D. students from supervisors, and professors are very subject-specific. Referees should speak of strong subject knowledge as well as analysis traits. Reference letter for PhD student should show the student as possessing positive qualities like intelligence, self-motivation, responsibility, and amiableness. Emphasis should be given to passion and dedication as well.

Advanced study like a Ph.D. is often a challenging and demanding program. Therefore, the PhD recommendation letter should also display perseverance, competitiveness and the ability to work independently. Courses and knowledge related to PhD programme-related packages, extra courses, and statistical analysis techniques should be exemplified in the letter of recommendation for the PhD program.

• IELTS, TOEFL, PTE, and More - Which one is right for you?
• Why Early IELTS Preparation Is Vital For Aspiring International Students

Shortlist best ranked universities & get expert guidance

Want to study in Ireland? Explore Universities & Courses

A student recommendation letter for a PhD will typically be between one to two pages. The document of recommendation letter for PhD student should be well differentiated into 5–6 paragraphs. The LOR for PhD should begin with an introductory paragraph about the recommender and his/her association with the applicant. You must read a PDF of the PhD recommendation letter sample before you ask your recommenders to give you one.

The next 3 to 4 paragraphs in the letter of recommendation for PhD program should outline the different academic and social qualities of the applicant with suitable substantiation. No quality should be mentioned without a suitable example. Finally, the concluding paragraph will sum up the above with a line recommending the applicant for the programme.

Also Read, Best Country to Study Abroad for Indian Students

Below is a sample recommendation letter for PhD from a professor. Candidates can refer to it while writing the LOR for PhD students.

Reference letter sample for PhD student

Like there is a letter of recommendation for PhD students from professors, you can also read about PhD reference letter sample pdf, sample LOR for graduate school from coworker pdf, letter of recommendation for PhD in computer science, sample recommendation letter for employee, etc which will give you a fair idea what a recommendation letter is all about.

A recommendation letter for PhD students from a professor or supervisor gives a human touch to the applicant’s profile. A reference letter for PhD student from a professor is the only document that can present the applicant’s social side to the admission committee. Therefore, choose a referee who can not only substantiate your academic strengths but also cite appropriate examples of your social qualities in your recommendation letter for PhD students.

Frequently Asked Question (FAQs)

It is crucial that the person writing your recommendation letter is someone who is familiar with your academic abilities. The most frequent writers of letters of recommendation are academics; professors or supervisors, but, other experts who are familiar with you and have overseen your academic or research work may also be suitable candidates.

The reference letter should be 1-2 pages long with 5-6 paragraphs.

PhD suggestions are highly specialised. Referees should emphasise both analytical skills and in-depth topic understanding. Letters of recommendation for students should highlight their intelligence, initiative, responsibility, and interpersonal skills.

Yes, PhD, postdoc, and scholarship applications typically require two to three letters of recommendation. These letters should come from professors who know your work and can detail your possibilities.

• Latest Articles
• Popular Articles

Upcoming Studyabroad Exams

Graduate record exam.

Exam Date : 07 April,2024 - 20 April,2024

Medical College Admission Test

Result Date : 23 April,2024

Law School Admission Test

Exam Date : 07 June,2024

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

• Construction
• Entertainment
• Manufacturing
• Information Technology

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary. 

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

GIS officer work on various GIS software to conduct a study and gather spatial and non-spatial information. GIS experts update the GIS data and maintain it. The databases include aerial or satellite imagery, latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates, and manually digitized images of maps. In a career as GIS expert, one is responsible for creating online and mobile maps.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Database Architect

If you are intrigued by the programming world and are interested in developing communications networks then a career as database architect may be a good option for you. Data architect roles and responsibilities include building design models for data communication networks. Wide Area Networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), and intranets are included in the database networks. It is expected that database architects will have in-depth knowledge of a company's business to develop a network to fulfil the requirements of the organisation. Stay tuned as we look at the larger picture and give you more information on what is db architecture, why you should pursue database architecture, what to expect from such a degree and what your job opportunities will be after graduation. Here, we will be discussing how to become a data architect. Students can visit NIT Trichy , IIT Kharagpur , JMI New Delhi . 

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive. 

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Product manager.

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.  

Operations Manager

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Stock Analyst

Individuals who opt for a career as a stock analyst examine the company's investments makes decisions and keep track of financial securities. The nature of such investments will differ from one business to the next. Individuals in the stock analyst career use data mining to forecast a company's profits and revenues, advise clients on whether to buy or sell, participate in seminars, and discussing financial matters with executives and evaluate annual reports.

A Researcher is a professional who is responsible for collecting data and information by reviewing the literature and conducting experiments and surveys. He or she uses various methodological processes to provide accurate data and information that is utilised by academicians and other industry professionals. Here, we will discuss what is a researcher, the researcher's salary, types of researchers.

Welding Engineer

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues. 

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems. 

Safety Manager

A Safety Manager is a professional responsible for employee’s safety at work. He or she plans, implements and oversees the company’s employee safety. A Safety Manager ensures compliance and adherence to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) guidelines.

Conservation Architect

A Conservation Architect is a professional responsible for conserving and restoring buildings or monuments having a historic value. He or she applies techniques to document and stabilise the object’s state without any further damage. A Conservation Architect restores the monuments and heritage buildings to bring them back to their original state.

Structural Engineer

A Structural Engineer designs buildings, bridges, and other related structures. He or she analyzes the structures and makes sure the structures are strong enough to be used by the people. A career as a Structural Engineer requires working in the construction process. It comes under the civil engineering discipline. A Structure Engineer creates structural models with the help of computer-aided design software. 

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description:  A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Field Surveyor

Are you searching for a Field Surveyor Job Description? A Field Surveyor is a professional responsible for conducting field surveys for various places or geographical conditions. He or she collects the required data and information as per the instructions given by senior officials. 

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Pathologist

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Veterinary Doctor

Speech therapist, gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth. 

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Are you searching for an ‘Anatomist job description’? An Anatomist is a research professional who applies the laws of biological science to determine the ability of bodies of various living organisms including animals and humans to regenerate the damaged or destroyed organs. If you want to know what does an anatomist do, then read the entire article, where we will answer all your questions.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs. 

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Photographer

Photography is considered both a science and an art, an artistic means of expression in which the camera replaces the pen. In a career as a photographer, an individual is hired to capture the moments of public and private events, such as press conferences or weddings, or may also work inside a studio, where people go to get their picture clicked. Photography is divided into many streams each generating numerous career opportunities in photography. With the boom in advertising, media, and the fashion industry, photography has emerged as a lucrative and thrilling career option for many Indian youths.

An individual who is pursuing a career as a producer is responsible for managing the business aspects of production. They are involved in each aspect of production from its inception to deception. Famous movie producers review the script, recommend changes and visualise the story. 

They are responsible for overseeing the finance involved in the project and distributing the film for broadcasting on various platforms. A career as a producer is quite fulfilling as well as exhaustive in terms of playing different roles in order for a production to be successful. Famous movie producers are responsible for hiring creative and technical personnel on contract basis.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook. 

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion. 

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article. 

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Individuals who opt for a career as a reporter may often be at work on national holidays and festivities. He or she pitches various story ideas and covers news stories in risky situations. Students can pursue a BMC (Bachelor of Mass Communication) , B.M.M. (Bachelor of Mass Media) , or  MAJMC (MA in Journalism and Mass Communication) to become a reporter. While we sit at home reporters travel to locations to collect information that carries a news value.  

Corporate Executive

Are you searching for a Corporate Executive job description? A Corporate Executive role comes with administrative duties. He or she provides support to the leadership of the organisation. A Corporate Executive fulfils the business purpose and ensures its financial stability. In this article, we are going to discuss how to become corporate executive.

Multimedia Specialist

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications. 

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product. 

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans. 

Process Development Engineer

The Process Development Engineers design, implement, manufacture, mine, and other production systems using technical knowledge and expertise in the industry. They use computer modeling software to test technologies and machinery. An individual who is opting career as Process Development Engineer is responsible for developing cost-effective and efficient processes. They also monitor the production process and ensure it functions smoothly and efficiently.

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party. 

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems. 

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

Information Security Manager

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack 

ITSM Manager

Automation test engineer.

An Automation Test Engineer job involves executing automated test scripts. He or she identifies the project’s problems and troubleshoots them. The role involves documenting the defect using management tools. He or she works with the application team in order to resolve any issues arising during the testing process. 

Applications for Admissions are open.

SAT® | CollegeBoard

Registeration closing on 19th Apr for SAT® | One Test-Many Universities | 90% discount on registrations fee | Free Practice | Multiple Attempts | no penalty for guessing

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Thinking of Studying Abroad? Think the TOEFL® test. Register now & Save 10% on English Proficiency Tests with Gift Cards

GRE ® Registrations 2024

Apply for GRE® Test now & save 10% with gift card | World's most used Admission Test for Graduate & Professional Schools

PTE Exam 2024 Registrations

Register now for PTE & Save 5% on English Proficiency Tests with Gift Cards

GMAT™ Exam-Focus Edition

Register for GMAT™ Exam- Focus Edition| Shortest GMAT ever | Valid for 5 Years | Multiple attempts | Wide Acceptance

Explore Universities, Courses & Subjects | Work while study

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Explore on Careers360

• Explore Top Study Abroad Exams
• Study Destinations and Visa
• TOEFL Syllabus
• TOEFL Exam Pattern
• TOEFL Eligibility
• TOEFL Registration
• TOEFL Result
• LSAT Eligibility
• LSAT Scores
• LSAT Test Dates
• LSAT Test Centres
• LSAT Eligibility Criteria
• LSAT Sample Papers
• LSAT Exam Pattern
• LSAT Preparation Tips
• LSAT Syllabus
• LSAT Selection Process
• IELTS Application Form
• IELTS Cut Off
• IELTS Eligibility Criteria
• IELTS Preparation Books And Study Materials
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• IELTS Sample Paper
• IELTS Selection Procedure
• IELTS Syllabus
• IELTS Test Dates
• IELTS Test Pattern
• GRE Test Syllabus
• GRE Sample Paper
• GRE Eligibility Criteria
• GRE Registration
• GRE Test Pattern
• GRE Test Dates
• GRE Test Centres
• GRE Preparation Tips
• GRE Selection Procedure
• SAT Preparation Tips
• SAT Syllabus
• SAT Test Centres
• SAT Exam Pattern
• SAT Test Eligibility
• SAT Registration
• SAT Exam Dates
• SAT Sample Papers
• USMLE Exam Dates
• USMLE Test Centres
• USMLE Scores
• USMLE Application Form
• USMLE Eligibility Criteria
• ACT Test Dates
• ACT Registration
• ACT Eligibility Criteria
• ACT Exam Pattern
• ACT Test Centres
• MCAT Test Dates
• MCAT Exam Pattern
• MCAT Syllabus
• MCAT Registration
• MCAT Eligibility
• MCAT Scores
• GMAT Test Dates
• GMAT Exam Pattern
• GMAT Syllabus
• GMAT Registration
• GMAT Eligibility
• GMAT Scores

Popular Study Abroad Countries

• Study in Singapore
• Student Visa For Canada
• Student Visa For UK
• Student Visa For USA
• Student Visa For Australia
• Germany Student Visa
• New Zealand Student Visa
• Student Visa For Ireland

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

Graduate School Letter of Recommendation Examples 2022-2023

Grad school recommendation letters are an essential part of every graduate school application package–even in this (almost) post-COVID era of remote work and Zoom classes. Nearly all applications to graduate school still require at least two recommendation letters from individuals who can discuss your abilities, competencies, and personal character in a coherent way and recommend you for admission to graduate school.

Many referees have difficulty writing these recommendations themselves (for language issues or simply because they are busy) and some rely on the applicant to pen the draft of the letter and receive confirmation before submitting it to the graduate school. But regardless of who is writing the letter, there are a few key elements the recommender needs to include to craft a stellar recommendation for their graduate candidate.

Who should write a recommendation letter for graduate school?

Choosing which professors, supervisors, or advisors to request a graduate school recommendation letter from can be somewhat overwhelming. Should you choose someone who does not know you personally but who has connections to your target graduate school? If a famous professor writes you a grad school recommendation letter, will this automatically give you an advantage with the admissions committee? 

In general, graduate recommendation letters should come from people who know you well, who respect you enough to say glowing things about you as a student and researcher, and who hold positions in school or work that are above your own. At least one letter of recommendation should be submitted from a past or current professor or academic advisor. 

Another could be from someone in a slightly different role, including an employer, a research adviser, a senior colleague, or a professor from a different department or kind of class (e.g., a discussion class professor instead of a lecturer). No matter who it is, the recommender should know the applicant and recognize their accomplishments. It also helps if the recommender understands some details about the program to which their candidate is applying.

Here are some guidelines to follow when choosing who to ask for letters of recommendation for graduate school. Select someone who:

• Knows you well and can answer positively. Choose an individual who you have spent time with outside the classroom if possible. They should also be familiar with your career goals and hold a favorable view of you. 
• Has known you for quite a while. A recommendation letter for graduate school carries more influence if the person has known you for months or years instead of months. If you can, find someone who knows you from various contexts, such as a professor who is also your advisor. 
• Can speak to your strengths in relation to your graduate program. Choosing a finance professor to write your recommendation letter for an MBA program would be a good idea because they can write about the qualities that will aid you in pursuing an MBA (qualities you can also include in your MBA essay ) and a broader career in business. 
• Has substantive stories to share about you. Who was fortunate enough to see you succeed in an academic, extracurricular, or professional setting? Having someone write your LOR who has good stories to share about you is certainly going to benefit you more than someone whose class you took with two hundred other students. 

How to Request a Letter of Recommendation for Graduate School

Knowing how to request a letter of recommendation for graduate school can directly impact the quality of the letter your referee writes for you. Show respect and consideration for the time that your recommender is taking to write a glowing review that will get you into graduate school and positively impact the rest of your life. 

With this in mind, it may seem obvious that the very best way to ask for a letter of recommendation for graduate school is to do so in person. While this isn’t possible for all students (due to availability or schedule), it is the best route if you want to ensure that your LOR is not only written on time, but includes all the positive information about you that admissions committees want to see in a graduate candidate. When you cannot ask in person, sending an email is an appropriate second-best option. But remember to always be cordial and polite when making this request. 

What information should be included in a graduate recommendation letter?

Your referral letter should cover a range of skills, from academic abilities to research experiences, to applied experiences in and out of class. As the recommender, your letter should clearly answer some specific questions:

Your letter of recommendation should cover a range of skills, from academic abilities to research experiences, to applied experiences in and out of class. As the recommender, your letter should clearly answer some specific questions:

• What is your relationship with the student?
• Why should the graduate faculty listen to your opinion? (include your status, title)
• What makes this student special? (discuss their characteristics, qualities, traits)
• What specifically did this student do to impress you? (discuss their accomplishments, habits in class)
• What makes this student qualified for graduate school and for this program? (include specific courses or interests of the student in addition to abilities and traits)
• What do you know about the program the student is applying to?

What information does the LOR recommender need from me?

The recommender should be given sufficient time to write (and/or confirm) the letter. If it has been a while since you were last in contact, sending a background information file will make things easier. Include the following information so that the recommender can use a few details to bolster their letter:

• Classes the student has taken with the recommender
• Experiences you have shared
• Transcripts
• Research experience and internships
• Awards and achievements
• Academic/career goals
• Relevant professional experience

In addition to background information, make sure that the recommender has the necessary information to plan the writing in a timely manner and target the letter as much as possible:

• Graduate program application due date
• Copy of recommendation forms (if applicable)
• Instructions for submitting LORs (hard copy, soft copy, or direct to school)
• Details about the program and school the student is applying to

What style of writing should be used in a recommendation letter?

Although the letter of recommendation is more informal than academic writing, you should make sure that your language has no grammatical or mechanics errors and that it is of an academic level that reflects the author’s educational level and qualifications. Apply the following standards to the writing and the essay-drafting process:

• Make your language more personal in tone than research writing.
• Use the active voice and first-person point of view more often.
• Write chronologically, starting from important traits and then moving on to actions and achievements.
• Use lots of details—list course names, scores, and specific achievements of the student.
• Edit your letter before submitting it to the graduate admissions faculty.

How to Write a Grad School Letter of Recommendation Letter: LOR Outline

A well-structured recommendation letter (like any organized essay) will guide the reader logically towards an understanding of why this student is worthy not only of praise but of admission to graduate school. Grad school requires quite a few high-level scholastic attributes that not all students possess, and therefore it is important to focus on both the achievements of the candidate and on their personal character and potential to thrive in a difficult academic environment.

Use this outline as a letter of recommendation template in which to input your candidate’s achievements, skills, and traits. Note that the flow of information moves the reader into greater detail, using form phrases and transitions that increase the readability of the letter.

1. Greeting to the recipient

Dear {Name}, or To Whom It May Concern, To the graduate faculty of the {University / Department}

2. Opening paragraph: position; relationship to the applicant; general assessment of the applicant

It is my absolute pleasure to recommend {Name} for admissions to {Program} at {University}… I am a professor of {area of study} in the department of {department} at {University}.

3. Second paragraph: positive skill or trait; evidence of trait or skill; anecdotes demonstrating this skill

Jane has excellent communication skills. Her written work is both clear and concise, as well as interesting to read…

4. Third (up to fifth) paragraph: Other skills or traits; evidence of character and skills; detailed anecdotes

At a personal level, Jane is a well-disciplined, industrious student with a pleasant personality. She went well beyond the course expectations…

5. Final Paragraph: clear recommendation of the candidate to the specific school or program.

Jane is unquestionably an exceptional candidate for graduate study in {Program Applying for}. Jane’s work in “Developments in Anthropology” suggests that she would greatly benefit from the opportunities for intellectual development provided by a sustained period of graduate study…

6. Closing line: polite offer to be contacted if needed

If I can be of any further assistance, or provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Letter of Recommendation Template and Useful Phrases

Admission essays often contain template phrases or “form phrases” that allow the writer to plug in their specific information while not spending too much time deciding how to compose every single aspect of the writing. This can be especially useful for ESL authors because conventional expressions used in academic and essay writing can be difficult to learn and memorize. Use the following form phrases to help craft a more professional letter of recommendation.

Introducing yourself

• My name is  {Author}  and I have been a Professor of Math at  {University}  since  {date} .
• I write to you today to proudly express my support for  {Student}  in applying to your prestigious university.

Discussing your relationship with the applicant

• I first came to know  {Student}  while teaching him/her in my  {Course Name}  course…
• I was  {Student} ’s thesis advisor during his/her senior year.
• I have known  {Student}  for several years now and can attest to his/her strengths and quality of character.

Discussing the student’s general positive traits

• {Student}  has excellent communication skills and displays them regularly in class discussions.
• He/She is a highly intelligent and competent student who excels in many areas.
• Not only is  {Student}  hard-working and thoughtful, but he/she also demonstrates kindness and generosity towards his/her peers.

Demonstrating evidence of student’s character and skills

• She/he has shown herself/himself to be a true leader who is able to successfully develop plans and implement them in his/her work.
• {Student}  demonstrated his/her independence daily, completing difficult lab exercises by researching outside of class.
• During his/her internship,  {Student}  consistently managed his/her work responsibilities diligently and learned quickly. For example…

Discussing the school/program the student is applying to

• As  {University}  is renowned for its  {Program} , I believe this is an ideal place for  {Student}  to solidify his/her abilities and cement his/her knowledge of  {area of study} .
• The learning environment that  {University}  is famous for creating excellent opportunities in which  {Student}  to apply his/her skills.

Final endorsement and offer to be contacted

• For the above reasons, I am confident that  {Student}  will make an excellent addition to your graduate program, and I wholeheartedly support him/her for admission to your program.
• Thank you for your time and attention in reading my endorsement.

Further Tips for Writing Admissions Essays

• Highlight your self-motivation, competence, and potential in this essay
• Emphasize everything from a positive perspective and write in the active voice.
• Demonstrate through examples; don’t just write that you are a “persistent person”—show it!
• Approach every topic with continuity and focus.

The Final Step: Editing Your Recommendation Letter

As any good writer knows, it takes more than one draft to create a strong and compelling work of writing. After you have written your recommendation letter draft, there is still a lot of room for revision. One way to ensure that grammar mistakes and style errors do not get in the way of a strong letter is to let the admissions experts at Wordvice’s Admissions Editing Services edit and proofread your (of your candidate’s) letter of recommendation or other application essays, raising the chances that your candidate will be admitted to the program of their choice.

With a full suite of professional proofreading services , we edit thousands of admission documents each year for all kinds of authors of academic and admissions documents just like you. Furthermore, our application essay editing services , recommendation letter editing services , personal statement editing services , CV editing services , cover letter editing services , and SOP editing services are tailored to the needs of your specific admissions essay.

For more articles on writing and editing your essays and academic work, visit Wordvice’s Academic Resource page . 

How to Write a Letter of Recommendation for Graduate School

When someone asks you to write a graduate school letter of recommendation , it demonstrates that they value your opinion, trust you and believe in your writing skills.

But as flattering as it is to be asked, there is also some pressure associated with crafting an effective and convincing letter of recommendation. After all, the applicant is counting on you to influence the admissions board and highlight their accomplishments, strengths and skill sets.

The good news is, writing a graduate school letter of recommendation is more intuitive than you think. Below, we’ve rounded up all the tips you need to write the perfect letter for anyone in your sphere.

What Is a Letter of Recommendation?

First off, let’s go over what a letter of recommendation is.

A letter of recommendation is a brief, written endorsement needed for certain jobs, programs or schools that details a person’s qualifications for whatever they’re applying for.

It’s written by a trusted and valued source: usually a past employer, teacher, mentor or colleague. In a letter of recommendation for graduate school, the writer describes the person’s skills, their personality and why they’re the right fit for the program. This is all so the institution has confirmation of the applicant’s ability to succeed in the program.

If you don’t believe you’re the right fit to write a student’s recommendation, that’s OK, too. You can politely decline and explain to the student why. You can also offer to help them find someone else who’s a more appropriate choice.

Questions to Ask Yourself Before Writing a Letter of Recommendation for Grad School

Once you’ve decided to accept and write the letter of recommendation, take a moment to consider some key questions before you begin crafting your statement.

• What is your relationship like with this person?
• What do you think of their work you’ve seen? How would you describe it?
• What are significant memories you have with them?
• What qualities or strengths does this person have?
• What would you specifically want somebody to know about this person?
• What value would this person bring to this grad school program, and how would they thrive in the field after the program?

What to Ask From Someone Before Writing a Letter of Recommendation

Of course, there is some student information you’ll want to obtain before starting your recommendation. To ensure you’re addressing all the right points and representing them in the best light possible, make sure you ask them the below questions.

The basics . First off, you should find out where this letter is going, to whom it should be addressed, what the deadlines are and how they’d like you to submit it (mail, email, etc.).

Why they want to go to this program and why they are drawn to this school . It’s important to know the motivation behind their graduate school studies: Is it for the love of learning? To get a better job? To switch fields altogether? This will help inform what you write in the letter. Similarly, it’s good to know why a specific school is calling them as well.

Any strengths or qualities they want highlighted . Each person will have different qualities they want you to discuss in their letter of recommendation. If the strengths they mention are ones you agree with and seem relevant to the degree program, definitely include them. You should also ask about what achievements they’ve made that will help them stand out from the crowd of applicants.

Their resume . No one can memorize a person’s entire job and education history. A resume can help remind you of special projects and exemplary work they’ve accomplished in the past, which you can then emphasize in your letter.

What to Include in a Letter of Recommendation for Grad School

There are specific things you should always include in a letter of recommendation for graduate school to make it shine and improve the applicant’s chances of admission.

These are the points that you must undoubtedly touch on throughout your recommendation:

How do you know the applicant? It’s important to describe who you are and how you know the applicant, as well as how long you’ve known them. Personal anecdotes are a must, and they boost your credibility.

Why are they a good fit for the program? Include an explanation for why you think they would specifically thrive in the program. Avoid being vague or general. Dive into why the school would be the perfect fit, and vice versa!

What are their most shining accomplishments? Describe their achievements, especially the ones you’ve personally witnessed. In addition, reference their top strengths and qualities. Again, avoid generalities and use vivid anecdotes.

Can you explain any gaps or discrepancies? A letter of recommendation is often a good time to clear up any troubling parts of the student’s resume or work history — perhaps there was an employment gap or grades dip because they were caring for a sick relative, for example. If you’re aware of any weak spots on their resume from extenuating circumstances, this is the time to note it.

What sets the applicant apart from the rest? Be sure to conclude on a strong note with a very clear, concise recommendation. Highlight what sets them apart from other people, so the program can clearly understand why they should admit this candidate into their college or university.

How to Format and Structure a Graduate School Letter of Recommendation

As for structure, letters of recommendation should not be longer than a page. Start off with a greeting (“Dear [Name]” or “To Whom It May Concern,” if you don’t know the recipient). In the opening paragraph, explain who you are, the nature of your relationship with the student and your overall impression of them.

Within the body of the letter, you can expand on their personality, skills and achievements — along with personal anecdotes — before wrapping up with a final strong and clear recommendation for the applicant.

Then, feel free to add in a polite offer to contact you if they need more information and a formal parting signature. Double-check for spelling and grammar, too, as any mistake could weaken your credibility.

Once you’ve proofread the letter, all you have to do is submit it as instructed and patiently wait for an update from the applicant. Best of luck!

For more information, explore  USC Online ’s master’s degrees, doctoral programs and graduate certificates.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 20 July 2020

Writing the perfect recommendation letter

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Undergraduates need them for graduate-school applications; PhD students and postdocs use them to apply for fellowships and jobs; senior scientists often have to have them to apply for awards and promotions. But writing an effective and personal recommendation letter can be time-consuming, especially for academics who must juggle grant applications, manuscripts, teaching and student supervision. And some might struggle to say the right things to support a former employee or student in their career move, while sounding original and unique.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 584 , 158 (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02186-8

These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Related Articles

• Research management

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Ready or not, AI is coming to science education — and students have opinions

Career Feature 08 APR 24

After the genocide: what scientists are learning from Rwanda

News Feature 05 APR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Correspondence 02 APR 24

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Postdoctoral Associate- Comparative Medicine

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Group Leader at Católica Biomedical Research Centre and Assistant or Associate Professor at Católica

Group Leader + Assistant/Associate Professor, tenure-track position in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Data Science, Engineering, related fields.

Portugal (PT)

Católica Biomedical Research Centre

Faculty Positions at SUSTech Department of Biomedical Engineering

We seek outstanding applicants for full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty positions. Positions are available for both junior and senior-level.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology (Biomedical Engineering)

Locum Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Cancer

To help us to build on the success of Nature Cancer we are seeking a motivated scientist with a strong background in any area of cancer research.

Berlin, Heidelberg or London - Hybrid working model

Springer Nature Ltd

Postdoctoral Research Fellows at Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

ISM, based on this program, is implementing the reserve talent strategy with postdoctoral researchers.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Applying to graduate school

How (and Who) to Ask For a Letter of Recommendation

Published on October 30, 2020 by Lauren Thomas . Revised on June 1, 2023.

Letters of recommendation often make or break a graduate school application . It’s important to think carefully about who to ask and how to do it.

Ideally, you should approach former supervisors who know you and your work well, and can advise you. Different programs require different types of recommendation letters, but the process of requesting them is similar.

Follow these five steps to guarantee a great recommendation, including program-specific tips and email examples.

Table of contents

Step 1: choose who to ask, step 2: reach out and request a meeting, step 3: ask for a letter of recommendation, step 4: share your resume and other materials, step 5: remind your recommenders of upcoming deadlines, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about recommendation letters.

Your first step is to decide who you’ll ask to write a letter for you. Ideally, this should be someone who you worked with outside of just the classroom context—for example, a former professor who supervised your research.

It’s important to ask someone who knows you well, even if they are less well known than other professors at your institution. Graduate admissions committees want to get a good sense of your ability to perform well in their program, and this is difficult to accomplish if your recommender only knows you as a face in the crowd.

Who you should ask also strongly depends on the type of program that you’re applying to. Different programs prefer different qualities in their admitted students, and thus weigh types of recommenders differently. Take a look at the program-specific tips below.

For research programs (MPhil, DPhil, PhD , Research Master’s), graduate admissions committees are looking for evidence of your potential as a future researcher.

Since this is tricky to assess from test scores and transcripts, letters of recommendation are often the most important part of a graduate research program application.

Your letter should thus be from someone who can speak to your skills as a researcher. This could be, for example, a professor who supervised you on an independent research project, or the head of a lab that you worked in as an undergraduate.

If you worked as a full-time research or lab assistant after undergrad, ask your managers, who are usually full-time researchers themselves and therefore experts on what makes a good researcher.

Unlike most graduate programs, business schools are less interested in your undergraduate academic performance. Instead, they try to assess your potential to succeed in the workplace, particularly in managerial or leadership positions. The same applies to public policy and other professional programs.

Ideally, your letters of recommendation should come from current supervisors at your work. If this isn’t possible, you should ask coworkers who are senior to you and know your work well.

Although business schools normally prefer candidates with several years of experience, current undergraduates sometimes apply as well. In this case, you should ask internship supervisors or—as a last resort—professors who know you well.

Medical schools look for evidence that you are academically prepared for the study of medicine and that your character is well-suited to becoming a doctor. Admissions committees in medicine prefer academic references, but they also require a few extra steps.

Firstly, while graduate programs usually require two or three recommendation letters, medical schools often ask for more—you may have to submit up to six letters, some of which should be from former professors in the natural sciences.

In addition, many schools recommend that you submit a letter from the premedical advisory committee at your undergraduate institution, which summarizes your overall suitability for medical school. Be aware that deadlines for materials for these letters are very early—often the spring of the year before you are due to start medical school.

Finally, if you’ve worked on any research projects, you should submit a letter from your supervisor. Medical schools view research competence as a plus.

Law school letters of recommendation should mostly be from former professors or other academic supervisors.

You should only use non-academic recommenders if they can directly speak to your suitability to study law—for example, if you regularly work with lawyers, or if your job involves skills like critical reading or research that are relevant to legal practice.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

The next step is to get in contact with your potential recommender. If you haven’t talked to them in a while, begin your email with a quick reminder to jog their memory. Be friendly, direct, and concise.

If possible, it’s best to plan a meeting to discuss your request. However, if this isn’t practical (for example, if you’ve moved far away from your undergrad institution), you can skip this step and head straight to the third.

Hi Professor Smith!

I hope that everything is going well with you and that you’re still enjoying teaching your seminar on the post World War II international order. I thoroughly enjoyed taking it with you last year as a junior.

I’m currently thinking about what I want to do next year, which will hopefully involve graduate work in political science, and was hoping to meet with you to discuss your thoughts on graduate school. Do you have any time over the next few weeks to meet?

Make your request during your meeting or, if necessary, via email. Let them know what sort of programs you are applying to and when the deadlines are. Make sure to give your recommenders plenty of time!

Instead of just asking for a recommendation letter, specifically ask if they can write you a strong recommendation . This allows your recommender an “out”—for example, if they don’t feel they know you well enough. A bad or even lukewarm recommendation is the kiss of death for any application, so it’s important to ensure your letters will be positive!

If they say they can’t give you a strong recommendation, don’t panic. This gives you the opportunity to ask someone else who can provide you a better recommendation.

Hi Professor Jones!

How are you? I hope everything is going well and you’re still teaching Introduction to Labor Economics to eager students!

I’ve been out of school for a year now, working as a full-time research assistant in New York City. Come this fall, I’m hoping to apply to a few programs for graduate school, mostly doctoral programs in Economics.

Since I took two economics classes with you (Introduction to Labor Economics in Spring 2018 and Industrial Organization in Fall 2019), I was hoping that you might agree to serve as a letter writer for my graduate program. I wanted to highlight my work in labor economics, since that’s what I’m hoping to study in graduate school. Also, since I loved your classes, I thought you might be a good person to ask!

The letters of recommendation would be due to each individual program’s website in December. I understand, of course, if you’re too busy this summer or if you don’t feel that you would be the best fit to write a letter. My goal is simply to paint as complete a picture as possible of my undergrad career at Western. If you’d like, we can also discuss this on the phone.

I look forward to hearing back from you!

You should send your resume or CV to your recommenders, along with any other material that might jog their memory or aid in their recommendation.

For instance, you may want to send along your statement of purpose or writing sample if one is requested in your application. Admission committees are looking for a cohesive story that the letters of recommendation, personal statement , and CV work together to tell.

You should also check whether the school provides any prompts or guidelines for recommenders. Many programs want your recommenders to comment on your potential to serve in the specific role the graduate program prepares you for. See the program-specific tips below.

Finally, you should send an email to your recommenders a few weeks before the letters are due, reminding them of the deadline and asking if there is anything else you can send them to assist in writing the letter.

If any materials are late, programs will often reject your entire application, so it is imperative that your recommenders get their letters in on time. However, you should also keep in mind that your letter writers are probably quite busy, so don’t send too many reminders!

Dear Professor Jones,

Hope the semester is going well! Thank you again for agreeing to serve as my recommender. I just wanted to send you a quick reminder that recommendations for Program X, Y, and Z are due in two weeks, on December 15. Please let me know if you need anything else from me, and thank you again!

If you want to know more about college essays , academic writing , and AI tools , make sure to check out some of our other language articles with explanations, examples, and quizzes.

College essays

• College essay examples
• College essay format
• College essay style
• College essay length
• Diversity essays
• Scholarship essays

Academic writing

• Writing process
• Avoiding repetition
• Literature review
• Conceptual framework
• Dissertation outline
• Thesis acknowledgements
• Burned or burnt
• Canceled or cancelled
• Dreamt or dreamed
• Gray or grey
• Theater vs theatre

Choose people who know your work well and can speak to your ability to succeed in the program that you are applying to.

Remember, it is far more important to choose someone who knows you well than someone well-known. You may have taken classes with more prominent professors, but if they haven’t worked closely with you, they probably can’t write you a strong letter.

This depends on the program that you are applying for. Generally, for professional programs like business and policy school, you should ask managers who can speak to your future leadership potential and ability to succeed in your chosen career path.

However, in other graduate programs, you should mostly ask your former professors or research supervisors to write your recommendation letters , unless you have worked in a job that corresponds closely with your chosen field (e.g., as a full-time research assistant).

It’s best to ask in person if possible, so first reach out and request a meeting to discuss your graduate school plans.

Let the potential recommender know which programs you’re applying to, and ask if they feel they can provide a strong letter of recommendation . A lukewarm recommendation can be the kiss of death for an application, so make sure your letter writers are enthusiastic about recommending you and your work!

Always remember to remain polite. Your recommenders are doing you a favor by taking the time to write a letter in support of your graduate school goals.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Thomas, L. (2023, June 01). How (and Who) to Ask For a Letter of Recommendation. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/graduate-school/letter-of-recommendation/

Is this article helpful?

Lauren Thomas

Other students also liked, when to apply for graduate school | month-by-month timeline, how to write your personal statement | strategies & examples, how to write a graduate school resume | template & example, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• FRONT MATTER

Sample Graduate School Recommendation Letters

The three sample recommendation letters that follow, which you can download by clicking on the link below, are effective because they detail what makes the students stand out as exceptional and because they paint individual pictures of each student. Note how these excerpts, excerpted from each of the three letters, individualize and humanize the student:

“I have been especially impressed by Janet’s determination and sparkle.” “I enthusiastically supported her application for the student position on the Mythic University Board of Trustees for the same reasons. She was the runner-up for that distinguished post, and Mythic University lost out on a true leader. But I believe her time is yet to come.” “In short, John is both scholarly and culturally entrenched, ambitious but not pretentious, self-deprecating yet confident, forthright but unassuming, delightfully irreverent yet appropriately respectful—a complex and whole human being.”

In addition, the writers of these three letters take advantage of many of the rhetorical strategies discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this manual: enhancing their own credibility, narrative technique, anecdotal evidence, recommending by citing others, and using active verbs and transitions.

Finally, a late paragraph in the last letter, at the prompting of the graduate scholarship application, even provides a few criticisms of the student. Because these criticisms are offered even-handedly and efficiently, I would argue that the letter has even more ethos, and it is noteworthy that the student still landed the desired scholarship.

• Data Science Courses in USA
• Business Analytics Courses in USA
• Engineering Courses in USA
• Tax Courses in USA
• Healthcare Courses in USA
• Language Courses in USA
• Insurance Courses in USA
• Digital Marketing Courses in USA

Top Specialization

• Masters in Data Analytics in USA
• Masters in Mechanical Engineering in USA
• Masters in Supply Chain Management in USA
• Masters in Computer Science in USA
• MBA in Finance in USA
• Masters in Architecture in USA

Top Universities

• Cornell University
• Yale University
• Princeton University
• University of California Los Angeles
• University of Harvard
• Stanford University
• Arizona State University
• Northeastern University

ACCEL PROGRAMS

• Master of Business Administration
• MS in Data Analytics
• MS in Computer Science
• Project Management Courses in Australia
• Accounting Courses in Australia
• Medical Courses in Australia
• Psychology Courses in Australia
• Interior Designing Courses in Australia
• Pharmacy Courses in Australia
• Social Work Courses in Australia
• MBA in Australia
• Masters in Education in Australia
• Masters in Pharmacy in Australia
• Masters in Information Technology in Australia
• BBA in Australia
• Masters in Teaching in Australia
• Masters in Psychology in Australia
• University of Melbourne
• Deakin University
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Monash University
• University of Sydney
• University of Queensland
• RMIT University
• Macquarie University
• Bachelor of Business Administration
• Bachelor of Computer Applications
• Data Science Courses in Canada
• Business Management Courses in Canada
• Supply Chain Management Courses in Canada
• Project Management Courses in Canada
• Business Analytics Courses in Canada
• Hotel Management Courses in Canada
• MBA in Canada
• MS in Canada
• Masters in Computer Science in Canada
• Masters in Management in Canada
• Masters in Psychology in Canada
• Masters in Education in Canada
• MBA in Finance in Canada
• Masters in Business Analytics in Canada
• University of Toronto
• University of British Columbia
• McGill University
• University of Alberta
• York University
• University of Calgary
• Algoma University
• University Canada West
• BBA in Canada, Trinity Western University
• BBA in Canada, Yorkville University
• Project Management Courses in UK
• Data Science Courses in UK
• Public Health Courses in UK
• Digital Marketing Courses in UK
• Hotel Management Courses in UK
• Nursing Courses in UK
• Medicine Courses in UK
• Interior Designing Courses in UK
• Masters in Computer Science in UK
• Masters in Psychology in UK
• MBA in Finance in UK
• MBA in Healthcare Management in UK
• Masters in Education in UK
• Masters in Marketing in UK
• MBA in HR in UK
• University of Oxford
• University of Cambridge
• Coventry University
• University of East London
• University of Hertfordshire
• University of Birmingham
• Imperial College London
• University of Glasgow
• MBA with Work Placement
• MSc Data Science with Work Placement

Top Resources

• Universities in Germany
• Masters in Germany
• Courses in Germany
• Bachelors in Germany
• Germany Job Seeker Visa
• Cost of Living in Germany
• Best Universities in Germany

Top Courses

• Masters in Data Science in Germany
• MS in Computer Science in Germany
• Marine Engineering in Germany
• MS Courses in Germany
• Masters in Psychology in Germany
• Hotel Management Courses in Germany
• Masters in Economics in Germany
• Paramedical Courses in Germany
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
• University of Bonn
• University of Freiburg
• University of Hamburg
• University of Stuttgart
• Saarland University
• Mannheim University
• Master of Business Administration (90 ECTS)
• MS Data Science 60 ECTS
• Master in Computer Science (120 ECTS)
• MBA in Ireland
• Phd in Ireland
• Masters in Computer Science Ireland
• Cyber Security in Ireland
• Masters in Data Analytics Ireland
• Ms in Data Science in Ireland
• Pharmacy courses in ireland
• Business Analytics Course in Ireland
• Universities in Ireland
• Masters in Ireland
• Courses in Ireland
• Bachelors in Ireland
• Cost of Living in Ireland
• Ireland Student Visa
• Part Time Jobs in Ireland
• Trinity College Dublin
• University College Dublin
• Dublin City University
• University of Limerick
• Dublin Business School
• Maynooth University
• University College Cork
• National College of Ireland
• Masters in France
• Phd in France
• Study Medicine in France
• Best Universities in Frankfurt
• Best Architecture Colleges in France
• ESIGELEC France
• Study in France for Indian Students
• Intakes in France
• SOP for France Visa
• Study in France from India
• Reasons to Study in France
• How to Settle in France

More About France

• Cost of Living in France
• France Study Visa
• Cost of Living in Frankfurt
• France Scholarship for Indian Students
• Part Time Jobs in France
• Stay Back in France After Masters

About Finland

• Universities in Finland
• Study in Finland
• Courses in Finland
• Bachelor Courses in Finland
• Masters Courses in Finland
• Cost of Living in Finland
• MS in Finland
• Average Fees in Finland Universities
• PhD in Finland
• MBA Leading Business Transformation
• MBA Business Technologies
• Bachelor Degree in Medicine & Surgery
• MBBS Courses in Georgia
• MBBS Courses in Russia
• Alte University
• Caucasus University
• Georgian National University SEU
• David Tvildiani Medical University
• Caspian International School Of Medicine
• Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University
• Kyrgyz State Medical Academy
• Cremeia Federal University
• Bashkir State Medical University
• Kursk State Medical University
• Andijan State Medical Institute
• IELTS Prepration
• IELTS Eligibility
• IELTS Test Format
• IELTS Band Descriptors
• IELTS Speaking test
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS score validity
• IELTS Cue Card

IELTS Reading Answers Sample

• Animal Camouflage
• Types Of Societies
• Australia Convict Colonies
• A Spark A Flint
• Emigration To The Us
• The History Of Salt
• Zoo Conservation Programmes
• The Robots Are Coming
• The Development Of Plastic

IELTS Speaking Cue Card Sample

• Describe A Puzzle You Have Played
• Describe A Long Walk You Ever Had
• Describe Your Favourite Movie
• Describe A Difficult Thing You did
• Describe A Businessman You Admire
• Memorable Day in My Life
• Describe Your Dream House
• Describe A Bag You Want to Own
• Describe a Famous Athlete You Know
• Aquatic Animal

IELTS Essay Sample Sample

• Best Education System
• IELTS Opinion Essay
• Agree or Disagree Essay
• Problem Solution Essays
• Essay on Space Exploration
• Essay On Historical Places
• Essay Writing Samples
• Tourism Essay
• Global Warming Essay
• GRE Exam Fees
• GRE Exam Syllabus
• GRE Exam Eligibility
• Sections in GRE Exam
• GRE Exam Benefits
• GRE Exam Results
• GRE Cutoff for US Universities
• GRE Preparation
• Send GRE scores to Universities

GRE Exam Study Material

• GRE Verbal Preparation
• GRE Study Material
• GRE AWA Essays
• GRE Sample Issue Essays
• Stanford University GRE Cutoff
• Harvard University GRE Cutoff
• GRE Quantitative Reasoning
• GRE Verbal Reasoning
• GRE Reading Comprehension
• Prepare for GRE in 2 months

Other Resources

• Documents Required For Gre Exam
• GRE Exam Duration
• GRE at Home
• GRE vs GMAT
• Improve GRE Verbal Scores

Free GRE Ebooks

• GRE Preparation Guide (Free PDF)
• GRE Syllabus (Free PDF)
• GMAT Exam Dates
• GMAT Exam Fees
• GMAT Sections
• GMAT Purpose

GMAT Exam Study Material

• How to prepare for GMAT?
• GMAT Score Validity
• GMAT Preparation Books
• GMAT Preparation
• GMAT Exam Duration
• GMAT Score for Harvard
• GMAT Reading Comprehension
• GMAT Retake Strategy

Free GMAT Ebooks

• GMAT Guide PDF
• Download GMAT Syllabus PDF
• TOEFL Exam Registration
• TOEFL Exam Eligibility
• TOEFL Exam Preparation
• TOEFL Exam Tips
• TOEFL Exam Dates
• Documents for TOEFL Exam
• TOEFL Exam Fee

TOEFL Exam Study Material

• TOEFL Preparation Books
• TOEFL Speaking Section
• TOEFL Score and Results
• TOEFL Writing Section
• TOEFL Reading Section
• TOEFL Listening Section
• TOEFL Vocabulary
• Types of Essays in TOEFL

Free TOEFL Ebooks

• TOEFL Exam Guide (Free PDF)
• PTE Exam Dates
• PTE Exam Syllabus
• PTE Exam Eligibility Criteria
• PTE Test Centers in India
• PTE Exam Pattern
• PTE Exam Fees
• PTE Exam Duration
• PTE Exam Registration

PTE Exam Study Material

• PTE Exam Preparation
• PTE Speaking Test
• PTE Reading Test
• PTE Listening Test
• PTE Writing Test
• PTE Essay Writing
• PTE exam for Australia

Free PTE Ebooks

• PTE Syllabus (Free PDF)
• Duolingo Exam
• Duolingo Test Eligibility
• Duolingo Exam Pattern
• Duolingo Exam Fees
• Duolingo Test Validity
• Duolingo Syllabus
• Duolingo Preparation

Duolingo Exam Study Material

• Duolingo Exam Dates
• Duolingo Test Score
• Duolingo Test Results
• Duolingo Test Booking

Free Duolingo Ebooks

• Duolingo Guide (Free PDF)
• Duolingo Test Pattern (Free PDF)

NEET & MCAT Exam

• NEET Study Material
• NEET Preparation
• MCAT Preparation

SAT & ACT Exam

• ACT Eligibility
• ACT Exam Dates
• SAT Exam Eligibility

USMLE & OET Exam

• USMLE Syllabus
• USMLE Preparation
• USMLE Step 1
• OET Syllabus
• OET Eligibility
• OET Prepration

PLAB & LSAT Exam

• PLAB Exam Syllabus
• PLAB Exam Fees
• LSAT Registration
• TOEIC Result
• Study Guide

Application Process

• LOR for Masters
• SOP Samples for MS
• LOR for Phd
• SOP for Internship
• SOP for Phd
• Check Visa Status
• Motivation Letter Format
• Motivation Letter for Internship
• F1 Visa Documents Checklist

Career Prospects

• Popular Courses after Bcom in Abroad
• Part Time Jobs in Australia
• Part Time Jobs in USA
• Salary after MS in Germany
• Salary after MBA in Canada
• Average Salary in Singapore
• Higher Studies after MBA in Abroad
• Study in Canada after 12th

Trending Topics

• Best Education System in World
• Best Flying Schools in World
• Top Free Education Countries
• Best Countries to Migrate from India
• 1 Year PG Diploma Courses in Canada
• Canada Vs India
• Germany Post Study Work Visa
• Post Study Visa in USA
• Data Science Vs Data Analytics
• Public Vs Private Universities in Germany
• Universities Vs Colleges
• Difference Between GPA and CGPA
• Undergraduate Vs Graduate
• MBA in UK Vs MBA in USA
• Degree Vs Diploma in Canada
• IELTS vs TOEFL
• Duolingo English Test vs. IELTS
• Why Study in Canada
• Cost of Living in Canada
• Education System in Canada
• SOP for Canada
• Summer Intake in Canada
• Spring Intake in Canada
• Winter Intake in Canada
• Accommodation in Canada for Students
• Average Salary in Canada
• Fully Funded Scholarships in Canada
• Why Study in USA
• Cost of Studying in USA
• Spring Intake in USA
• Winter Intake in USA
• Summer Intake in USA
• STEM Courses in USA
• Scholarships for MS in USA
• Acceptable Study Gap in USA
• Interesting Facts about USA
• Free USA course
• Why Study in UK
• Cost of Living in UK
• Cost of Studying in UK
• Education System in UK
• Summer Intake in UK
• Spring Intake in UK
• Student Visa for UK
• Accommodation in UK for Students
• Scholarships in UK
• Why Study in Germany
• Cost of Studying in Germany
• Education System in Germany
• SOP for Germany
• Summer Intake in Germany
• Winter Intake in Germany
• Study Visa for Germany
• Accommodation in Germany for Students
• Free Education in Germany

Country Guides

• SOP Samples for Canada Student Visa
• US F1 Visa Guide for Aspirants

Exams Guides

• Duolingo Test Pattern

Recommended Reads

• Fully Funded Masters Guide
• SOP Samples For Australia
• Scholarships for Canada
• Data Science Guide
• SOP for MS in Computer Science
• Study Abroad Exams
• Alumni Connect
• Booster Program

GPA CALCULATOR Convert percentage marks to GPA effortlessly with our calculator!

Expense calculator plan your study abroad expenses with our comprehensive calculator, ielts band calculator estimate your ielts band score with our accurate calculator, education loan calculator discover your eligible loan amount limit with our education calculator, university partner explore growth and opportunities with our university partnership, accommodation discover your perfect study abroad accommodation here, experience-center discover our offline centers for a personalized experience, our offices visit us for expert study abroad counseling..

• 18002102030
• Study Abroad

Letter Of Recommendation for PhD: Sample, Format & How to Write

Updated on 29 january, 2024.

Anupriya Mukherjee

Sr. content writer.

A letter of recommendation or LOR for a PhD is an important document required for admission into PhD programs at foreign institutions if you are planning to study abroad . While scores, transcripts, and other vital documents are mostly factual, the LOR is an independent objective analysis of applicants. PhD courses usually require two to three recommendations. These provide committees with an overview of the applicant’s core strengths, skills, and accomplishments.

Table of Contents

Lor for phd : guidelines:.

• Academic LOR:
• Professional LOR:

Introduction:

Conclusion:, popular guides to simplify your study abroad journey, sample lor for phd:, important tips to write lor for phd, download country guides (free pdfs).

The vital part of writing a LOR is choosing the right recommender. For a PhD SOP, the recommender should be someone who can endorse your candidature and provide an unbiased application essay. Since all the other documents are self-prepared, they are likely to be biased. LOR provides an external perspective, which entirely depends on your recommender. It is unique because it is your assessment from an external viewpoint. Your recommender for PhD should be someone who can be described as follows:

• One who has a good rapport.
• Who understands your personality, achievements, and capabilities.
• With whom you have shared your academic and professional experiences and journey 
• Who is aware of your current research ideas
• Who supports your research ideas.

Types of LOR for PhD

International universities offering PhD require two to three LORs depending on your academic and professional experience. Two academic LORs are needed, and one professional LOR is required if you have work experience. Basically, the LOR for PhD is classified into two categories:

Academic LOR: 

Academic letter of recommendation is provided by the professor of your educational institution. Most commonly, you are asked to provide two academic LORs for PhD in an international university. In such LORs, professors need to highlight the applicant’s capabilities and achievements. It should reflect the recommender’s perspective about you and your research ideas.

Professional LOR: 

The applicant’s professional letter of recommendation is asked if they have any work experience. Only one professional LOR is needed in that case. It is provided by your immediate supervisor or employer. It should reflect the recommender’s perspective on your professional ability to work within a team.

How to write a LOR for PhD?

When your recommender is willing to write your LOR for PhD, you should share your research ideas, achievements, capabilities, objectives, and relevant information. The format of the LOR should consist of the answers to several questions related to your suitability for a PhD. The LOR, whether academic or professional, written by your recommender should sound realistic and authentic. The standard LOR format for PhD should have the following details:

This part of the LOR should include the details regarding the recommender. It is a brief introduction of the recommender with their current designation and professional experience mentioned in the LOR. They also need to mention their relationship and duration of association with the applicant. The details of the recommender’s association and guidance must be mentioned in the LOR.

It includes the details of the applicant’s technical skills, certification, internship work, research ideas, research outcomes, research goals, capabilities, qualities, work experience, presentations, seminars, extracurricular activities, etc. It is quite crucial to add all the relevant information required to consider the applicant’s candidature and future undertakings. 

This last part of the LOR format summarizes the applicant’s desire for the PhD program. The closing part of the LOR essay application includes the recommender’s signature and contact details.

An excellent sample LOR for PhD highlights at least three attributes of the aspirant – a social attribute and two subject-linked or technical attributes. Here are some notable guidelines:

• The LOR should be 1-2 pages long with 5-6 paragraphs. 
• Recommenders should start the LOR by introducing themselves and the aspirant.
• Recommenders should also discuss how and from when they are professionally related to the applicants in the first paragraph. 
• The following paragraphs should be divided into three segments, each highlighting aspirant’s particular skill or quality.
• Recommenders should emphasize analytical abilities, subject knowledge, time management skills, dedication, responsibility, research abilities, etc. 
• The conclusion will sum up the qualities of the aspirant while ending with a solid recommendation to the university for accepting the application.

Fully Funded Master's Guide

The list of scholarships to cover ALL your university expenses.

Exams To Study Abroad

Top study abroad exams to fast-forward your global career!

Free Guide On MBA

Transform your career trajectory with an MBA abroad!

Packing List For Students

Most useful items to pack when preparing to study abroad.

How To Choose Your Major ?

Choose in-demand specializations for a successful career abroad.

The following sample LOR for PhD is one of many ways of writing it.

I am pleased to get the chance to recommend (name of applicant) for the PhD position in (course/study area name) at your institution. I have taught (name of applicant) for the last (tenure in years) in the areas of (subject areas). I will be delighted to witness him/her excelling in this particular field.

The topic (title) proposed by him/her is vital for the modern-day scenario and needs extensive research. It will be beneficial for all the industry stakeholders in the (sector name) and also academicians who can access real-time insights on the subject.

(Name of applicant) has completed a research project over a period of (duration) on (name of project) under my supervision. I have witnessed his/her work efficiency, critical thinking abilities, and inquisitiveness regarding various findings. He/she also has brilliant communication skills and the ability to mentor and guide peers.

(Name) has a down-to-earth nature and respects others while adhering to rules and regulations. His/her independent or group work on research projects and studies has been immensely satisfying. He/she is an analytical thinker and is stimulated by new academic challenges. This trait makes him/her strive for innovative solutions to real-world problems with a strong desire to improve the world around.

Hectic timelines, various constraints, tough work conditions, multitasking, and dealing with multiple people along the way, are things that he/she can tackle with ease while delivering work seamlessly. With these positive abilities, he/she will be an asset to any institution.

(Name) has improved consistently every year and is a deserving candidate for an opportunity to work in the field of (topic name). I would be delighted if my recommendation helps him/her obtain admission in the (course name). 

If you have any queries regarding research, academics, or other areas pertaining to (applicant name’s) candidature, please feel free to reach me at the following phone or email address. I am usually available on the phone between Monday and Friday from (time to time, i.e. 11 am to 4 pm).

(Name of Referee)

Designation:

Phone Number:

Following important tips should be considered while writing a LOR for PhD:

• The selection of the right recommender is crucial. Choose your recommender carefully who meets the specifications mentioned in your PhD application.
• Choosing your recommenders with finer academic and professional qualifications is of utmost importance.
• Stay in contact with your potential recommenders and maintain good communication with them in advance.
• Share your research proposal, goals, and achievements with your recommenders.
• Your LORs for PhD should differ from each other.
• Your LOR should showcase your qualities, capabilities, and strengths. 
• Online recommendation forms should be submitted much before the deadline.
• The letter should be realistic and unbiased.
• The relationship between the recommender and the applicant should be demonstrated clearly.
• All the information stated in the LOR should be genuine, authentic, and accurate. Ensure that no information is false or exaggerated.

In conclusion, a well-crafted Letter of Recommendation is a crucial component of any PhD application, serving as a testament to the candidate's academic abilities, research potential, and character. It provides the admissions committee with valuable insights from a third-party perspective, often influencing the final decision. For recommenders, it's important to provide a balanced, honest, and detailed account of the candidate’s capabilities, tailoring the letter to highlight qualities that are most relevant to the PhD program. For applicants, choosing the right recommenders and ensuring they understand the importance of the letter in the context of a PhD application is key. A strong Letter of Recommendation, which effectively captures the essence of the candidate's skills and potential, can significantly enhance the application, making it stand out in a competitive academic landscape.

Study in the USA

Check out top courses & program in USA. [Complete Guide]

Study in the Canada

Check out top courses & program in Canada. [Complete Guide]

Study in the Germany

Check out top courses & program in Germany. [Complete Guide]

Study in the Australia

Check out top courses & program in Australia. [Complete Guide]

Study in the UK

Check out top courses & program in UK. [Complete Guide]

Anupriya Mukherjee is a passion-driven professional working as a Content Marketer and earlier worked as a Digital Marketeer. With around 6 years of work experience, she has experience creating high-quality, engaging content for websites, blogs, news articles, video scripts, brochures, and ebooks.

Exams to Study Abroad

Top study abroad destinations, important resources, get free consultation, similar articles.

Motivation Letter – How to Write, Format & Samples

IELTS Introduction Sample: How to Write an Introduction

Write About Your Family- Sample Essays For IELTS

Essay On Generation Gap: How to Write It?

Tips to Write Insightful SOP for Hospitality Management

TRENDING SEARCHES

Documentation, study abroad resources, other exams.

• LOR Samples
• Motivation letter for Internship
• What to do if your F1 student visa to the USA gets rejected
• SOP for Australian Student Visa
• Motivation Letter
• SOP for PhD
• How to Find Accommodation in Canada
• SOP for MBA
• SOP for MS in IT
• Letter of Recommendation for Masters
• Universities in Germany for Masters
• Requirements for Studying in Germany
• Canada PR Process
• SOP for Undergraduates
• Australian Student Visa
• Work Experience Certificate
• SOP for Masters
• How to Get PR in Canada
• Statement of Purpose Format
• SOP for Australia
• LOR for PhD
• Best Course for PR in Australia
• Scholarships in Germany
• SDS vs Non-SDS Visa Applications
• Vidya Lakshmi Portal
• Job after MS in UK
• Countries with Free Education
• Cost of Living in Netherlands
• Best Education System in the World
• MS in Artificial Intelligence in USA
• Canada visa interview questions
• Cost of Living in the UK
• Calculate GPA to Percentage
• Exams Required to Study in the USA
• PG Diploma in Data Science in Canada
• PG Diploma Courses in Canada
• Cost of Living in Singapore vs India
• Indians in Ireland
• 1-Year MBA Programs in the World
• Cost of Living in Europe
• How to Study Abroad for Free
• Degree or Diploma in Canada
• Get Post-Study Work Visa in the USA
• Education Loans for Abroad Studies
• Study in Canada for Free
• Cost of Study in Australia
• Universities in UK for Masters in Finance
• Data Scientist Salary in Canada
• MS in Business Analytics in USA
• Study in Germany for Free
• MS in CS in Canada
• Study in Germany After 12th
• MS in Data Science in USA
• One-Year MS in CS in USA
• Salary for MS in USA
• Germany vs Canada
• Fully Funded Masters Scholarship in USA
• How to prepare for IELTS at home without coaching
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Tourism
• Universities in Canada Without IELTS
• Types Of Essays in IELTS Task 2
• IELTS Requirement For Canada
• What is the CEFR Level in IELTS
• IELTS Introduction Sample
• Top Phrases for IELTS Speaking Test
• IELTS Band Score Chart
• IELTS Speaking Score
• Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Places Essay
• IELTS Preparation
• IELTS Common Speaking Topics
• How to download IELTS Scorecard
• Universities Accept Duolingo Test In USA
• SAT Exam Syllabus
• Master�s in USA without GRE
• Duolingo Accepted Universities in Canada
• Syllabus of GMAT
• Top Universities Accepting PTE Exam in Canada
• PTE Accepted Universities in UK
• PTE Exam Accepted Countries
• Duolingo Accepted Universities in UK

Call us to clear your doubts at:

Download our App

• Grievance Redressal
• Experience Centers
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• University Partner
• Accommodation
• IELTS Band Calculator
• Download Study Abroad App
• Education Loan Calculator
• upGrad Abroad Office
• Expense Calculator
• Business Partner

Top Destinations

Masters programs.

• MBA in Germany, IU
• MIM in Germany, IU
• MS in CS in Germany, IU
• MS in Data Analytics in USA, Clark University
• MS in Project Management in USA, Clark University
• MS in IT in USA, Clark University
• MS in Data Analytics & Visualization in USA, Yeshiva University
• MS in Artificial Intelligence in USA, Yeshiva University
• MS in Cybersecurity, Yeshiva University

Study Abroad Important Blogs

• Cost of Study:
• Cost of Studying in Canada
• Cost of Studying in Ireland
• Cost of Studying in Australia
• Cost of living:
• Cost of living in UK
• Cost of living in Australia
• Cost of living in Germany
• Cost of living in Ireland
• Cost of living in Canada
• Career Opportunities:
• Career Opportunities in Australia
• Career Opportunities in Germany
• Job Opportunities in After MS in Canada
• Job Opportunities After MBA in Australia
• Job Opportunities After MS in UK
• IELTS Exam Resources:
• IELTS Registration
• Academic IELTS
• IELTS Band Score
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Slot Booking
• IELTS Score for UK
• IELTS Score for USA
• Validity of IELTS Score
• IELTS Speaking Topics
• IELTS Reading Tips
• How to Prepare for IELTS at Home Without Coaching
• IELTS Preparation Books
• Types of IELTS Exam
• IELTS Academic vs General
• IELTS Exam Fee
• IELTS Exam Pattern
• IELTS Results
• IELTS Essay
• IELTS Exam Dates
• Top Streams:
• Fashion Designing Courses in Australia
• Accounting Courses in Canada
• Management Courses in Canada

5 Best Letter of Recommendation Templates for PhD Students

Are you a PhD student looking for a high-quality letter of recommendation template? Look no further! In this article, we will provide you with examples of tried and true letter of recommendation templates that you can use or edit as needed.

One of the most important parts of any PhD program is the recommendation letter. It can make or break your chance of getting into a program, securing funding, or landing a job. However, writing a solid letter of recommendation can be an arduous task that requires a considerable amount of time and effort. That’s where our letter of recommendation templates come in – they have been carefully crafted to help make the process a lot easier for you.

Whether you need a template for a professor, employer, or advisor, we have got you covered. With our templates, you can be sure that your recommendation letters will be professional, accurate, and persuasive. So why wait? Check out our letter of recommendation templates for PhD students today and take the first step towards success!

The Best Structure for Letter of Recommendation Template for PhD Students

Writing a letter of recommendation for a PhD student can be a daunting task, but don’t worry–with the right structure and language, you can create a glowing recommendation that will showcase the student’s talents and qualifications.

First things first, make sure to address the letter to the appropriate person or group, whether it be a university, scholarship committee, or potential employer. It’s also important to state your relationship to the student, whether you’re their professor, mentor, or colleague.

Next, start off by providing a brief overview of the student’s accomplishments and qualifications, including their field of study and any notable research or publications. From there, delve into specific examples of the student’s intellectual abilities and work ethic. This could include analytical skills, problem-solving abilities, and perseverance in the face of challenges.

It’s also important to address the student’s personal characteristics, such as their leadership qualities, teamwork skills, and communication abilities. Providing anecdotes of times when the student went above and beyond in their academic or professional pursuits can be particularly impactful.

Finally, wrap up the letter with a strong endorsement of the student’s potential for future success, including any specific recommendations for opportunities or programs they would excel in. Reiterate your confidence in the student’s abilities and emphasize how their strengths and qualities make them an asset to any academic or professional community.

Remember, the best recommendation letters are specific, detailed, and personal. Use concrete examples to illustrate the student’s strengths and don’t be afraid to inject some personality and enthusiasm into your writing. With these tips and a solid structure, you’ll be well on your way to crafting an outstanding letter of recommendation for your favorite PhD student.

[Your name]

Letter of Recommendation Templates for PhD Students

Letter of recommendation for phd program admission.

Dear Admissions Committee,

I am writing to enthusiastically recommend [Student Name] for the PhD program in [Field]. I had the privilege of working with [him/her] as [his/her] research advisor for [duration]. During that time, I observed [his/her] passion for [field of study]. [He/She] possesses the intellectual curiosity, work ethic, and analytical skills necessary for success in the program.

Moreover, [Student Name] demonstrates excellent communication skills and consistently engages in constructive discussions with [his/her] peers and advisors. [He/She] is a quick learner and adapts well to new challenges, which will serve [him/her] well in the highly competitive and rigorous PhD program. I believe [Student Name] has the potential to make significant contributions to the field and I strongly recommend [him/her] for admission to the program.

[Your Name]

Letter of Recommendation for PhD Scholarship

Dear Scholarship Committee,

I am writing to endorse [Student Name] for the [Name of Scholarship] for [Field] PhD studies. In my capacity as [his/her] mentor and research advisor, I have been impressed with [his/her] dedication to [field of study] and [his/her] ability to excel academically despite facing various challenges.

[Student Name] has demonstrated exceptional potential in [areas of interest]. [His/Her] research work has already resulted in several publications in leading journals, which speaks to [his/her] intellectual rigor and analytical skills. [He/She] is also actively involved in various extracurricular activities related to [field of study], such as [Name of Club], where [he/she] has demonstrated leadership and teamwork.

I strongly believe that [Student Name] is an ideal fit for the [Name of Scholarship] based on [his/her] achievements and potential. [He/She] will not only benefit from the financial support but will also make significant contributions to the scholarship and [field of study].

Yours sincerely,

Letter of Recommendation for PhD Job Application

Dear Hiring Manager,

I am writing this letter to recommend [Student Name] for the position of [Job Title] at your organization. I had the pleasure of working with [him/her] as [his/her] supervisor during [duration] at [Company/Organization]. [He/She] was a valuable asset to our team, demonstrating impressive intellectual and analytical skills.

[Student Name] has an outstanding academic record and has already published several research papers in leading journals. Moreover, [he/she] has honed exceptional communication skills and has presented [his/her] work at various conferences. [He/She] has also demonstrated leadership skills, both in academic and extracurricular settings. [His/Her] experience in [specific skills related to job] and [related experience] also make [him/her] a perfect candidate for the position.

Based on [his/her] achievements and potential, I strongly recommend [Student Name] for the position. [He/She] will undoubtedly exceed your expectations and make significant contributions to your organization.

Letter of Recommendation for PhD Internship

Dear Internship Coordinator,

I am writing this letter to recommend [Student Name] for the PhD Internship Program at your organization. I had the pleasure of working with [him/her] as [his/her] research advisor for [duration]. During that time, [he/she] demonstrated exceptional research skills and a keen interest in [specific field of study related to internship].

[Student Name] has already published several research papers in leading journals and has presented [his/her] work at various conferences. [He/She] has also demonstrated strong leadership and teamwork skills, as evidenced by [specific example]. [His/Her] exceptional communication skills also make [him/her] a great fit for the internship, where [he/she] will likely collaborate with a diverse group of people.

Based on [his/her] research achievements and potential, I strongly recommend [Student Name] for the internship program. [He/She] is an excellent candidate who will no doubt make significant contributions to your organization. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Letter of Recommendation for PhD Fellowship

Dear Fellowship Committee,

I am writing to enthusiastically recommend [Student Name] for the [Name of Fellowship] for [Field] PhD studies. I worked with [him/her] as [his/her] research advisor for [duration], during which I observed [his/her] exceptional research skills and intellectual curiosity.

[Student Name] has already published several research papers in leading journals and has presented [his/her] work at various conferences. [He/She] has also actively engaged in various extracurricular activities related to [field of study], such as [Name of Club/Community], where [he/she] has demonstrated leadership and teamwork. Overall, [he/she] is a dedicated and passionate researcher with a unique perspective and approach to [field of study].

I strongly believe that [Student Name] is an exemplary fit for the [Name of Fellowship] based on [his/her] achievements and potential. [He/She] will not only benefit from the financial support but will also make significant contributions to the fellowship and [field of study].

Letter of Recommendation for PhD Research Proposal

Dear Research Committee,

I am writing to endorse [Student Name]’s proposed research project for [duration] in [field of study]. [He/She] has approached me with [his/her] ideas and I have been thoroughly impressed with [his/her] creativity, vision, and rigor in designing the proposal.

[Student Name] is an outstanding researcher with significant experience in [related skills/expertise]. [He/She] is highly motivated and passionate about [field of study], demonstrated by [relevant examples]. Moreover, [he/she] has excellent communication and leadership skills, which will undoubtedly be useful in working with other researchers and stakeholders.

Based on [his/her] research achievements and proposed project, I strongly recommend [Student Name] for the research program. [He/She] is an excellent candidate who will no doubt make significant contributions to the project and advance knowledge in [field of study]. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Best regards,

Tips for Writing a Letter of Recommendation Template for PhD Students

Writing a letter of recommendation for a PhD student can be a challenging task. As a recommender, it’s essential to ensure that your letter truly represents the student’s abilities, potential, and achievements. To help you create an effective letter of recommendation, here are some tips to keep in mind:

• Get to know the student: Before you start writing the letter, take some time to learn more about the student. Understand their research, their academic achievements, and their aspirations. This will help you write a more personalized and impactful letter.
• Focus on achievements: When writing your letter, highlight the student’s achievements and the impact of their research. This will demonstrate their value and potential to the admissions committee or potential employer.
• Provide examples: Use specific examples to illustrate your points. This will help the reader understand the student’s strengths and accomplishments. It’s also a good idea to include examples of challenges the student faced and how they overcame them.
• Be honest: Don’t exaggerate the student’s accomplishments or abilities. Be honest and provide a balanced view of their strengths and weaknesses. Admissions committees and employers value letters that are transparent and authentic.
• Be concise: Keep your letter brief and to the point. You don’t want to overwhelm the reader with unnecessary details. Focus on the most significant accomplishments and areas of strength.
• Use a professional format: Use a professional format for your letter, starting with a formal greeting and closing. Address the letter to the appropriate person, and include the student’s name and program details.
• Proofread: Before submitting your letter, make sure to proofread it carefully. Correct any errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation, and ensure that the letter is structured well and easy to read.
• End with a strong recommendation: End your letter with a strong recommendation for the student. Be confident in your endorsement, and close by offering to provide further information or support if needed.

Writing a letter of recommendation for a PhD student requires careful attention to detail and a clear understanding of the student’s strengths and potential. By following these tips, you can create a compelling letter that highlights the student’s achievements and positions them as a strong candidate for their desired program or career path. Remember, honesty, specificity, and professionalism are key elements of an effective letter of recommendation.

Well, there you have it, folks! A letter of recommendation template for PhD students! I hope this has been helpful in alleviating some of the stress associated with asking for letters of recommendation. Remember to personalize the template with your own unique accomplishments and achievements. Be creative, and don’t be afraid to show your personality through your writing. And always, always, always show gratitude to those who have taken the time to write a letter for you. Thank you for reading and be sure to visit us again for more useful tips and tricks. Wishing you all the best on your academic journey!

NHLBI Letter of Recommendation Template for Student Stipend: A Step-by-Step Guide How to Use the MS Letter of Recommendation Template: A Step-by-Step Guide Top Letter of Recommendation Templates for Nursing Students Effective Letter of Recommendation Template for Board of Nursing Student

Reference-Letter.com

Write a reference letter or letter of recommendation - it's quick, easy and free.

• Letter Generator
• What is a reference letter?
• Sample Letters
• Book Reviews

Sample Reference Letter

Reference letter for a phd candidate.

A successful application to a PhD program almost always requires letters of recommendation from former university lecturers and professors. They are the main point of reference when it comes to assessing an applicant's qualification for a PhD program. The letter below is a good example for a former MSc student, who now wants to pursue a PhD in the same field. It is already somewhat specifically addressed, as it directly refers to a doctorare degree in Linguistics.

Dear Sir or Madam,

it is my pleasure to acquaint you with one of my most outstanding students, Ravi Egilsson, who is keen to pursue the Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics at your esteemed institution.

I have known Ravi since 2010, when he enrolled into the Master of Science in Speech Analytics here at Oxbridge University. As part of this programme, Ravi took my course on Automated Speech Processing and joined my practical seminar on Pattern Processing. I also supervised him for his thesis project, a smartphone app that can translate a range of simple infant phonetisms into spoken language.

Ravi presented outstanding commitment to his studies, and finished his degree within the top 10% of his class. He was a quite remarkable student with a strong research interest. Among his peers, he stood out by always being up-to-date with currently topical discussions even within niches of linguistical research. The quality of his research work on his thesis project was compelling, and he managed to find beautifully simple solutions to very challenging problems.

With his multicultural background and fluent proficiency of English, Swedish and Hindi he was able to approach many scientific questions from different angles. During the courses, he always made many valuable contributions to group discussions. Finally, it should not be left unmentioned that Ravi is a very pleasant person to work with.

I respect Ravi's decision to further pursue his specific research interests at your university, and I am confident that he will be a highly valuable addition to your PhD program, where he could develop and apply his extraordinary talents. Furthermore, I am certain that he would qualify for any means of financial aid that you could offer him, and I also strongly recommend him for a position as a teaching or research assistant. Should you have any questions with regards to Ravi Egilsson, I will be pleased to answer them.

Klemens Rapper

Professor Oxbridge University

Please note: Users of Reference-Letter.com must agree to the Terms of Use .

3 sample recommendation letters for brilliant students

A good recommendation letter can significantly impact an applicant’s chance of securing a position or funding. Writing recommendation letters is most enjoyable when the applicant is an exceptional student with an impressive profile, whom you genuinely want to endorse. As many master’s and PhD students may be required to write the first draft of their recommendation letters themselves, having good example letters for inspiration is also crucial for them.

Disclaimer: This post may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you make a purchase using the links below at  no additional cost to you.  I only recommend products or services that I truly believe can benefit my audience. As always, my opinions are my own.

Elements to include in a great recommendation letter

Sample recommendation letter 1, sample recommendation letter 2, sample recommendation letter 3.

To write an effective recommendation letter for a scholarship or programme, it’s important to personalize it and tailor it specifically to the candidate’s goals. As a result, exceptional recommendation letters will be distinctive and individualized.

Even though great recommendation letters are highly personalised, they should all cover several essential elements:

• The writer’s relationship with the applicant
• The applicant’s academic (and extracurricular) accomplishments
• The applicant’s personal strengths and qualities
• The applicant’s suitability for the scholarship or programme that the applicant is applying for

The following samples of recommendation letters illustrate how the elements of a recommendation letter can be used to create a personalized story in support of exceptional student applications.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

How hard is it to get a PhD? Definitely not easy!

Sample emails asking for letter of recommendation from a professor, related articles.

The best answers to “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”

Funding sources for PhD studies in Europe

Deciding between a one- or a two-year master’s degree

Hidden gems: 3 free apps every PhD researcher should know about

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Career Planning
• Finding a Job

Letter of Recommendation Samples for Students

How to Request a Recommendation Letter

How to write a recommendation letter, what to include in a recommendation letter for a student, how to use letter examples and templates, student recommendation letter example, character references and personal recommendations, character reference letter example, how to create a reference list, frequently asked questions (faqs).

Hero Images / Getty Images

Students may need a letter of recommendation to land a job, secure an internship, or earn a spot in a competitive academic program. But to make a good impression on the recipient, a letter of recommendation must be more than just an enthusiastic endorsement—it must follow a specific format.

Whether you are a student who needs a letter of recommendation for an application, or you're writing an academic reference, here’s how to format your letter and what to include in the document. Plus, you’ll find a few samples to help guide your writing.

Key Takeaways

• Students can request recommendation letters from teachers, professors, and employers.
• Character references provide an endorsement of a student’s positive personal qualities, such as their work ethic, dependability, and enthusiasm.
• When requesting a recommendation letter, offer to provide a copy of your CV or resume, as well as a job description or program overview.

When you request a letter of recommendation (sometimes also called a letter of reference), be sure to give potential writers information on why you need the letter, and let them know why you think they are a good person to recommend you. For example, if you performed well in your professor's class and are asking them to write a recommendation for graduate school, tell them you enjoyed their course and felt your performance demonstrated your commitment to pursuing another degree program.

You might also provide the person with your most up-to-date resume or CV. These details will make it easier for them to write a personalized and targeted reference letter.

You should also provide all the information the person needs regarding how to submit the letter, what to include (if there are any requirements), and when it is due.

When writing a reference letter , be sure to explain how you know the student, and describe some of the qualities that make him or her a good candidate for the job or school. Use specific examples to demonstrate how the person has shown those qualities.

Focus on the specific job or school the person is applying for. Try to include qualities and examples that will help them get that position or get into that school.

Feel free to ask the person for whom you are writing the letter for more information. You might ask to see the job listing, their resume, or a list of their related coursework.

Contact Information If you’re writing a formal printed letter, include your contact information, as well as the recipient’s information, at the top of the letter.

Greeting If you are writing a personal recommendation letter, include a salutation to start your letter (Dear Dr. Smith, or Dear Ms. Jones, for example).

Paragraph 1: Introduction Explain why you're writing and how you are connected to the person you are recommending, including how you know them and for how long.

Paragraph 2/3: Why You're Writing Share information on the person you are writing about, including why they are qualified and what they have to offer. It's fine to include more than one paragraph to provide details of the student's academic and work performance. Including examples of how they have excelled is a good way to show how the person is qualified.

Paragraph 4: Summary Write a brief summary of why you are recommending the person. Mention that you "highly recommend" the person, that you "recommend without reservation," or something similar.

Paragraph 5: Conclusion Offer to share more information and let the reader know how to contact you (phone, email, etc.) for a follow-up conversation.

Letter Closing End your letter with a formal letter closing and your name and title. If you are mailing a printed letter, include your signature underneath your typed name: 

Signature (for hard copy letter)

If you’re sending an email, include your contact information in your signature. 

It is a good idea to review recommendation letter examples and templates before you write a recommendation letter or a request for a letter. They can help you decide what kind of content you should include in your document.

A letter template also helps you with the layout of your letter, such as how many paragraphs to include, how to sign the letter, and what elements you need to include (your contact information, for example).

While recommendation letter examples, templates, and guidelines are a great starting point, always tailor a letter to fit the particular situation

Download the recommendation letter template (compatible with Google Docs and Word Online) or see below for more examples.

The Balance

Recommendation Letter Example (Text Version)

Brian Smith 123 Main Street Anytown, CA 12345 555-555-5555 brian.smith@collegemail.edu

March 9, 2024

Emma Johnson Owner Café Bistro 72 Dock Street Pacifica, Oregon 97233

Dear Ms. Johnson,

Daniel Williams worked as a server and manager at Central College’s student café under my supervision for seven semesters, beginning in Spring 2019.

Over that time, I was consistently impressed with his customer service and people management skills, as well as his dedication and good humor. I've often said that if I could clone Daniel, I'd never have to worry about staffing problems again. He's a truly gifted server, fast on his feet, and able to remember complicated orders without using an order pad.

He’s also an innovator. Thanks to his suggestions, we revamped the café menu last year to focus on the most popular dishes and dropped some expensive, time-consuming menu items. The result was a 10% increase in profits.

Our customers love him. More than one has suggested that Daniel become a “super senior,” so that he can stay with us next year. Alas, he’s graduating on schedule, with highest honors and a boatload of references to attest to his skill, hard work, and talent. I’m honored to be one of them.

I enthusiastically recommend Daniel for the position of server/manager in your café. If you have any specific questions about Daniel’s experience and skills, I’m happy to help. Please call me at 555-555-5555.

Brian Smith

Student Coordinator

Central College Café

A character reference is a recommendation written by someone who can attest to one’s character. These letters may be needed for people applying to join an association or purchase a property.

They can be used as an alternative to a professional reference for someone who doesn't have work experience, and they may also be required for jobs that require a high level of trustworthiness.

Who to Ask for a Character Reference

If you have limited work experience (or worry you will get a negative reference from your former employer), you might ask someone to write you a character reference. This might help balance out a negative employer reference.

Consider asking a friend, neighbor, club leader, colleague, or someone else who may never have employed you but can speak to who you are as a person.

What to Include in a Character Reference

If you are asked to write a character reference, focus on the person’s character traits and abilities. You can provide examples from personal interactions with that individual.

Download the character reference letter template (compatible with Google Docs and Word Online) or see below for more examples.

Character Reference Letter Example (Text Version)

Jane Lee 330 Chestnut Street Kerry Springs, Massachusetts 01006

February 3, 2024

Sandra Gomez Program Director Kids at Play, Inc. Centertown, New Hampshire 03225

Dear Ms. Gomez,

Before I had the pleasure of working with Liz Dwyer on our neighborhood cleanup committee, I was her next-door neighbor for 10 years. It didn’t surprise me at all when she was the youngest person to show up for our initial organizational meeting or when she volunteered to take notes and spearheaded the playground project. 

Liz is a very special young person, the kind that gives you hope for the future. It’s not just that she’s organized and dependable, although she is. It’s that she has passion, drive, and a deep optimism for what’s possible. I’ve seen firsthand how she uses that optimism to inspire others and help them see the possibilities in an empty lot or rundown corner. 

I’ve also been impressed with Liz’s growth as an artist. Since she started at Eastern College, her talent has grown. She has used her new skills to improve our neighborhood, rallying the local kids to help her make a mosaic wall for the new playground. 

I know she would be a bright light in your arts program, inspiring and guiding the kids in your care just as she has the kids on our block. I enthusiastically recommend her for the job. Please feel free to reach out to me at jane.lee@email.com or (413)555-6078 with any questions. 

Jane Lee Director, Chestnut Street Block Association

A reference list is a page with a list of your references and their contact information. Send this letter as part of your job application if it is requested. Employers who ask for a reference list might call or email the people on that list and ask them for more information about you.

When creating your reference list, be sure to first ask permission from each person on your list. Not only is this polite, but this will give each person time to prepare a response for the employer. Make sure you provide all the necessary contact information for each person.

What should a student’s letter of recommendation include?

A letter of recommendation for a student should describe their positive qualities, including their academic achievements, interpersonal skills, work ethic, and character. To be effective, the letter should focus on skills and qualifications that are most valuable in the job or program for which the student is applying. 

How long should a recommendation letter be?

A recommendation letter should be at least a few paragraphs long, typically a page or two in length. It should contain specifics that illustrate why the subject is a good candidate for the job or position they’re seeking. The recommender should unreservedly endorse the subject of the letter. 

Georgetown University Center for Research and Fellowships. " Do's and Don'ts of Writing Recommendation Letters ."

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 4 amazing recommendation letter samples for students.

Letters of Recommendation

How important are recommendation letters in a college application? According to William Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid at Harvard, they are "extremely important."

If you're a student, examples of great letters of recommendation can help you understand how to get strong letters yourself from your teachers. If you're a teacher, the examples in this guide will inspire you to support your students strongly as they apply to college. Keep reading for four excellent letters from teachers that will get anyone into college , along with expert analysis on why they're so strong.

Important Note: Are you looking for job recommendation letters? If so, check out my great post here!

First, let's understand the role of recommendation letters in your application.

Why are Recommendation Letters Important?

The majority of admissions officers at four-year colleges, especially private schools, emphasize that their process is holistic . They seek to gain a sense of the student as a "whole person," rather than focusing on pieces of who she is based solely on grades and test scores. Since they rarely meet the student in person, the recommendation letters, along with the student's own personal essay, play a huge role in illuminating her intellectual and personal qualities.

That's why recommendation letters from teachers, especially those who know their students well, carry a great deal of weight in applications. A letter that expresses a strong vote of support, as well as highlights a student's impressive academic and personal strengths , can have a powerful effect on that student's chances of admission.

Let's look at some samples of strong recommendation letters, one from an English teacher, another from a physics teacher, the third from a history teacher, and the final one from a math teacher. Then we'll break down exactly why these letters of recommendation are effective.

The first example recommends Sara, a senior who loves to write and read poetry.

Sample Letter #1: Sara the Poet

Dear Admissions Committee, I had the pleasure of teaching Sara in her 11th grade honors English class at Mark Twain High School. From the first day of class, Sara impressed me with her ability to be articulate about difficult concepts and texts, her sensitivity to the nuances within literature, and her passion for reading, writing, and creative expression- both in and out of the classroom. Sara is a talented literary critic and poet, and she has my highest recommendation as a student and writer. Sara is talented at considering the subtleties within literature and the purpose behind authors' works. She produced an extraordinary year-long thesis paper on creative identity development, in which she compared works from three different time periods and synthesized cultural and historical perspectives to inform her analysis. When called upon to give her thesis defense in front of her peers, Sara spoke clearly and eloquently about her conclusions and responded to questions in a thoughtful way. Outside of the classroom, Sara is dedicated to her literary pursuits, especially to poetry. She publishes her poetry in our school's literary magazine, as well as in online magazines. She is an insightful, sensitive, and deeply self-aware individual driven to explore art, writing, and a deeper understanding of the human condition. Throughout the year Sara was an active participant in our discussions, and she always supported her peers. Her caring nature and personality allow her to work well with others in a team setting, as she always respects others' opinions even when they differ from her own. When we held a class debate about gun laws, Sara opted to speak for the side opposite her own views. She explained her choice as motivated by a desire to put herself in other people's shoes, view the issues from a new perspective, and gain a clearer sense of the issue from all angles. Throughout the year, Sara demonstrated this openness to and empathy for the opinions, feelings, and perspectives of others, along with shrewd powers of observation, all qualities that makes her outstanding as a student of literature and burgeoning writer. I am certain that Sara is going to continue to do great and creative things in her future. I highly recommend her for admission to your undergraduate program. She is talented, caring, intuitive, dedicated, and focused in her pursuits. Sara consistently seeks out constructive feedback so she can improve her writing skills, which is a rare and impressive quality in a high school student. Sara is truly a stand-out individual who will impress everyone she meets. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at [email protected] . Sincerely, Ms. Scribe English Teacher Mark Twain High School

This is a thorough, glowing recommendation for a student that Ms. Scribe clearly knows well. What other features make it stand out as a strong letter of rec?

The Breakdown

Ms. Scribe has a high opinion of Sara and her skills at writing and literary analysis. One way that she expresses this is by using powerful and specific language. She doesn't merely say Sara is a good writer. She says she's articulate about difficult concepts and sensitive to the nuances within literature. She calls her insightful and self-aware with shrewd powers of observation.

These descriptors don't happen by accident. Ms. Scribe took the time to choose her words carefully , and that effort paid off with a strong letter that captures Sara's special qualities.

Ms. Scribe also supports her characterization of Sara with examples . She describes her thesis paper and how she responded to questions thoughtfully under the pressured situation of her thesis defense. She gives the example of the debate on gun laws to illustrate Sara's openness to many different points of view.

In addition to illuminating her intellectual and personal strengths and supporting them with specific examples, Ms. Scribe speaks to Sara's goals for the future. She points out that she is talented at writing, poetry specifically, and that she is committed to continuing to improve as a writer in her future.

This letter, by virtue of its wording, length, and specificity, shows that Ms. Scribe took the time and effort to recommend Sara thoughtfully and with conviction. The fact that she knows Sara well and is committed to helping her application succeed with a thoughtful letter further adds weight to her assessment.

This letter would be a boon to Sara's application, especially if she's applying to study writing or English. She clearly impressed her English teacher and, in return, got a memorable, complimentary letter of recommendation for her college application.

This next example is similarly enthusiastic and detailed. It's for a student applying to an engineering program.

Sample Letter #2: Stacy the Engineer

Dear Admissions Committee, It is a great pleasure to recommend Stacy for admission to your engineering program. She is one of the most exceptional students I have encountered in my 15 years of teaching. I taught Stacy in my 11th grade honors physics class and advised her in Robotics Club. I am not surprised to find out she is now ranked at the top of an extraordinarily capable class of seniors. She has a keen interest in and talent for physics, math, and scientific inquiry. Her advanced skills and passion for the subject make her an ideal fit for your rigorous engineering program. Stacy is a perceptive, sharp, quick individual with a high aptitude for math and science. She is driven to understand how things work, whether they be the old computer hard drives in the school library or the forces that hold our universe together. Her final project in class was especially impressive, an investigation of frequency-dependent sound absorption, an idea that she said was sparked by not wanting to bother her parents with her hours of guitar practice at home. She's been a strong leader in Robotics Club, eager to share her knowledge with others and learn new skills. I have the students in the club prepare lessons and take turns leading our after-school meetings. When it was Stacy's turn, she showed up prepared with a fascinating lecture on lunar nautics and fun activities that got everyone moving and talking. She was our only student teacher to be met with much deserved applause at the end of her lesson. Stacy's personal strengths are as impressive as her intellectual accomplishments. She's an active, outgoing presence in class with a great sense of humor. Stacy's the perfect person to get a group project rolling, but she also knows how to sit back and let others take the lead. Her cheerful nature and openness to feedback means she's always learning and growing as a learner, an impressive strength that will continue to serve her well in college and beyond. Stacy is just the kind of driven, engaging, and curious student that helped make our classroom a lively environment and safe place to take intellectual risks. Stacy has my highest recommendation for admission to your engineering program. She has demonstrated excellence in all that she puts her mind to, whether it's designing an experiment, collaborating with others, or teaching herself to play classical and electrical guitar. Stacy's endless curiosity, combined with her willingness to take risks, leads me to believe there will be no limit to her growth and achievements in college and beyond. Please don't hesitate to contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ms. Randall Physics Teacher Marie Curie High School

Ms. Randall is clearly as much of a fan of Stacy as she is of Mileva Marić. How does she communicate her recommendation?

Ms. Randall plugs for Stacy right off the bat with a statement of outstanding ranking : Stacy is one of the most exceptional students she's had in 15 years of teaching. A statement like this is pretty extraordinary and will make an impact in the mind of its readers. Stacy sounds like a special student, and she chose her recommender well.

Like in the last example, this letter uses strong, specific language , calling Stacy a perceptive and sharp person who has the confidence and good humor to take intellectual risks. Through its accurate and expressive language, this letter helps Stacy come to life in the mind of the reader.

Beyond the evaluation, Ms. Randall gives specific examples of Stacy's academic and personal strengths. She talks about her successful teaching in Robotics Club, her leadership in group projects, and her dedicated practice to teaching herself to play the guitar.

Rather than spreading the letter too thin, Ms. Randall highlights a few core themes. She connects Stacy's love of music with her passion for physics by talking about the frequency-dependent sound absorption project. All the threads tie together in a nice, memorable bow.

This letter is a strong vote of support for Stacy's application to an engineering program. Her physics teacher admires Stacy's skills and goals, and she made it clear that Stacy had her highest recommendation in this letter.

This next example also comes from a teacher who's extremely impressed with his student. It focuses on the student's performance in class and his volunteer work outside the classroom.

Sample Letter #3: William the History Buff and Social Organizer

Dear Admissions Committee, It is hard to overstate the meaningful contributions that William has made to our school and surrounding community. As both his 10th and 11th grade History teacher, I've had the pleasure of seeing William make profound contributions both in and out of the classroom. His school and community service is motivated by a strong sense of social justice, which he informs through a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of historical trends and events. I can say with confidence that William is one of the most caring and driven students I've ever taught in my fifteen years at the school. As a child of immigrant parents, William is especially drawn to understand the immigrant experience. He produced an extraordinary semester-long research paper on the treatment of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. during WWII, in which he went beyond all expectations to conduct Skype interviews with relatives of his featured subjects to incorporate into his paper. William has a great capacity to draw connections between past and present and to ground his understanding of current issues in the context of historical events. He never retreats to a simple answer or explanation, but is comfortable dealing with ambiguity. William's fascination with U.S. and World History and skill for deep analysis have him an exemplary scholar, as a well as a motivated activist driven to promote civil rights and work towards social equity. In sophomore year, William noticed that the college planning seminars students attended included little information for first generation or immigrant students. Always thinking about how institutions can better serve people, William spoke with counselors and ESL teachers about his ideas to better support all students. He helped collect resources and design a college planning curriculum for immigrant and undocumented students to enhance their college access. He further helped organize a group that connected ESL students with native English speakers, stating his mission to be helping ELLs improve their English and increasing multicultural awareness and social cohesion at the school as a whole. William identified a need and worked with students and faculty alike to meet it in an extremely effective and beneficial way. Ever the history scholar, he did plenty of research to back up his ideas. William believes passionately in social progress and working for the common good. His own personal experiences, along with his profound grasp on social history, drive his advocacy work. He is a talented, intelligent student with the charisma, confidence, strong values, and respect for others to make a huge difference in the world around him. I'm looking forward to seeing all the good that William continues to do for his fellow humanity in college and beyond, as well as the excellent work that he will produce at the college level. William has my highest recommendation. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] . Sincerely, Mr. Jackson History Teacher Martin Luther King, Jr. High School

Mr. Jackson's letter makes William sound like a pretty amazing student and person. How does he go about expressing his admiration for William in this rec letter?

Like Ms. Randall did in her letter, Mr. Jackson provides a statement of outstanding ranking for William, calling him one of the most caring and driven students he's ever taught. Considering his long teaching career of 15 years, this says a lot about William as a student and a person.

Also like in the last example, Mr. Jackson focuses on a few core aspects of William's character. He talks about his love of history and how it informs his social activism. He comments on his exceptional historical scholarship, as well as his personal qualities of caring for those around him and working for the social good.

Mr. Jackson also gives insight into William's personal life , explaining how he has a personal connection to his projects and volunteer work as the child of immigrant parents. This letter reveals that William is a thoughtful, motivated individual who connects his own experiences with his learning and desire to contribute to his community.

The letter also showcases William's exceptional accomplishments by giving specific examples of William's research paper and his work supporting the academic and personal needs of ELL students. Mr. Jackson expresses his enthusiastic recommendation while illuminating William's love of learning and strength of character. This letter would be both impressive and memorable to admissions officers considering William for admission to their school.

This next example comes from a math teacher. Let's see what Mr. Wiles has to say about Joe.

Sample Letter #4: Joe the Hard Worker

Dear Admissions Committee, It is my pleasure to recommend Joe, who I taught in my 11th grade math class. Joe demonstrated tremendous effort and growth throughout the year and brought a great energy to class. He has that combination of a positive attitude and the belief that he can always improve that's rare in a high school student, but so essential to the learning process. I am confident that he will continue to display the same commitment and diligence in everything he does. I highly recommend Joe for admission to your school. Joe would not describe himself as a math person. He's told me on several occasions that all the numbers and variables make his mind go fuzzy. Joe did, in fact, struggle to comprehend the material at the beginning of the year, but his response to this is what really struck me. Where so many others have given up, Joe took on this class as a welcome challenge. He stayed after school for extra help, got extra tutoring at the nearby college, and asked questions in and out of class. Due to all his hard work, Joe not only raised his grades, but he also inspired some of his classmates to stay after for extra help, as well. Joe truly demonstrated a growth mindset, and he inspired his peers to adopt that valuable perspective, too. Joe helped contribute to our classroom environment as one where all students can feel supported and able to ask questions. Joe's strong belief in his ability to acquire new skills and improve through practice was likely shaped by his years as a baseball player. He's played all through high school and is one of the team's most valuable players. In his final for our class, Joe designed an impressive project calculating and analyzing batting averages. While he initially described himself as not a math person, Joe reaped the benefits of his tremendous effort and found a way to make the subject come alive for him in a way that he was personally invested in. As a teacher, it is incredibly fulfilling to witness a student make this kind of academic and personal progress. Joe is a trustworthy, reliable, good-humored student and friend who supports others in and out of the classroom. He was a pleasure to have in class, and his positive attitude and belief in himself, even in the face of difficulty, is an immensely admirable asset. I'm confident that he will continue to demonstrate the same diligence, perseverance, and optimism that he showed myself and his peers. I highly recommend Joe for admission to your undergraduate program. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions at [email protected] . Sincerely, Mr. Wiles Math Teacher Euclid High School

While the students featured in the first three examples were top of their class or demonstrated leadership in the school, Joe isn't a top achiever in the traditional sense. However, this recommendation is still a strong one, even if it says he struggled in the teacher's class. What does Mr. Wiles focus on to recommend Joe?

Mr. Wiles writes a strong letter for Joe, with the same kind of enthusiasm and specific examples as the other three letters. Even though Joe may not have gotten the strongest grades in his math class, he found an enthusiastic recommender in his math teacher. Mr. Wiles was extremely impressed with Joe's attitude, effort, and growth mindset , which he demonstrated throughout the year and inspired in his fellow classmates.

Mr. Wiles focuses on Joe's substantial personal strengths, ones that would likely be impressive to his future educators. Even in a subject that may not come naturally to him, Joe is diligent and committed. He's not self-conscious about asking questions or seeking extra help, and he retains a strong belief in himself that he can continuously learn, improve, and acquire new skills.

This letter, like the others, is effective because it is focused, supportive, and backed up with examples. As you can tell from these examples, recommendations can communicate a great deal about a student. Because of this, they can have a powerful impact on a student's chances of admission. So what can teachers and students do to make sure they are sending a strong recommendation letter that will help their chances?

Enthusiasm is key.

How to Get a Strong Recommendation Letter

While these letters are about different students with different interests, they share certain fundamental features. One, they sound excited and enthusiastic. The teachers clearly communicate that they are impressed by these students and eager to help them get into college.

At the same time, the letters don't go overboard because they have examples to back up their assessments. Specific examples and stories are key for backing up the assessment. Plus, they make a letter more interesting and memorable. Rather than just another engineering applicant, Stacy is the student who researched sound-absorption to spare her parents from hours of guitar scales.

Finally, the teachers all discuss their students' personal strengths , along with their academic strengths. They present the holistic view that admissions officers are looking for, along with their strong vote of confidence in the students' future success.

Teachers should incorporate all these features into their letters, and students should help provide them with the raw material to write about. While students should choose a teacher who knows them well and has stories and observations to share, they should also give their teachers a detailed "brag sheet" and let them know what would go into their ideal letter. That way it can be even more personalized and complement the story the student is telling in the rest of her application.

While recommenders may or may not share their letters with students, there should still be open, two-way communication when the student makes her request . That way students and teachers can work together to produce an insightful, enthusiastic, and specific letter of recommendation to send to colleges.

What's Next?

Are you a teacher writing recommendations for your students? Read all about how to write an outstanding recommendation letter for your students , along with what not to include.

Are you or a student you work with applying to a selective school, like Harvard? Learn about what kind of letter she should get for the Ivy League.

Now that you've read these examples of strong teacher recommendation letters, check out these examples of bad ones . Warning: rec letters may appear better than they actually are.

Rebecca graduated with her Master's in Adolescent Counseling from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She has years of teaching and college counseling experience and is passionate about helping students achieve their goals and improve their well-being. She graduated magna cum laude from Tufts University and scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• marquette.edu //
• Contacts //
• A-Z Index //
• Give to Marquette

Marquette.edu  //  Career Center  //  Students  // 

Letters of recommendation are written evaluations of an individual’s performance whether at work or in the classroom. This information is an integral part of the world of education, health care, social services and many other industries. You can gather letters of recommendation from instructors, advisers, supervisors or anyone who has witnessed your abilities.

If it is that you will be utilizing this letter multiple times, please direct your letter writer to keep the letter general and do not address the letter to anyone in particular.

Choosing Your Letter of Recommendation Writer(s)

• Be sure to ask individuals who will provide honest, candid, and positive recommendations
• Select professionals; do not select friends
• Provide the individual an opportunity to decline your request (some individuals may not feel capable due to not knowing you well enough, may not have the time, or may feel uncomfortable writing a letter of recommendation for you)

When to Ask

The sooner the better.  If you are planning on applying to graduate programs you may want to let your letter writer know when you will be applying.  Also, many letter writers are not usually writing for just you.  They may be writing letters of recommendation for other students so keep this in mind. 

After They Have Agreed

• Have a conversation with your letter writer and discuss your career goals or your reason for wanting to attend graduate school or apply for a job
• Tell them what you have been doing while in school and/or working
• Explain the graduate program or position so they have an understanding of what you’ll be doing
• Inform them of what is valued in a candidate for the program or job you are seeking

What to Provide

• Cover Letter or Personal Statement
• Any other helpful documents you provided to the school or employer
• Deadline for letter submission
• Transcripts (optional)

When You Accept Your New Opportunity

Always follow up with your letter writer when you have accepted. Send them a thank you note telling them about your new opportunity.

Additional Tips

• Make sure to carefully read the job description and what is needed to apply
• When applying for a job, provide letters of recommendation only when asked
• When applying for graduate programs, be certain to know the school’s letter of recommendation submission process (some schools will contact your letter of recommendation writer on your behalf with instructions)
• Remember that people have busy lives
• If there are deadlines, be sure to tell your letter writer
• Check in with them if necessary while being respectful and gracious 

• Schedule an Appointment
• Major/Career Exploration
• Internship/Job Search
• Graduate/Professional School
• Year of Service
• Resume and Cover Letter Writing

• Login to Handshake
• Getting Started with Handshake
• Handshake Support for Students
• Handshake Support for Alumni
• Handshake Information for Employers

CONNECT WITH US

PROBLEM WITH THIS WEBPAGE? Report an accessibility problem To report another problem, please contact   [email protected]

Marquette University Holthusen Hall, First Floor Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: (414) 288-7423

• Campus contacts
• Search marquette.edu

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Privacy Policy Legal Disclaimer Non-Discrimination Policy Accessible Technology

© 2024 Marquette University

Sample letter of recommendation. It is my pleasure to recommend Jane Doe for admission to [name of program] at [name of university]. I am a fifth-year Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley. I came to know Jane when I was her Graduate Student Instructor for Philosophy 111: Ethical Relativism, taught by Professor John Smith.

A student recommendation letter for a PhD will typically be between one to two pages. The document of recommendation letter for PhD student should be well differentiated into 5-6 paragraphs. The LOR for PhD should begin with an introductory paragraph about the recommender and his/her association with the applicant.

Recommendation letter template. Here's a template you can use when writing a recommendation letter for a student hoping to be accepted into a Ph.D. program: [Recipient's name] I am pleased to recommend [applicant name] for the [Ph.D. program] at the [university name]. I am [your name], a [work position]. I have [number] years of experience ...

When to ask for a letter of recommendation for graduate school? You should ask for a letter of recommendation for graduate school between six weeks and two months before the application deadline. This gives your recommender plenty of time to draft, write, and revise your letter of recommendation—increasing the final quality and level of impact.

Use this outline as a letter of recommendation template in which to input your candidate's achievements, skills, and traits. Note that the flow of information moves the reader into greater detail, using form phrases and transitions that increase the readability of the letter. 1. Greeting to the recipient.

Learn how to approach and write strong letters of recommendation for your graduate school application, using Stanford University's recommendations and insights from the Graduate Admissions website. Find out the number, type, and quality of letters you need, who to ask, what to include, and how to submit them.

Graduate school recommendation letter example The following is an example of a graduate school recommendation letter: Clayton Bishop Associate professor of communication (225) 555-0100 [email protected] . Dear Dr. Ronald Palmer: It's with great pride I recommend Shane Donovan for admission into the organizational communication master's program at Bridge Road University.

As for structure, letters of recommendation should not be longer than a page. Start off with a greeting ("Dear [Name]" or "To Whom It May Concern," if you don't know the recipient). In the opening paragraph, explain who you are, the nature of your relationship with the student and your overall impression of them.

Three scientists offer their tips on writing a stellar letter of recommendation. Credit: Getty. Undergraduates need them for graduate-school applications; PhD students and postdocs use them to ...

Table of contents. Step 1: Choose who to ask. Step 2: Reach out and request a meeting. Step 3: Ask for a letter of recommendation. Step 4: Share your resume and other materials. Step 5: Remind your recommenders of upcoming deadlines. Other interesting articles.

This is a sample recommendation for a graduate school applicant was written by the applicant's college dean, who was familiar with the applicant's academic achievements. The letter is short but does an ample job of emphasizing things that would be important to a graduate school admissions committee, such as GPA, work ethic, and leadership ability.

Grad School Recommendation Letter by a Professor Sample Template. By Tara Kuther, Ph.D. Dear Dr. Smith, I am writing to you in support of Mr. Stu Student and his desire to attend Graduate School University for the Basket Weaving program. Though many students ask me to make this request on their behalf, I only recommend candidates who I feel are ...

Sample Graduate School Recommendation Letters. The three sample recommendation letters that follow, which you can download by clicking on the link below, are effective because they detail what makes the students stand out as exceptional and because they paint individual pictures of each student. Note how these excerpts, excerpted from each of ...

An Effective Recommendation Letter for Graduate School Explains how the professor knows the student. The professor speaks to the student's abilities in several contexts rather than just in class. Is detailed. Supports statements with specific examples. Compares a student to her peers and the letter explains exactly what makes the student ...

If you need a LOR for Ph.D., here is everything that you need to know including guidelines and a useful sample. A well-crafted Letter of Recommendation is a crucial component of any PhD application, serving as a testament to the candidate's academic abilities, research potential, and character. It provides the admissions committee with valuable insights from a third-party perspective, often ...

Writing a letter of recommendation for a PhD student can be a daunting task, but don't worry-with the right structure and language, you can create a glowing recommendation that will showcase the student's talents and qualifications. First things first, make sure to address the letter to the appropriate person or group, whether it be a ...

BEING ASKED TO WRITE A LETTER Letters of recommendation are ubiquitous in an academic research career. If you teach one or more senior-level undergraduate courses or have undergraduate students in your laboratory, you might have to write dozens of letters a year as students become graduate-school bound or look for employment. If you do not

They are the main point of reference when it comes to assessing an applicant's qualification for a PhD program. The letter below is a good example for a former MSc student, who now wants to pursue a PhD in the same field. It is already somewhat specifically addressed, as it directly refers to a doctorare degree in Linguistics. Dear Sir or Madam,

An ideal recommendation letter for a PhD should be one to two pages long with five to six paragraphs in total, not longer than that. Begin your LOR with an introduction that refers the candidate directly to the university/college. It is mainly an introduction of the recommender to the university and how long they have known the applicant.

A good recommendation letter can significantly impact an applicant's chance of securing a position or funding. Writing recommendation letters is most enjoyable when the applicant is an exceptional student with an impressive profile, whom you genuinely want to endorse. As many master's and PhD students may be required to write the first draft of their

A letter of recommendation for a student should describe their positive qualities, including their academic achievements, interpersonal skills, work ethic, and character. To be effective, the letter should focus on skills and qualifications that are most valuable in the job or program for which the student is applying.

Reference Letter for Student for Graduate Program Sample 03. Importance of a Recommendation Letter. An effective recommendation letter can help a student excel and stand out from other applicants during the application and hiring process. It gives a student's application an edge. As stated, the letters are needed for admissions processes.

Sample Letter #4: Joe the Hard Worker. Dear Admissions Committee, It is my pleasure to recommend Joe, who I taught in my 11th grade math class. Joe demonstrated tremendous effort and growth throughout the year and brought a great energy to class.

When applying for a job, provide letters of recommendation only when asked; When applying for graduate programs, be certain to know the school's letter of recommendation submission process (some schools will contact your letter of recommendation writer on your behalf with instructions) Remember that people have busy lives

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Ontological Arguments

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century C.E. In his Proslogion , St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived . St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists —can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

In the seventeenth century, René Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For instance, in the Fifth Meditation , Descartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists.

In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz attempted to fill what he took to be a shortcoming in Descartes’ view. According to Leibniz, Descartes’ arguments fail unless one first shows that the idea of a supremely perfect being is coherent, or that it is possible for there to be a supremely perfect being. Leibniz argued that, since perfections are unanalysable, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible—and he concluded from this that all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity.

In more recent times, Kurt Gödel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and Plantinga; in these cases, however, it is unclear whether we should really say that these authors claim that the arguments are proofs of the existence of God.

Critiques of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm. Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason . Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a predicate. However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.

In various ways, the account provided to this point is rough, and susceptible of improvement. Sections 1–5 in what follows provide some of the requisite embellishments, though—as is usually the case in philosophy—there are many issues taken up here which could be pursued at much greater length. Sections 6–8 take up some of the central questions at a slightly more sophisticated level of discussion. Section 9 is a quick overview of very recent work on ontological arguments:

1. History of Ontological Arguments

2. taxonomy of ontological arguments, 3. characterisation of ontological arguments, 4. objections to ontological arguments, 5. parodies of ontological arguments, 6. gödel’s ontological argument, 7. a victorious ontological argument, 8. st. anselm’s ontological argument, 9. ontological arguments in the 21st century, primary texts, other texts, other internet resources, related entries.

For a useful discussion of the history of ontological arguments in the modern period, see Harrelson 2009.

According to a modification of the taxonomy of Oppy 1995, there are eight major kinds of ontological arguments, viz:

• definitional ontological arguments;
• conceptual (or hyperintensional) ontological arguments;
• modal ontological arguments;
• Meinongian ontological arguments;
• experiential ontological arguments;
• mereological ontological arguments;
• higher-order ontological arguments; and
• ‘Hegelian’ ontological arguments;

Examples of all but the last follow. These are mostly toy examples. But they serve to highlight the deficiencies which more complex examples also share.

Note: I provide no example of a ‘Hegelian’ ontological argument because I know of no formulation of such an argument. Many people assert that Hegel provided an ontological argument; but, when pressed for a list of the premises of the argument, Hegel’s friends fail to deliver. (For a defense of Hegel against these charges—but not for a supply of the premises of ‘the Hegelian ontological argument’—see Redding and Bubbio 2014.)

God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Malcolm 1960, Hartshorne 1965, and Plantinga 1974 for closely related arguments.)

[It is analytic, necessary and a priori that] Each instance of the schema “The F G is F ” expresses a truth. Hence the sentence “The existent perfect being is existent” expresses a truth. Hence, the existent perfect being is existent. Hence, God is existent, i.e. God exists. (The last step is justified by the observation that, as a matter of definition, if there is exactly one existent perfect being, then that being is God.)

The word ‘God’ has a meaning that is revealed in religious experience. The word ‘God’ has a meaning only if God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Rescher 1959 for a live version of this argument.)

I exist. Therefore something exists. Whenever a bunch of things exist, their mereological sum also exists. Therefore the sum of all things exists. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists.

Say that a God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only those worlds in which God exists. Not all properties are God properties. Any property entailed by a collection of God-properties is itself a God-property. The God-properties include necessary existence, necessary omnipotence, necessary omniscience, and necessary perfect goodness. Hence, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily omnipotent, necessarily omniscient, and necessarily perfectly good being (namely, God).

Of course, this taxonomy is not exclusive: an argument can belong to several categories at once. Moreover, an argument can be ambiguous between a range of readings, each of which belongs to different categories. This latter fact may help to explain part of the curious fascination of ontological arguments. Finally, the taxonomy can be further specialised: there are, for example, at least four importantly different kinds of modal ontological arguments which should be distinguished. (See, e.g., Ross 1969 for a rather different kind of modal ontological argument.)

It is not easy to give a good characterisation of ontological arguments. The traditional characterisation involves the use of problematic notions—analyticity, necessity, and a priority —and also fails to apply to many arguments to which defenders have affixed the label “ontological”. (Consider, for example, the claim that I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. This claim is clearly not analytic (its truth doesn’t follow immediately from the meanings of the words used to express it), nor necessary (I might never have entertained the concept), nor a priori (except perhaps in my own case, though even this is unclear—perhaps even I don’t know independently of experience that I have this concept.)) However, it is unclear how that traditional characterisation should be improved upon.

Perhaps one might resolve to use the label “ontological argument” for any argument which gets classified as “an ontological argument” by its proponent(s). This procedure would make good sense if one thought that there is a natural kind—ontological arguments—which our practice carves out, but for which is hard to specify defining conditions. Moreover, this procedure can be adapted as a pro tem stop gap: when there is a better definition to hand, that definition will be adopted instead. On the other hand, it seems worthwhile to attempt a more informative definition.

Focus on the case of ontological arguments for the conclusion that God exists. One characteristic feature of these arguments is the use which they make of “referential vocabulary”—names, definite descriptions, indefinite descriptions, quantified noun phrases, etc.—whose ontological commitments—for occurrences of this vocabulary in “referential position”—non-theists do not accept.

Theists and non-theists alike (can) agree that there is spatio-temporal, or causal, or nomic, or modal structure to the world (the basis for cosmological arguments); and that there are certain kinds of complexity of organisation, structure and function in the world (the basis for teleological arguments); and so on. But theists and non-theists are in dispute about whether there are perfect beings, or beings than which no greater can be conceived, or … ; thus, theists and non-theists are in dispute about the indirect subject matter of the premises of ontological arguments.

Of course, the premises of ontological arguments often do not deal directly with perfect beings, beings than which no greater can be conceived, etc.; rather, they deal with descriptions of, or ideas of, or concepts of, or the possibility of the existence of, these things. However, the basic point remains: ontological arguments require the use of vocabulary which non-theists should certainly find problematic when it is used in ontologically committing contexts (i.e not inside the scope of prophylactic operators—such as “according to the story” or “by the lights of theists” or “by the definition”—which can be taken to afford protection against unwanted commitments).

Note that this characterisation does not beg the question against the possibility of the construction of a successful ontological argument—i.e., it does not lead immediately to the conclusion that all ontological arguments are question-begging (in virtue of the ontologically committing vocabulary which they employ). For it may be that the vocabulary in question only gets used in premises under the protection of prophylactic operators (which ward off the unwanted commitments.) Of course, there will then be questions about whether the resulting arguments can possibly be valid—how could the commitments turn up in the conclusion if they are not there in the premises?—but those are further questions, which would remain to be addressed.

Objections to ontological arguments take many forms. Some objections are intended to apply only to particular ontological arguments, or particular forms of ontological arguments; other objections are intended to apply to all ontological arguments. It is a controversial question whether there are any successful general objections to ontological arguments.

One general criticism of ontological arguments which have appeared hitherto is this: none of them is persuasive , i.e., none of them provides those who do not already accept the conclusion that God exists—and who are reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc.—with either a pro tanto reason or an all-things-considered reason to accept that conclusion. Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a result which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. non-theists will accept, or has a benign conclusion which has no religious significance, or else falls prey to more than one of the above failings.

For each of the families of arguments introduced in the earlier taxonomy, we can give general reasons why arguments of that family fall under the general criticism. In what follows, we shall apply these general considerations to the exemplar arguments introduced in section 2.

(1) Definitional arguments: These are arguments in which ontologically committing vocabulary is introduced solely via a definition. An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition. (The inference from ‘By definition, God is an existent being’ to ‘God exists’ is patently invalid; while the inference to ‘By definition, God exists’ is valid, but uninteresting. In the example given earlier, the premises licence the claim that, as a matter of definition, God possesses the perfection of existence. But, as just noted, there is no valid inference from this claim to the further claim that God exists.)

(2) Conceptual arguments: These are arguments in which ontologically committing vocabulary is introduced solely within the scope of hyperintensional operators (e.g. ‘believes that’, ‘conceives of’, etc.). Often, these operators have two readings, one of which can cancel ontological commitment, and the other of which cannot. On the reading which can give cancellation (as in the most likely reading of ‘John believes in Santa Claus’), the inference to a conclusion in which the ontological commitment is not cancelled will be invalid. On the reading which cannot cancel ontological commitment (as in that reading of ‘John thinks about God’ which can only be true if there is a God to think about), the premises are question-begging: they incur ontological commitments which non-theists reject. In our sample argument, the claim, that I conceive of an existent being than which no greater being can be conceived, admits of the two kinds of readings just distinguished. On the one hand, on the reading which gives cancellation, the inference to the conclusion that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived is plainly invalid. On the other hand, on the reading in which there is no cancellation, it is clear that this claim is one which no reasonable, etc. non-theist will accept: if you doubt that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then, of course, you doubt whether you can have thoughts about such a being.

(3) Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God’s attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world; all non-theists reject the claim that God exists in the actual world. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises:

• God exists in at least one possible world.
• God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any.

A minimally rational non-theist would not accept both of these premises – they entail that God exists in every possible world whereas a minimally rational non-theists would insist that there is at least one possible world in which God does not exist. Given that that a minimally rational non-theist accepts that there is at least one possible world in which God does not exist, such a non-theist could offer the following counterargument:

• God fails to exist in at least one possible world.

These premises entail that God exists in no possible world, and hence that God does not exist in the actual world. Considered together, the argument and the counterargument just mentioned plainly do not give anyone a reason to prefer theism to non-theism, and nor do they give anyone a reason to prefer non-theism to theism. So the sample argument is unsuccessful: it doesn’t supply an all-things-considered reason to prefer theism to non-theism (just as the counterargument doesn’t supply an all-things-considered reason to prefer non-theism to theism).

(4) Meinongian arguments: These are arguments which depend somehow or other on Meinongian theories of objects. Consider the schema ‘The F G is F ’. Naive Meinongians will suppose that if F is instantiated with any property, then the result is true (and, quite likely, necessary, analytic and a priori). So, for example, the round square is round; the bald current King of France is bald; and so on. However, more sophisticiated Meinongians will insist that there must be some restriction on the substitution instances for F, in order to allow one to draw the obvious and important ontological distinction between the following two groups: {Bill Clinton, the sun, the Eiffel Tower} and {Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, the round square}. Choice of vocabulary here is controversial: Let us suppose (for the sake of example) that the right thing to say is that the former things exist and the latter do not. Under this supposition, ‘existent’ will not be a suitable substitution instance for F—obviously, since we all agree that there is no existent round square. Of course, nothing hangs on the choice of ‘existent’ as the crucial piece of vocabulary. The point is that non-theists are not prepared to include god(s) in the former group of objects—and hence will be unpersuaded by any argument which tries to use whatever vocabulary is used to discriminate between the two classes as the basis for an argument that god(s) belong to the former group. (Cognoscenti will recognise that the crucial point is that Meinongian ontological arguments fail to respect the distinction between nuclear (assumptible, characterising) properties and non-nuclear (non-assumptible, non-characterising) properties. It should, of course, be noted that neither Meinong, nor any of his well-known modern supporters—e.g. Terence Parsons, Richard Sylvan—ever endorses a Meinongian ontological argument; and it should also be noted that most motivate the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear properties in part by a need to avoid Meinongian ontological arguments. The reason for calling these arguments “Meinongian” is that they rely on quantification over—or reference to—non-existent objects; there is no perjorative intent in the use of this label.)

(5) Experiential arguments: These are arguments which try to make use of ‘externalist’ or ‘object-involving’ accounts of content. It should not be surprising that they fail. After all, those accounts of content need to have something to say about expressions which fail to refer (‘Santa Claus’, ‘phlogiston’, etc.). But, however the account goes, non-theists will insist that expressions which purport to refer to god(s) should be given exactly the same kind of treatment.

(6) Mereological arguments: Those who dislike mereology will not be impressed by these arguments. However, even those who accept principles of unrestricted composition—i.e., who accept principles which claim, e.g., that, whenever there are some things, there is something which is the sum or fusion of all of those things—need not be perturbed by them: for it is plausible to think that the conclusions of these arguments have no religious significance whatsoever—they are merely arguments for, e.g., the existence of the physical universe.

(7) Higher-Order arguments: The key to these arguments is the observation that any collection of properties, that (a) does not include all properties and (b) is closed under entailment, is possibly jointly instantiated. If it is impossible that God exists — as all who deny that God exists suppose, on the further assumption that, were God to exist, God would exist of necessity — then it cannot be true both that the God-properties are closed under entailment and that there are properties that are not God-properties. Those who take themselves to have good independent reason to deny that there are any gods will take themselves to have good independent reason to deny that there are God-properties that form a non-trivial collection that is closed under entailment.

Even if the forgoing analyses are correct, it is important to note that no argument has been given for the conclusion that no ontological argument can be successful. Even if all of the kinds of arguments produced to date are pretty clearly unsuccessful—i.e., not such as ought to give non-theists reason to accept the conclusion that God exists—it remains an open question whether there is some other kind of hitherto undiscovered ontological argument which does succeed. (Perhaps it is worth adding here that there is fairly widespread consensus, even amongst theists, that no known ontological arguments for the existence of God are persuasive. Most categories of ontological argument have some actual defenders; but none has a large following.)

Many other objections to (some) ontological arguments have been proposed. All of the following have been alleged to be the key to the explanation of the failure of (at least some) ontological arguments: (1) existence is not a predicate (see, e.g., Kant, Smart 1955, Alston 1960); (2) the concept of god is meaningless/incoherent/ inconsistent (see, e.g., Findlay 1949); (3) ontological arguments are ruled out by “the missing explanation argument” (see Johnston 1992; (4) ontological arguments all trade on mistaken uses of singular terms (see, e.g., Barnes 1972; (5) existence is not a perfection (see almost any textbook in philosophy of religion); (6) ontological arguments presuppose a Meinongian approach to ontology (see, e.g., Dummett 1993); and (7) ontological arguments are question-begging, i.e., presuppose what they set out to prove (see, e.g., Rowe 1989). There are many things to say about these objections: the most important point is that almost all of them require far more controversial assumptions than non-theists require in order to be able to reject ontological arguments with good conscience. Trying to support most of these claims merely in order to beat up on ontological arguments is like using a steamroller to crack a nut (in circumstances in which one is unsure that one can get the steamroller to move!).

Of course, all of the above discussion is directed merely to the claim that ontological arguments are not dialectically efficacious—i.e., they give reasonable non-theists no reason to change their views. It might be wondered whether there is some other use which ontological arguments have—e.g., as Plantinga claims, in establishing the reasonableness of theism. This seems unlikely. After all, at best these arguments show that certain sets of sentences (beliefs, etc.) are incompatible—one cannot reject the conclusions of these arguments while accepting their premises. But the arguments themselves say nothing about the reasonableness of accepting the premisses. So the arguments themselves say nothing about the (unconditional) reasonableness of accepting the conclusions of these arguments. Those who are disposed to think that theism is irrational need find nothing in ontological arguments to make them change their minds (and those who are disposed to think that theism is true should take no comfort from them either).

Positive ontological arguments—i.e., arguments FOR the existence of god(s)—invariably admit of various kinds of parodies, i.e., parallel arguments which seem at least equally acceptable to non-theists, but which establish absurd or contradictory conclusions. For many positive ontological arguments, there are parodies which purport to establish the non-existence of god(s); and for many positive ontological arguments there are lots (usually a large infinity!) of similar arguments which purport to establish the existence of lots (usally a large infinity) of distinct god-like beings. Here are some modest examples:

(1) By definition, God is a non-existent being who has every (other) perfection. Hence God does not exist.

(2) I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived except that it only ever creates n universes. If such a being does not exist, then we can conceive of a greater being—namely, one exactly like it which does exist. But I cannot conceive of a being which is greater in this way. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived except that it only ever creates n universes exists.

(3) It is possible that God does not exist. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence it is not possible that God exists. Hence God does not exist.

(4) It is analytic, necessary, and a priori that the F G is F . Hence, the existent perfect being who creates exactly n universes is existent. Hence the perfect being who creates exactly n universes exists.

There are many kinds of parodies on Ontological Arguments. The aim is to construct arguments which non-theists can reasonably claim to have no more reason to accept than the original Ontological Arguments themselves. Of course, theists may well be able to hold that the originals are sound, and the parodies not—but that is an entirely unrelated issue. (All theists—and no non-theists—should grant that the following argument is sound, given that the connectives are to be interpretted classically: “Either 2+2=5, or God exists. Not 2+2=5. Hence God exists.” It should be completely obvious that this argument is useless.)

There are many parodic discussions of Ontological Arguments in the literature. A particularly pretty one is due to Raymond Smullyan (1984), in which the argument is attributed to “the unknown Dutch theologian van Dollard”. A relatively recent addition to the genre is described in Grey 2000, though the date of its construction is uncertain. It is the work of Douglas Gasking, one-time Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne (with emendations by William Grey and Denis Robinson):

• The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
• The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
• The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
• The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
• Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.
• An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
• (Hence) God does not exist.

This parody—at least in its current state—seems inferior to other parodies in the literature, including the early parodies of Gaunilo and Caterus. To mention but one difficulty, while we might suppose that it would be a greater achievement to create something if one did not exist than if one did exist, it doesn’t follow from this that a non-existent creator is greater ( qua being) than an existent creator. Perhaps it might be replied that this objection fails to take the first premise into account: if the creation of the world really is “the most marvellous achievement imaginable”, then surely there is some plausibility to the claim that the creator must have been non-existent (since that would make the achievement more marvellous than it would otherwise have been). But what reason is there to believe that the creation of the world is “the most marvellous achievement imaginable”, in the sense which is required for this argument? Surely it is quite easy to imagine even more marvellous achievements—e.g., the creation of many worlds at least as good as this one! (Of course, one might also want to say that, in fact, one cannot conceive of a non-existent being’s actually creating something: that is literally inconceivable. Etc.)

Chambers 2000 and Siegwart 2014 provide nice, recent discussions of Gaunilo’s parody of the Proslogion II argument.

There is a small, but steadily growing, literature on the ontological arguments which Gödel developed in his notebooks, but which did not appear in print until well after his death. These arguments have been discussed, annotated and amended by various leading logicians: the upshot is a family of arguments with impeccable logical credentials. (Interested readers are referred to Sobel 1987, Anderson 1990, Adams 1995b, and Hazen 1999 for the history of these arguments, and for the scholarly annotations and emendations.) Here, I shall give a brief presentation of the version of the argument which is developed by Anderson, and then make some comments on that version. This discussion follows the presentation and discussion in Oppy 1996, 2000.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B , x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive Axiom 6: For any property P , if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the listed theorems do follow from the axioms. (This point was argued in detail by Dana Scott, in lecture notes which circulated for many years and which were transcribed in Sobel 1987 and published in Sobel 2004. It is also made by Sobel, Anderson, and Adams.) So, criticisms of the argument are bound to focus on the axioms, or on the other assumptions which are required in order to construct the proof.

Some philosophers have denied the acceptability of the underlying modal logic. And some philosophers have rejected generous conceptions of properties in favour of sparse conceptions according to which only some predicates express properties. But suppose that we adopt neither of these avenues of potential criticism of the proof. What else might we say against it?

One important point to note is that no definition of the notion of “positive property” is supplied with the proof. At most, the various axioms which involve this concept can be taken to provide a partial implicit definition. If we suppose that the “positive properties” form a set, then the axioms provide us with the following information about this set:

• If a property belongs to the set, then its negation does not belong to the set.
• The set is closed under entailment.
• The property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set is itself a member of the set.
• The set has exactly the same members in all possible worlds.
• The property of necessary existence is in the set.
• If a property is in the set, then the property of having that property necessarily is also in the set.

On Gödel’s theoretical assumptions, we can show that any set which conforms to (1)–(6) is such that the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in that set is exemplified. Gödel wants us to conclude that there is just one intuitive, theologically interesting set of properties which is such that the property of having as essential properties just the properties in that set is exemplified. But, on the one hand, what reason do we have to think that there is any theologically interesting set of properties which conforms to the Gödelian specification? And, on the other hand, what reason do we have to deny that, if there is one set of theologically interesting set of properties which conforms to the Gödelian specification, then there are many theologically threatening sets of properties which also conform to that specification?

In particular, there is some reason to think that the Gödelian ontological argument goes through just as well—or just as badly—with respect to other sets of properties (and in ways which are damaging to the original argument). Suppose that there is some set of independent properties { I , G 1 , G 2 , …} which can be used to generate the set of positive properties by closure under entailment and “necessitation”. (“Independence” means: no one of the properties in the set is entailed by all the rest. “Necessitation” means: if P is in the set, then so is necessarily having P . I is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set. G 1 , G 2 , … are further properties, of which we require at least two.) Consider any proper subset of the set { G 1 , G 2 , …}—{ H 1 , H 2 , …}, say—and define a new generating set { I *, H 1 , H 2 , …}, where I * is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the newly generated set. A “proof” parallel to that offered by Gödel “establishes” that there is a being which has as essential properties just those properties in this new set. If there are as few as 7 independent properties in the original generating set, then we shall be able to establish the existence of 720 distinct“God-like” creatures by the kind of argument which Gödel offers. (The creatures are distinct because each has a different set of essential properties.)

Even if the above considerations are sufficient to cast doubt on the credentials of Gödel’s “proof”, they do not pinpoint where the “proof” goes wrong. If we accept that the role of Axioms 1, 2, 4, and 6 is really just to constrain the notion of “positive property” in the right way—or, in other words, if we suppose that Axioms 1, 2, 4, and 6 are “analytic truths” about “positive properties”—then there is good reason for opponents of the “proof” to be sceptical about Axioms 3 and 5. Kant would not have been happy with Axiom 5; and there is at least some reason to think that whether the property of being God-like is “positive” ought to depend upon whether or not there is a God-like being.

The “victorious” modal ontological argument of Plantinga 1974 goes roughly as follows: Say that an entity possesses “maximal excellence” if and only if it is omnipotent, omnscient, and morally perfect. Say, further, that an entity possesses “maximal greatness” if and only if it possesses maximal excellence in every possible world—that is, if and only if it is necessarily existent and necessarily maximally excellent. Then consider the following argument:

• There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
• (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p , one can infer that it is necessary that p . Setting aside the possibility that one might challenge this widely accepted modal principle, it seems that opponents of the argument are bound to challenge the acceptability of the premise.

And, of course, they do. Let’s just run the argument in reverse.

• There is no entity which possesses maximal greatness.
• (Hence) There is no possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Plainly enough, if you do not already accept the claim that there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness, then you won’t agree that the first of these arguments is more acceptable than the second. So, as a proof of the existence of a being which posseses maximal greatness, Plantinga’s argument seems to be a non-starter.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Plantinga himself agrees: the “victorious” modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. But how, then, is it “victorious”? Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga 1974, 221).

It is pretty clear that Plantinga’s argument does not show what he claims that it shows. Consider, again, the argument: “Either God exists, or 2+2=5. It is not the case that 2+2=5. So God exists.” It is just a mistake for a theist to say: “Since the premise is true (and the argument is valid), this argument shows that the conclusion of the argument is true ”. No-one thinks that that argument shows any such thing. Similarly, it is just a mistake for a theist to say: “Since it is rational to accept the premise (and the argument is valid), this argument shows that it is rational to accept the conclusion of the argument”. Again, no one thinks that that argument shows any such thing. But why don’t these arguments show the things in question? There is room for argument about this. But it is at least plausible to claim that, in each case, any even minimally rational person who has doubts about the claimed status of the conclusion of the argument will have exactly the same doubts about the claimed status of the premise. If, for example, I doubt that it is rational to accept the claim that God exists, then you can be quite sure that I will doubt that it is rational to accept the claim that either 2+2=5 or God exists. But, of course, the very same point can be made about Plantinga’s argument: anyone with even minimal rationality who understands the premise and the conclusion of the argument, and who has doubts about the claim that it is rationally permissible to believe that there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness, will have exactly the same doubts about the claim that it is rationally permissible to believe that there is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

For further discussion of Plantinga’s argument, see—for example—Adams 1988, Chandler 1993, Oppy 1995 (70–78, 248–259), Tooley 1981, and van Inwagen 1977).

There is an enormous literature on the material in Proslogion II-III . Some commentators deny that St. Anselm tried to put forward any proofs of the existence of God. Even among commentators who agree that St. Anselm intended to prove the existence of God, there is disagreement about where the proof is located. Some commentators claim that the main proof is in Proslogion II , and that the rest of the work draws out corollaries of that proof (see, e.g., Charlesworth 1965). Other commentators claim that the main proof is in Prologion III , and that the proof in Proslogion II is merely an inferior first attempt (see, e.g., Malcolm 1960). Yet other commentators claim that there is a single proof which spans at least Proslogion II-III —see, e.g., Campbell 1976 and, perhaps, the entire work—see, e.g., La Croix 1972. I shall ignore this aspect of the controversy about the Proslogion . Instead, I shall just focus on the question of the analysis of the material in Proslogion II on the assumption that there is an independent argument for the existence of God which is given therein.

Here is one translation of the crucial part of Proslogion II (due to William Mann (1972, 260–1); alternative translations can be found in Barnes 1972, Campbell 1976, Charlesworth 1965, and elsewhere):

Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality.

There have been many ingenious attempts to find an argument which can be expressed in modern logical formalism, which is logically valid, and which might plausibly be claimed to be the argument which is expressed in this passage. To take a few prime examples, Adams 1971, Barnes 1972 and Oppenheimer and Zalta 1991 have all produced formally valid analyses of the argument in this passage. We begin with a brief presentation of each of these analyses, preceded by a presentation of the formulation of the argument given by Plantinga 1967, and including a presentation of some of the formulations of Lewis 1970. (Chambers 2000 works with the analysis of Adams 1971.)

8.1 Formulation 1

God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio )

Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)

A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)

A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)

A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)

It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)

Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)

God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)

Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

See Plantinga 1967.

8.2 Formulation 2

The Fool understands the expression “the being than which no greater can be conceived”. (Premise)

If a person understands an expression “ b ”, then b is in that person’s understanding. (Premise)

If a thing is in a person’s understanding, then the person can conceive of that thing’s existing in reality. (Premise)

Each thing which exists in reality is greater than any thing which exists only in the understanding. (Premise)

If a person can conceive of something, and that thing entails something else, then the person can also conceive of that other thing. (Premise)

If a person can conceive that a specified object has a given property, then that person can conceive that something or other has that property. (Premise)

Hence the being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. (From (1)-(6), by a complex series of steps here omitted.)

See Barnes 1972.

8.3 Formulation 3

There is a thing x , and a magnitude m , such that x exists in the understanding, m is the magnitude of x , and it it not possible that there is a thing y and a magnitude n such that n is the magnitude of y and n > m . (Premise)

For any thing x and magnitude m , if x exists in the understanding, m is the magnitude of x , and it is not possible that there is a thing y and magnitude n such that n is the magnitude of y and n > m , then it is possible that x exists in reality. (Premise)

For any thing x and magnitude m , if m is the magnitude of x , and it it not possible that there is a thing y and a magnitude n such that n is the magnitude of y and n > m , and x does not exist in reality, then it is not possible that if x exists in reality then there is a magnitude n such that n is greater than m and n is the magnitude of x . (Premise)

(Hence) There is a thing x and a magnitude m such that x exist in the understanding, and x exists in reality, and m is the magnitude of x , and it it not possible that there is a thing y and a magnitude n such that n is the magnitude of y and n > m . (From 1, 2, 3)

See Adams 1971.

8.4 Formulation 4

For any understandable being x , there is a world w such that x exists in w . (Premise)

For any understandable being x , and for any worlds w and v , if x exists in w , but x does not exist in v , then the greatness of x in w exceeds the greatness of x in v . (Premise)

There is an understandable being x such that for no world w and being y does the greatness of y in w exceed the greatness of x in the actual world. (Premise)

(Hence) There is a being x existing in the actual world such that for no world w and being y does the greatness of y in w exceed the greatness of x in the actual world. (From (1)-(3).)

See Lewis 1970.

Lewis also suggests an alternative to (3) which yields a valid argument:

(3′) There is an understandable being x such that for no worlds v and w and being y does the greatness of y in w exceed the greatness of x in v .

and two alternatives to (3)—not presented here—which yield invalid arguments. (Of course, there further two alternatives are crucial to Lewis’ overall analysis of the passage: essentially, Lewis suggests that Anselm equivocates between an invalid argument with plausible premises and a valid argument with question-begging premises. In this respect, Lewis’ analysis is quite different from the other analyses currently under discussion.)

8.5 Formulation 5

There is (in the understanding) something than which there is no greater. (Premise)

(Hence) There is (in the understanding) a unique thing than which there is no greater. (From (1), assuming that the “greater-than” relation is connected.)

(Hence) There is (in the understanding) something which is the thing than which there is no greater. (From (2), by a theorem about descriptions.)

(Hence) There is (in the understanding) nothing which is greater than the thing than which there is no greater. (From (3), by another theorem about descriptions.)

If that thing than which there is no greater does not exist (in reality), then there is (in the understanding) something which is greater than that thing than which there is no greater. (Premise)

(Hence) That thing than which there is no greater exists (in reality). (From (4) and (5).)

(Hence) God exists. (From (6).)

See Oppenheimer and Zalta 1991.

Oppenheimer and Zalta 2011 provides a “simplified” version of this argument, in which the number of controversial assumptions is reduced. Since they also provide a clear reason for thinking that this new version of the argument is not persuasive, I shall not consider it further here.

8.6 Critical Appraisal

Considered as interpretations of the argument presented in the Proslogion , these formulations are subject to various kinds of criticisms.

First , the modal interpretations of Lewis 1970 and Adams 1971 don’t square very well with the rest of the Proslogion : the claim that “being than which no greater can be conceived” should be read as “being than which no greater is possible” would have us render the claim of Proslogion 15 to be that God is a being greater than any which is possible. And that is surely a bad result.

Second , the Meinongian interpretations of Barnes 1972, Adams 1971 and Oppenheimer and Zalta 1991 produce arguments which, given the principles involved, could easily be much simplified, and which are obviously vulnerable to Gaunilo-type objections.

Consider, for example, the case of Oppenheimer and Zalta. They have Anselm committed to the claim that if anyone can understand the phrase “that than which F ”, then there is something in the understanding such that F (see their footnote 25); and they also have him committed to the claim that if there is something which is the F -thing, then it—i.e., the F -thing—has the property F (see page 7). Plainly though, if Anselm is really committed to these principles, then he could hardly fail to be committed to the more general principles: (1) if anyone can understand the phrase “an F ”, then there is at least one F -thing in the understanding; and (2) if there are some things which are the F -things, then they—i.e., the F -things—must have the property F . (It would surely be absurd to claim that Anselm is only committed to the less general principles: what could possibly have justified the restrictions to the special cases?)

But, then, mark the consequences. We all understand the expression “an existent perfect being”. So, by the first claim, there is at least one existent perfect being in the understanding. And, by the second claim, any existent perfect being is existent. So, from these two claims combined, there is—in reality—at least one existent perfect being.

This argument gives Anselm everything that he wants, and very much more briefly. (The Proslogion goes on and on, trying to establish the properties of that than which no greater can be conceived. How much easier if we can just explicitly build all of the properties which want to “derive” into the initial description.) So, if Anselm really were committed to the principles which Oppenheimer and Zalta appear to attribute to him, it is hard to understand why he didn’t give the simpler argument. And, of course, it is also hard to understand why he didn’t take Gaunilo’s criticism. After all, when it is set out in this way, it is obvious that the argument proves far too much.

Third , some of the arguments have Anselm committed to claims about greatness which do not seem to correspond with what he actually says. The natural reading of the text is that, if two beings are identical save that one exists only in the understanding and the other exists in reality as well, then the latter is greater than the former. But Barnes 1971, for example, has Anselm committed to the much stronger claim that any existing thing is greater than every non-existent thing.

Given these kinds of considerations, it is natural to wonder whether there are better interpretations of Proslogion II according to which the argument in question turns out NOT to be logically valid. Here is a modest attempt to provide such an analysis:

We start with the claim that the Fool understands the expression “being than which no greater can be conceived”, i.e., even the Fool can entertain the idea or possess the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. Now, entertaining this idea or possessing this concept requires the entertainer or possessor to recognise certain relationships which hold between given properties and the idea or concept in question. For example, given that you possess the concept of, or entertain the idea of, a smallest really existent Martian, it follows that you must recognise some kind of connection between the properties of being a Martian, really existing, and being smaller than other really existing Martians, and the concept or idea in question.

Following Anselm, we might say that, since you understand the expression “smallest really existent Martian”, there is, in your understanding, at least one smallest really existent Martian. (Or, apparently following Descartes, one might say that real existence is “part of”—or “contained in”—the idea of a smallest really existent Martian.) However, in saying this, it must be understood that we are not actually predicating properties of anything: we aren’t supposing that there is something which possesses the properties of being a Martian, really existing, and being no larger than any other Martian. (After all, we can safely suppose, we don’t think that any Martians really exist.) In other words, we must be able to have the concept of, or entertain the idea of, a smallest really existing Martian without believing that there really are any smallest Martians. Indeed, more strongly, we must be able to entertain the concept of a smallest really existent Martian—and to recognise that the property of “really existing” is part of this concept—while nonetheless maintaining that there are no smallest existent Martians.

It will be useful to introduce vocabulary to mark the point which is being made here. We could, for instance, distinguish between the properties which are encoded in an idea or concept, and the properties which are attributed in positive atomic beliefs which have that idea or concept as an ingredient. The idea “really existent Santa Claus” encodes the property of real existence; but it is perfectly possible to entertain this idea without attributing real existence to Santa Claus, i.e., without believing that Santa Claus really exists.

We can then apply this distinction to Anselm’s argument. On the one hand, the idea “being than which no greater can be conceived” encodes the property of real existence—this is what the reductio argument establishes (if it establishes anything at all). On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to entertain the idea of a being than which no greater can be conceived—and to recognise that this idea encodes the property of real existence—without attributing real existence to a being than which no greater can be conceived, i.e., without believing that a being than which no greater can be conceived really exists.

Of course, the argument which Anselm actually presents pays no attention to this distinction between encoding and attributing—i.e., between entertaining an idea and holding a belief—and nor does it pay attention to various other niceties. We begin from the point that the Fool entertains the idea of that than which no greater can be conceived (because the Fool understands the words “that than which no greater can be conceived”). From this, we move quickly to the claim that even the Fool is “convinced”—i.e., believes—that that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing in the understanding. And then the reductio argument is produced to establish that that than which no greater can be conceived cannot exist only in the understanding but must also possess the property of existing in reality as well (and all mention of the Fool, and what it is that the Fool believes, disappears).

As it stands, this is deeply problematic. How are we supposed to regiment the references to the Fool in the argument? Is the reductio argument supposed to tell us something about what even the Fool believes, or ought to believe? Are the earlier references to the Fool supposed to be inessential and eliminable? How are we so much as to understand the claim that even the Fool believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding? And how do we get from the Fool’s understanding the words “that than which no greater can be conceived” to his believing that that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing in the understanding?

Following the earlier line of thought, it seems that the argument might go something like this:

(Even) the Fool has the concept of that than which no greater can be conceived.

(Hence) (Even) the Fool believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding.

No one who believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists only in the understanding.

(Hence) (Even) the Fool cannot reasonably deny that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality

(Hence) That than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality.

While this is not a good argument, it could appear compelling to one who failed to attend to the distinction between entertaining ideas and holding beliefs and who was a bit hazy on the distinction between the vehicles of belief and their contents. When the Fool entertains the concept of that than which no greater can be conceived he recognises that he is entertaining this concept (i.e., he believes that he is entertaining the concept of that than which no greater can be conceived—or, as we might say, that the concept is in his understanding). Conflating the concept with its object, this gives us the belief that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing in the understanding. Now, suppose as hypothesis for reductio , that we can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing only in the understanding. Ignoring the distinction between entertaining ideas and holding beliefs, this means that we when we entertain the idea of that than which no greater can be conceived, we entertain the idea of a being which exists only in the understanding. But that is absurd: when we entertain the idea of that than which no greater can be conceived, our idea encodes the property of existing in reality. So there is a contradiction, and we can conclude that, in order to be reasonable, we must believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. But if any reasonable person must believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality, then surely it is the case that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality. And so we are done.

No doubt this suggestion about the interpretation of Anselm’s argument is deficient in various ways. However, the point of including it is illustrative rather than dogmatic. In the literature, there has been great resistance to the idea that the argument which Anselm gives is one which modern logicians would not hesitate to pronounce invalid. But it is very hard to see why there should be this resistance. (Certainly, it is not something for which there is much argument in the literature.) The text of the Proslogion is so rough, and so much in need of polishing, that we should not be too quick to dismiss the suggestion that Anselm’s argument is rather more like the argument most recently sketched than it is like the logically valid demonstrations provided by commentators such as Barnes, Adams, and Oppenheimer and Zalta. (For a more complex analysis of Proslogion II that has it yielding a valid argument, see Hinst 2014.)

Many recent discussions of ontological arguments are in compendiums, companions, encylopedias, and the like. So, for example, there are review discussions of ontological arguments in: Leftow 2005, Matthews 2005, Lowe 2007, Oppy 2007, and Maydole 2009. While the ambitions of these review discussions vary, many of them are designed to introduce neophytes to the arguments and their history. Given the current explosion of enthusiasm for compendiums, companions, encylopedias, and the like, in philosophy of religion, it is likely that many more such discussions will appear in the immediate future.

Some recent discussions of ontological arguments have been placed in more synoptic treatments of arguments about the existence of God. So, for example, there are extended discussions of ontological arguments in Everitt 2004, Sobel 2004, and Oppy 2006. Sobel’s examination of ontological arguments is exemplary. He provides one chapter on ‘classical ontological arguments’: Anselm, Descartes, Spinoza, and Kant’s critique of ontological arguments; one chapter on ‘modern modal ontological arguments’: Hartshorne, Malcolm and Plantinga; and one chapter on Gödel’s ontological argument. His analyses are very careful, and make heavy use of the tools of modern philosophical logic.

There has been one recent monograph devoted exclusively to the analysis of ontological arguments: Dombrowski 2006. Dombrowski is a fan of Hartshorne: the aim of his book is to defend the claim that Hartshorne’s ontological argument is a success. While Dombrowski’s book is a useful addition to the literature because of the scope of its discussion of ontological arguments—for example, it contains a chapter on Rorty on ontological arguments, and another chapter on John Taylor on ontological arguments—even reviewers sympathetic to process theism have not been persuaded that it makes a strong case for its central thesis.

Swatkowski (2012) is the most recent collection of papers on ontological arguments. A significant proportion of papers in this collection take up technical questions about logics that support ontological derivations. (Those interested in technical questions may also be interested in the topic taken up in Oppenheimer and Zalta (2011) and Gorbacz (2012).)

Finally, there has been some activity in journals. The most significant of these pieces is Millican 2004, the first article on ontological arguments in recent memory to appear in Mind . Millican argues for a novel interpretation of Anselm’s argument, and for a new critique of ontological arguments deriving from this interpretation. Needless to say, both the interpretation and the critique are controversial, but they are also worthy of attention. Among other journal articles, perhaps the most interesting are Pruss 2010, which provides a novel defence of the key possibility premise in modal ontological arguments, and Pruss 2009, which kick-started recent discussion of higher-order ontological arguments. There is also a chain of papers in Analysis initiated by Matthews and Baker (2010)

• Anselm, St., Proslogion , in St. Anselm’s Proslogion , M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965 [ Available online , in the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies, translation by David Burr].
• Aquinas, T., Summa Theologica , 1272, literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London: Burn, Oates & Washbourne, 1920 [ Available online , in the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies, translation by David Burr].
• Ayer, A., Language, Truth and Logic , second edition, London: Gollancz, 1948.
• Descartes, R., Discourse on Method and The Meditations , translated with an introduction by F. Sutcliffe, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968 [Translation of The Meditations by John Veitch, LL.D. available online ].
• Frege, G., Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik , Bresnau: Koebner, 1884; translated as The Foundations of Arithmetic , J.L. Austin (trans), Oxford: Blackwell, 1974, 2nd rev edition; Original German text available online , (628 KB PDF file), maintained by Alain Blachair, Académie de Nancy-Metz.
• Gaunilo, “On Behalf of the Fool”, in St. Anselm’s Proslogion , M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965 [ Available online in the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham Universit\ y Center for Medieval Studies, translation by David Burr].
• Hegel, G., The Ontological Proof According to the Lectures of 1831 , in P. Hodgson (ed.), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Vol. III Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985, pp. 351–8.
• Hume, D., Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion , 1779, edited with an introduction by H. Aiken, London: Macmillan, 1948.
• Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason , 1787, second edition, translated by N. Kemp-Smith, London: Macmillan, 1933.
• Leibniz, G., New Essay Concerning Human Understanding , 1709, translated by A. Langley, New York: Macmillan, 1896.
• Spinoza, B., The Ethics , 1677, translation of 1883 by R. Elwes, New York: Dover, 1955 [ Available online , prepared by R. Bombardi, for the Philosophy Web Works project, Middle Tennessee State Univerity].
• Adams, R., 1971, “The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Argument”, Philosophical Review , 80: 28–54.
• –––, 1988, “Presumption and the Necessary Existence of God”, Noûs , 22: 19–34.
• –––, 1995a, Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1995b, “Introductory Note to *1970” in K. Gödel Collected Works Volume III: Unpublished essays and lectures , S. Feferman, et al . (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 388–402.
• Alston, W., 1960, “The Ontological Argument Revisited” Philosophical Review , 69: 452–74.
• Anderson, C., 1990, “Some Emendations on Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, Faith and Philosophy , 7: 291–303.
• Barnes, J., 1972, The Ontological Argument , London: Macmillan.
• Campbell, R., 1976, From Belief to Understanding , Canberra: ANU Press.
• Chambers, T., 2000, “On Behalf of the Devil: A Parody of St. Anselm Revisited”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 100: 93–113.
• Chandler, H., 1993, “Some Ontological Arguments”, Faith and Philosophy , 10: 18–32.
• Charlesworth, M., 1965, Anselm’s Proslogion , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dombrowski, D., 2006, Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dummett, M., 1993, “Existence”, in The Seas of Language , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Everitt, N., 2004, The Non-Existence of God , London: Blackwell
• Findlay, J., 1949, “Can God’s Existence Be Disproved?”, Mind , 57: 176–83.
• Gorbacz, P., 2012, “PROVER9’s Simplification Explained Away”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 90: 585–96.
• Grey, W., 2000, “Gasking’s Proof”, Analysis , 60: 368–370.
• Harrelson, K., 2009, The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel , New York: Humanity Books.
• Hartshorne, C., 1965, Anselm’s Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God’s Existence , La Salle, IL: Open Court.
• Hazen, A., 1999, “On Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 76: 361–377.
• Henle, P., 1961, “Uses of the Ontological Argument”, Philosophical Review , 70: 102–9.
• Hinst, P., 2014, “A Logical Analysis of the Main Argument in Chapter 2 of the Proslogion by Anselm of Canterbury”, Philosophiegeschichte Und Logische Analyse , 17: 22–44.
• Johnston, M., 1992, “Explanation, Response-Dependence, and Judgement-Dependence”, in P. Menzies (ed.), Response-Dependent Concepts , Canberra: ANU/RSSS Working Papers in Philosophy, 123–83.
• La Croix, R., 1972, Proslogion II and III: A Third Interpretation of Anselm’s Argument , Leiden: Brill.
• Leftow, B., 2005, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion , W. Wainwright (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80–115.
• Lewis, D., 1970, “Anselm and Actuality”, Noûs , 4: 175–88.
• Lowe, E., 2007, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion , P. Copan and C. Meister (eds.), London: Routledge.
• Malcolm, N., 1960, “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments”, Philosophical Review , 69: 41–62.
• Mann, W., 1972, “The Ontological Presuppositions of the Ontological Argument”, Review of Metaphysics , 26: 260–77.
• Matthews, G., 2005, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion , W. Mann (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 81–102.
• Matthews, G., and Baker, L., 2010 “The Ontological Argument Simplified”, Analysis , 70: 210–212.
• Maydole, R., 2009, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology , W. Craig and J. Moreland (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 553–592.
• Millican, P., 2004, “The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm’s Argument”, Mind , 113: 437–76.
• Oppenheimer, P., and Zalta, E., 1991, “On the Logic of the Ontological Argument”, in J. Tomberlin (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives 5: The Philosophy of Religion , Atascadero: Ridgeview, pp. 509–29 [ Preprint available online ].
• –––, 2011, “A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 89: 333–349.
• Oppy, G., 1995, Ontological Arguments and Belief in God , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1996, “Gödelian Ontological Arguments”, Analysis , 56: 226–230.
• –––, 2000, “Response to Gettings”, Analysis , 60: 363–367.
• –––, 2006, Arguing about Gods , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2007, “The Ontological Argument” in P. Copan and C. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Plantinga, A., 1967, God and Other Minds , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1974, The Nature of Necessity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pruss, A., 2009, “A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved”, Religious Studies , 45: 347–353.
• –––, 2010,“The Ontological Argument and the Motivational Centres of Lives”, Religious Studies , 46: 233–249.
• Redding, P. and Bubbio, P., 2014 “Hegel and the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God”, Religious Studies , 50: 465–86.
• Rescher, N., 1959, “The Ontological Proof Revisited”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 37: 138–48.
• Ross, J., 1969, Philosophical Theology , New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
• Rowe, W., 1989, “The Ontological Argument”, in J. Feinberg (ed.), Reason and Responsibility , seventh edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 8–17.
• Salmon, N., 1987, “Existence”, in J. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 1: Metaphysics , Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview: 49–108.
• Siegwart, G., 2014, “Gaunilo Parodies Anselm: An Extraordinary Job for the Interpreter”, Philosophiegeschichte Und Logische Analyse , 17: 45–71.
• Smart, J., 1955, “The Existence of God”, in A. Flew and A. MacIntyre (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology , London: SCM Press: 500–509.
• Sobel, J., 1987, “Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, in On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright , J. Thomson (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 241–61.
• Sobel, J., 2004, Logic and Theism , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Smullyan, R., 1984, 5000 BC and Other Philosophical Fantasies , New York: St. Martins Press.
• Szatkowski, M. (ed.), 2012, Ontological Proofs Today , Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
• Tooley, M., 1981, “Plantinga’s Defence of the Ontological Argument”, Mind , 90: 422–7.
• van Inwagen, P., 1977, “Ontological Arguments”, Noûs , 11: 375–395.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up this entry topic at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Kurt Gödel’s Ontological Argument (Christopher Small, University of Waterloo)
• Medieval Sourcebook: Philosophers’ Criticisms of Anslem’s Ontological Argument for the Being of God (Paul Halsell, Fordham University)
• Handout for a Talk on the Ontological Argument (J. R. Lucas, Oxford University)
• Ontological Argument Revisited by Two Ottoman Muslim Scholars (Umit Dericioglu)
• The Ontological Argument (Kenneth Himma, University of Washington)
• Anselm’s Ontological Argument (Gideon Rosen, Princeton University)
• Hegel and Kant on the Ontological Argument (Maria de Lourdes Borges, Federal University of Santa Catarina)
• Ontological Argument (links to papers on ontological arguments)
• “ Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel’s Proof of God’s Existence , unpublished manuscript.
• “ Automating Gödel’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence with Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers , published in ECAI 2014, T. Schaub et al . (eds.), IOS Press.

Anselm, Saint [Anselm of Bec, Anselm of Canterbury] | a priori justification and knowledge | Descartes, René | existence | God: concepts of | Gödel, Kurt | Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich | Kant, Immanuel | logic: informal | logic: modal | Meinong, Alexius

Copyright © 2016 by Graham Oppy < Graham . Oppy @ monash . edu >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The Ontological Argument

by Chris Waner | Jun 6, 2019 | Article | 0 comments

Part 1: Apologetics for Everyone Part 2: The Cosmological Arguments

P rofessional philosophers commonly regard the Ontological Argument as the best single logical argument in favor of God’s existence. In fact, many secular philosophers have conceded that the Modal Ontological Argument (the version of the argument under consideration in this article) holds up under even the most rigorous scrutiny. This is particularly impressive when we consider just how many years critics have had to find fault with the argument. It was Anselm of Canterbury who first discovered and defended a version of this argument in his work Proslogion in 1078 AD.

Yet in spite of the tremendous effectiveness and age of the argument, it remains one of the more obscure arguments, especially to the average theist.  But why would perhaps the oldest and best argument in favor of God’s existence be the least known?  The answer appears to be two fold:

• The scope of the argument can be challenging to defend.
• Many people find the argument difficult to understand.

Let’s start with the scope of the argument.

What is the scope of the Ontological Argument?

One of the misunderstandings about the Ontological Argument is that the Ontological Argument claims to prove that God exists. This is false. All that the argument attempts to accomplish is to show that if the idea of God is not logically or metaphysically incoherent, that is, if the idea of God is not irrational, then God does exist. Understanding this is critical to utilizing the argument correctly. For the time being we will not worry too much about this fact, but we will return to this idea in our discussion time. Now, let’s look at the second reason the argument is unfamiliar to many theists.

Many people find the argument difficult to understand. But Why?

• Part of the reason is that the argument requires some training in the construction of philosophical reasoning.
• The argument acts almost like a mathematics problem, which some find daunting.
• Many casual observers think the argument seems “fishy” and then they see the volumes of pop-philosophical criticism of the argument and choose to ignore the argument altogether.

So, my objective in this article is to demystify the Ontological Argument, to break it down in simple terms that anyone can understand. My hope is that everyone will gain a mastery of this argument and will make it a utility in the defense of their faith .

Although the Ontological Argument comes in many forms, in this article we will be examining Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument . I have chosen Plantinga’s version for two reasons:

• It is relatively simple.
• It uses modal logic, which if you have read Article 02: The Cosmological Argument you will already be familiar with. If you haven’t, no problem. We’ll cover it again here.

So let’s cover modal logic now and go through some of the definitions that are necessary to understand the argument, including the word Ontology itself.

Modal logic is a method of forming arguments based on three types of objects. We ask, are the objects in question:

• Impossible Objects : Impossible objects are objects that cannot exist rationally, like a square circle.
• Contingent Objects : Contingent objects are objects that depend on something else for their existence, like apples depend on apple trees or eggs depend on chickens. In reality all space-time objects are contingent, they depend on physics to exist if nothing else.
• Necessary Objects : Necessary objects are objects that depend on nothing for their existence. The number 3 might be a necessary object, for example.

In addition to these three types of objects we also need to add another modal logic concept to our repertoire, the idea of possible worlds .

A possible world is not another planet or a parallel dimension. In logical arguments possible worlds are simply descriptions of the way reality could be .

For example, in a possible world Adolph Hitler and the Nazis won World War II. In another possible world, we all pooled our money, bought a lottery ticket, won, and are all millionaires. Both of these examples are worlds which are plausibly true, they could exist. However, according to this definition, a possible world cannot be an impossible world. So there cannot be any world in which logically impossible objects exist. For example, there cannot be a universe in which 2 = 3 or there are 4 sided triangles or, as William Lane Craig puts it, there cannot be a world in which there are married bachelors. These things are logically absurd and cannot exist in any possible world.

Believe it or not, if you understand these four simple logic concepts: impossible objects, contingent objects, necessary objects, and possible worlds, you have all of the required information to reason through the Ontological Argument.

Next let’s define God.

That task might seem daunting, but fortunately the Ontological Argument does this for us. Anselm saw God, in simple terms, as what he called a Maximally Great Being (MGB). He noted that God would always be the greatest being that anyone could imagine. If someone could imagine a greater being, then that being would be God. He went on to say that God would have only great-making properties and no less-making properties. Here are a few examples:

A maximally great being will have all great-making properties and have those properties to their fullest extent.

Finally, what does the word Ontological itself mean?

Of course, the root word of ‘ontological’ is ‘ontology.’ Although ‘ontology’ sounds like a fancy word, its meaning is actually quite simple: ontology is the study of the nature of being or existing.

So the Ontological Argument simply means a logical argument that, if true, argues in favor of the existence of God. What is so interesting about this argument is that it relies on nothing other than logic to show that if the premises are true, then God must exist.

So, now that we have an understanding of all of the pieces that go into the Ontological Argument, let’s look at the Ontological Argument itself:

Premise 1 : It is possible that a maximally great being (MGB) exists.

Premise 2 : If it is possible that a MGB exists, then a MGB exists in some possible world.

Premise 3 : If a MGB exists in some possible world, then a MGB exists in every possible world.

Premise 4 : If a MGB exists in every possible world, then a MGB exists in the actual world.

Premise 5 : If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists.

Conclusion 1 : Therefore, a MGB exists.

Believe it or not, among professional philosophers premises 2 through 5 are incontrovertible; they simply follow from premise 1. In fact, the only premise in contention in the whole argument is premise 1.

Let’s examine the argument more closely to see how it works.

Premise 1 : The first premise makes a truth statement that can either be accepted or rejected. The claim is that it is possible that a maximally great being exists. This premise is quite interesting when we consider the fact that most atheists readily grant that it is possible that God exists, but they just don’t believe that God does exist.

Premise 2 : Premise two basically restates premise 1 using “possible worlds” vernacular. In fact, anything that is possible is possible in some possible world by definition. Nevertheless, utilizing “possible worlds” vernacular makes the rest of the argument simpler to understand.

Premise 3 : This is where things get interesting. Premise three states that if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, he exists in every possible world. But why? The answer is that he is maximally great. If creature A exists in only one possible world, that’s good. If creature B exists in two possible worlds, well, that’s even better. The more worlds that a being exists in, the better the being is. By this reasoning we come to see that a maximally great being must be great maximally and, therefore, must exist in ALL possible worlds.

Premise 4 : Now, in premise four everything begins coming together. For if a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, and our world is not only a possible world but is the actual world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

Premise 5 : And it only naturally follows that if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Conclusion 1 : Therefore, God exists.

Once this line of reasoning is understood, it is greatly empowering. We come to recognize that we have a logical confirmation of our own faith and a reason for our belief in God . Further, we have a tool for evangelizing.

Now, notice what happens here: if a person admits that it is possible that God exists, they have entered an inescapable syllogism, an air tight logical case that necessarily leads to the fact that God does exist.

But what if the person believes it is impossible that God exists?

Because of the Ontological Argument, most secular or atheistic philosophers find themselves forced into adopting the notion that it is impossible that God exists. However, in order to hold this position with intellectual honesty the atheist must show in what way the very notion of God is logically incoherent.

What does it mean to be logically incoherent?

Simply put, being logically incoherent is synonymous with being impossible . In other words, the atheist must argue in modal logical terms that God is not only not necessary but is also an impossible object. Under the strength of the Ontological Argument a failure to prove that God is an impossible object is the same as logical evidence that God exists.

The last millennium or so has shown just how difficult it is to demonstrate that the idea of God is logically incoherent.

It’s certainly not for a lack of trying, however. In fact, I have catalogued no fewer than fourteen major dissensions to the Ontological Argument. Some of these objections are rather sophisticated while others are really quite silly. Let’s take a look at some of them now.

Objection 1: Omnipotence Paradox

The Omnipotence Paradox is an attempt to show that the idea of God is logically incoherent. The objection goes something like this:

“Can God create a rock so big that even he cannot lift it? If he cannot create the rock, then He is not omnipotent. If He can create the rock and cannot lift it, He is not omnipotent.”

On face value, this seems like an interesting argument. But it turns out to be as empty as it is adorable.

The problem with the argument is that it is what is called a “straw man” argument. A straw man argument is an argument which attributes a statement or action to a person who never said that statement or never did that action, and then attacks them for it.

An example of a straw man argument might look like this:

Child: “Can we get a dog?” Parent: “No.” Child: “It would protect our home.” Parent: “Sorry, no.” Child: “Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?”

Not wanting a dog is not evidence that the parent wishes to leave the family and house unprotected. The accusation against the parent is a straw man.

But what does this have to do with Omnipotence Paradox?

Simply this, nowhere does the idea of being maximally great make the promise that a maximally great being can do logically absurd things.

Being maximally great does not give the maximally great being the power to, say, make square circles, or make 2 equal 3. All of these things are impossible objects, which are distinct from contingent or necessary objects.

From a Christian point of view, to give an example, the Bible tells us that there are many things that God cannot do.

• He cannot lie.
• He cannot be tempted with sin.
• He cannot break a promise.

Simply put, maximally great beings must be self-consistent as a part of being maximally great. Doing things that are logically absurd is not consistent with a maximally logical being. Therefore, God is omnipotently capable to living consistent with His own character.

Objection 2: The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is one of the most common attempts to show that the idea of God is logically inconsistent. The objection goes like this:

“Look at all the pain and suffering in the world today. If God is maximally powerful, and God is maximally good, then evil should not exist. But evil does exist. Therefore, the only conclusion is that God is either maximally good but not powerful enough to stop the evil or God is maximally powerful but not good enough to want to stop the evil. In either case a maximally great God is incompatible with the actual world, and, therefore, all possible worlds, and so God does not exist.”

Again, this might seem reasonable on the surface. However, because of the work of Alvin Plantinga and others, the Problem of Evil as an argument against God’s existence no longer works among serious philosophers.

Plantinga argues that God could not simultaneously give his creation free will and eliminate evil. Because God is good and humans are free, they are free to choose God and good or to reject God and what is good.

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity imagined a world in which evil and suffering were impossible. His thought experiment imagined a world in which a sword turned to a flaccid noodle if you attempted to hit someone. You could not fall out of a tree if the branch broke. Just before thinking and saying something evil the thoughts or words would suddenly change to positive and uplifting words.

Just imagine what kind of physics the world would have to possess in order to make this a reality. It would be so utterly unpredictable that no science or technology could possible exist.

In the end the world would be logically incoherent. The obvious question would be, in this kind of world do we have free will? The answer is certainly, no.

However, because humans have freedom to choose or reject God and what is good, the world cannot be void of evil or suffering.

Objection 3: The Problem of Imperfection

Another common objection to the Ontological Argument is the Problem of Imperfection, which is in many ways similar to the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Imperfection objection goes something like this:

“If God is perfect, he could not create something imperfect. But this creation is imperfect. Therefore, God is not perfect and is not maximally great.”

This objection too has been largely abandoned in academic circles.

Three main problems plague The Problem of Imperfection.

• The definition of “perfection” is not clear. What is perfect to one is not perfect to another.
• Plantinga points out that perhaps a perfect universe would contradict God’s objective for the creation. For example, what if a perfect creation would bring fewer people to the knowledge of God.
• Even atheists have pointed out that even if both items 1 and 2 above were solved, logically speaking nothing can be derived from an imperfect universe other than there is an Maximally Great Being that did not intend to make a perfect universe.

All of this, of course, says nothing about Christian theism which largely teaches that God created a perfect world and one or several beings ruined it.

Objection 4: Demand for Empirical Evidence

The Empirical Evidence objection goes like this:

“Only scientifically verifiable evidence can show something to be true.”

This is perhaps one of the most commonly held objections to the Ontological Argument and theism in general. As it happens it is also one of the weakest of all the arguments.

Why? Because the statement is self-defeating.

Does the statement “only scientifically verifiable evidence can show something to be true” itself have scientifically verifiable evidence? The answer is, no! In that case the statement itself is not true.

Further, we must remember that the Ontological Argument only requires that it is POSSIBLE that God exists, not that God does exist. In other words, any number of evidences could be forwarded to establish that it is POSSIBLE that God exists—any of the cosmological arguments, for example.

Objection 5: Reverse Ontological Argument

One of the more sophisticated objections to the Ontological Argument is the attempt to reverse the argument, which would look like this:

P1 : It is possible that a maximally great being (MGB) does not exist.

P2 : If it is possible that a MGB does not exist, then a MGB does not exist in some possible world.

P3 : If a MGB does not exist in some possible world, then a MGB does not exist in every possible world.

P4 : If a MGB does not exist in every possible world, then a MGB does not exist in the actual world.

P5 : If a MGB does not exist in the actual world, then a MGB does not exist.

C1 : Therefore, a MGB is impossible.

At first blush, this seems to work. But the problem actually occurs in P2:

The problem is that P2 does not logically follow from P1. If P2 is to logically follow from P1, it should be written thusly:

P2 : If it is possible that a MGB does not exist, then it is possible that a MGB does not exist in any possible world.

However, to say that a MGB does not exist in any possible world, as we have seen, is the same as saying that a MGB is impossible. But the Reverse Ontological Argument has not in any way shown that the idea of a MGB is logically or metaphysically impossible. Consequently, the Reverse Ontological Argument fails in Premise 2.

Objection 6: The Maximally Great Unicorn

Perhaps one of the most common but, frankly, silliest objections against the Ontological Argument, is the Maximally Great Unicorn objection. It formulates the argument this way:

P1 : It is possible that a maximally great unicorn (MGU) exists.

P2 : If it is possible that a MGU exists, then a MGU exists in some possible world.

P3 : If a MGU exists in some possible world, then a MGU exists in every possible world.

P4 : If a MGU exists in every possible world, then a MGU exists in the actual world.

P5 : If a MGU exists in the actual world, then a MGU exists.

C1 : Therefore, a MGU exists.

Why does this argument fail?

The answer is that a unicorn is a physical object. And physical objects are contingent objects, not necessary objects. This is a problem because in some possible worlds space and time either never started to exist or rapidly collapsed into a singularity. A unicorn simply cannot live or even exist in such a possible world.

So in what premise of the MGU argument does this reasoning fail?

The answer is P1 through P3. All three have problems.

P1 : Being a maximally great physical being is illogical because to be maximally great is to live without the limitation of physical existence.

P2 : It is not possible that a MGU exists because to do so violates P1.

P3 : If a MGU cannot exist, it does not follow that it must exist in every possible world. Even if it were possible that a MGU existed in some possible world, it would not follow that a physical being must exist in all possible worlds.

Redirect 01 : Sometimes, a person will object claiming, “Your objections may be true for lions and bears, but a unicorn, like God, is mythical. I have a maximally great mythical being and so do you.”

Rebuttal 01 : The mythology of a unicorn is that it is a physical horse with a horn. To confirm its mythology to be true would be to confirm that there exists a horse with a horn. Horses with horns are physical objects that exist in time and space. Therefore, a unicorn cannot be a necessary object.

Redirect 02 : Oh, no. This is a very special unicorn, a unicorn that is timeless, space-less, immaterial, etc.

Rebuttal 02 : Robbing a unicorn of all of the attributes that make it a unicorn and then giving it the attributes of God simply demonstrates that you admit that God exists and prefer to call Him a unicorn.

Objection 7: Multiple Maximally Great Beings

Finally, some atheists have argued that it is vastly more likely that we should find multiple maximally great beings existing than one maximally great being. However, this idea is full of problems.

Suppose that maximally great being A thought that unicorns were a most wonderful idea and wished for creation to be full of unicorns. Now, suppose, however, that maximally great being B hated the very idea of unicorns and wished to create a set of physical laws which would make unicorns impossible.

In reality unicorns either exist or do not exist. If they exist, then MGB A is greater than B. If, however, unicorns do not exist, then MGB B is greater. Both cannot be maximally great.

However, those who argue for multiple maximally great beings are not entirely off in left field. It is impossible for multiple maximally great beings to exist, unless they are in perfect agreement. Ironically, for those who object to a maximally great being in favor of multiple maximally great beings, they fall very much in line with Trinitarian theology.

According to Trinitarian theology there is one God in three persons, each fully God, each distinct one from another, each maximally great, each in perfect agreement with one another.

Digging Deeper

To get a deeper understanding into the logic behind the ontological argument it’s important to understand logical corollaries. A corollary is a fact that must be true because another fact is already proven. Let’s look at an example:

4 – 3 = 1

Is there any logical difference here? No.

Is there a perceptual difference here? Yes. We might well perceive them differently, but logically the corollary follows necessarily from the initial fact.

Logic like mathematics uses facts and corollaries.

Logical Fact:

◊          =          possible or possibly □          =          necessary or necessarily →        =          implies A         =          axiom exists

English Translation:

If something exists, it must be necessarily possible for it to exist.

A dog exists; therefore, it is possible that a dog can exist.

This is a plain fact of logic that is so basic that it is taken as axiomatic, that is, it is a statement that is assumed to be true in every logical argument and does not have to be proven. In fact, it is formally called  Axiom B:

If something exists, it is

necessarily possible for it to exist.

Just like 1+3=4, so Axiom B has a corollary:

Axiom B Corollary:

If it is possible that a necessary object exists, it exists.

This corollary was known to philosophers, but no one had put the implications together. In 1974 Alvin Plantinga published his Modal Ontological Argument. As soon as it was published there was an uproar in nearly every philosophy department the world over. Atheist philosophers were horrified. Why? Because Plantinga had just shown that Axiom B, a completely undisputed and critical axiom, had a corollary that demonstrated that if it is even possible that God exists, He exists.

A Deep, Deep Dive

So if you’re still wondering how and why this works from a logical calculus point of view, this section is for you. The purpose of this section is not in any way to explain propositional calculus, the underlying logic of formulating and proving the theorems of modal logic. What follows, therefore, is my best attempt to consolidate and state in relatively simpler terms what I understand to be true about the flow of the logic that necessarily leads to the conclusion that what is possibly necessary must actually exist—the foundational axiomatic corollary of Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument. This is not at all to say that what follows is my opinion; rather, it is based upon (and where possible directly quoted from) primary sources. Nevertheless, because it is at times my understanding of the primary sources, errors might exist. I expect that many who read this document will have a greater understanding of the topic than I do; I expect and welcome feedback, corrections, and citations which will improve the accuracy of this section.

In order to explain how the Modal Ontological Argument functions in any meaningful way, we must have a basic understanding of the foundational principles of modal logic—what makes modal logic work and how ideas can be derived from logical axioms. Let us first take a very cursory glance at the syntax of logical language as well as the systems which under-gird modal logic. Once we have taken a quick look at modal logic we can turn our attention toward matters that bear more directly on Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument, which itself is based on a corollary of System S5: Axiom B.

To speak purposefully, about modal logic we first need to understand its vocabulary, the symbols and meanings of the specialized logical calculi of modal logic. What follows is an abridged glossary of terms:

¬          =          negation ◊           =          possible or possibly □          =          necessary or necessarily Ʌ          =          and V          =          or →         =          implies ↔         =          is equivalent or vise versa ~          =          not P          =          proposition exists A          =          axiom exists R          =          accessible

For the most part, though not entirely, an understanding of these symbols will allow us to read the language of modal logic as plain English. You will, however, in short order find symbols that are not included here. You can go to the link below for a longer list of symbols, although this list too is abridged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

Let us look at a few examples, so that we might understand how the symbols relate to colloquial speech.

1.1 Logic Syntax:

◊P ↔ ~□~P

1.1 Literal Syntax:

Possibly (◊) Existing (P) is Equivalent (↔) to Not (~) Necessarily (□) Not (~) Existing (P).

1.1 Colloquial Syntax:

Saying something possibly exists is the same as saying that the thing does not necessarily not exist.

1.1 Corollary:

If something possibly exists, then it is possible that the thing exists.

Let us try another example:

□P ↔ ~◊~P

1.2 Literal:

Necessarily Existing is Equivalent to Not Possibly Not Existing.

1.2 Colloquial:

Saying something necessarily exists is the same as saying it is not possible that it does not exist.

1.2 Corollary:

If something exists necessarily, then it has to exist.

The 1.1 Logic and 1.2 Logic above are not merely examples but also show what is called unary or first place modal operations and their negations. On the left of the ↔ is the operation, and on the right of the ↔ is the negation. Thus, according to the definitions in the glossary above, 1.1 and 1.2 can also and should be written respectively as follows, where ¬ means negation:

◊P ↔ ¬ □¬ P □P ↔ ¬ ◊ ¬ P

Change of Quantifier Rule

Negations are very important in modal logic because they aid in understanding equivalence and, consequently, corollaries. For example:

¬ □¬ P  ↔ ◊P    OR in colloquial English: not necessarily not existing is the same as possibly existing. ¬ ◊ ¬ P ↔ □P    OR in colloquial English: not possibly not existing is the same as necessarily existing.

Notice in the above examples that the terms ¬ □¬ is the same as ◊ and also that the terms ¬ ◊ ¬ is the same exact thing as □. We can begin to see how corollaries can be derived. Here are some further definitions in logical syntax to help in this understanding:

~□P ↔ ◊~P       OR in colloquial English: not necessarily existing is the same as possibly not existing. □~P ↔ ~◊P       OR in colloquial English: necessarily not existing is the same as not possibly existing.

Notice in these examples we see that ~□ inverts to ◊~ and also that □~ inverts to ~◊. These types of changes are called the Dual Rule , and these types of operations are critical to understanding in what way the Modal Ontological Argument is sound.

You can see the article below (and the website in general) for more information on the topics discussed above:

http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/modallogic.html

Before we move on, however, we need to look at one other logic rule, which bears on this study.

Rule of Contraposition:

Contraposition is a method of restating an assumption such that it inverts the operators and order of the terms. Although this sounds complex, in practice we do this all the time effortlessly. By way of example:

2.1 Assumption: All students are participants.

2.1 Contraposition: No participants are not students.

Notice how the order of the terms ‘students’ and ‘participants’ are reversed, how the quantity ‘all’ became ‘none,’ and the status ‘are’ became ‘are not.’ This is the operation of the Rule of Contraposition. Importantly, contrapositions can also be stated schematically. Consider the following example.

2.2 Assumption: No participants are not students.

2.2 Schematic Contraposition: No non-participants are not non-students.

2.2 Double Negative Reduction: All students are participants.

Notice in 2.2 that the Assumption is already in the negative form as seen in 2.1 Contraposition. In order to simplify 2.2 Assumption to a positive form we must use schematic contraposition. The schematic contraposition introduces double negatives into the system such that a negative might be converted to a positive. Consequently, the schematic contraposition is reduced through the elimination of the double negatives ‘no-non’ and ‘not-non’ to the original positive 2.1 Assumption. Notice that throughout the entire operation the meaning of the original sentence as stated in the 2.1 Assumption never changes. 1

Everything that we have seen so far is first order modal logic, but modal logic has an entire landscape of systems and axioms. Earlier in this article we mentioned Axiom B—the statement that what what exists implies that it is necessary that it possibly exists. But where is Axiom B in the modal logic landscape? Here is a very brief overview of the modal logic landscape:

First, one point of clarification is that modal logic is distinct from modal logics, the latter of which is a family of logical systems which include Modal (logic of possibility), Deontic (logic of ought), Temporal (logic of tenses and time) and Doxastic (logic of belief). In this appendix we will only be looking at the Modal system, the study of logically follows from something being necessary or possible.

System K is named for Saul Kripke, who developed modal logic’s calculus. System K is the most basic form of modal logic, is not particularly powerful in itself, is not at all controversial, and contains the following rules:

Necessitation Rule:

Literally, A exists implies necessarily A exists.

If A is an axiom of K, then so is □A. This is to say that the laws of logic are necessary and are, therefore, true in all possible worlds. It is also to say that whatever is true axiomatically necessarily exists. This is a critical point in understanding the Modal Ontological Argument.

Distribution Axiom:

□ (A → B) → (□A → □B)

Literally, A implies B necessarily implies necessarily A implies necessarily B.

This means simply that necessity distributes to all participants of an implication statement. This will be a rather simple concept to anyone with any experience in algebra.

Definition of Possibility:

◊A ↔ ¬ □¬ A

We have already explored this with propositions above, but it bears repeating here.

System D is everything that System K has plus one additional axiom.

Literally, necessarily A implies possibly A.

So this adds to modal logic the idea that whatever is necessary is possible.

System T (aka System M)

System T is System K with Axiom M, and is simply a stronger version of System D, and, in fact, D is contained within M as a corollary. System T/Axiom M acts as follows:

Literally, necessarily A implies it is the case that A.

Or whatever is necessarily true is true.

System S4 is Systems K and T plus Axiom 4. System S4 and System S5, which we will cover in a moment have come to be seen as controversial because of some of the “unintuitive” corollary arguments which follow naturally from them. Intuitiveness of axioms or corollaries of axioms does have a role to play in logic; however, the limiting factor of intuitiveness is not the degree to which an axiom or corollary is immediately obviously true, as we might expect, but whether or not it can be explained or exemplified. Let us take a look at System S4:

Literally, necessarily A implies that it is necessary that necessarily A.

In other words, if A is necessary true it is necessarily necessary that A is true, and A cannot be otherwise only possibly true. System S4 also has the corollary:

Literally, possible that possibly A implies possibly A.

Notice how the right and left sides of the equations are related between Axiom 4 and its corollary. It is possible that in the formulation of modal arguments long strings of ◊◊◊◊◊A or □□□□□A might occur. S4 culls these additional possible or necessary terms as long as the terms are identical, that is all ◊ or all □ within the implication statement.

System S5 is simply System T plus Axiom 5, which is itself a stronger form of Axiom 4. Just as was the case in S4, S5 allows for us to limit the number of redundant mixed terms ◊□. So instead of ◊□◊□◊□◊□P, we simply use ◊□P. Instead of going into all of the work necessary to show Axiom 5 in this appendix, we will simply look at the difference between Axiom 4 and Axiom 5, which is known as Axiom B. We come to see, therefore, that Axiom B as we discussed earlier in this article is the axiom which is formed from the difference between Axiom 4 and Axiom 5. It is this difference which has caused so much controversy in the last 40 years or so. Let’s examine it here again:

Literally, A implies that it is necessary that it is possible that A.

This axiom, of course, carries the controversial corollary:

Or, literally, possible that necessarily A implies that A exists.

In plain English, if it is possible that a necessary objects exists, it exists. We see, therefore, from S5 Axiom B corollary the basis of Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument.

Now we are all up-to-speed on the context and requisite logical syntax and rules which play into a proper understanding of the Modal Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Let us now turn our attention toward understanding in what way the corollary of Axiom B in S5 follows the rules of modal logic.

As we have already seen modal logic uses as its most basic axiom rules for dealing with necessary objects. Consider System K above, which denotes as its first order axiom:

Whatever exists axiomatically, necessarily exists. This fact is important as we noted before because necessary propositional objects must exist necessarily. Therefore, where proposition P is a necessary object p, p must necessarily exist. This is important: p below is a necessary object P, as shown here:

What is interesting, however, is what happens when we start playing with this assumption. Let’s first use our Rule of Contraposition on this assumption to get:

Here what we have done is shown that through contraposition for any necessary propositional object p, if p is not necessary, then p does not exist. This is very interesting. Any necessary object, therefore, exist necessarily or not at all. There is no possibility of contingency. However, when we examine not necessarily p implies not p more closely, we have an interesting opportunity to apply the dual rule to the left hand side of the equation, as follows:

This is a very interesting statement. Not only does not necessarily p imply not p but also possibly not p implies not p for all necessary objects. The ramifications of this implication statement are that if it is even possible that a necessary object p does not exist, it does not exist. This is a strong statement to which we will return later. If possibly not p, then not p, where p is a necessary object by means of definition p → □p. But it also opens up a very intriguing logical operation. We now have negative necessary propositional object p on both sides of the implication statement. That means that we can now apply a schematic contraposition to the implication statement:

Schematic contraposition as we have seen is a first step in converting a negative propositional implication statement to a positive statement. How might this be done? By canceling double negatives. To do so gives us the following implication statement for all necessary objects:

In colloquial English if it is possible that necessary object p exists, necessary object p does exist. Therefore, necessary object p exists. And finally we can connect this as a corollary of Axiom B:

(◊p → p) ↔ (◊□P → P)

(◊p → p) ↔ (◊□A → A) is derived from the first order modal logic System K axiom, A → □A, which is the base of S5 Axiom B, A → □◊A, and thus is a corollary of Axiom B.

Trent Dougherty in his article A Defense of the Modal Ontological Argument describes not only all of the above on page 3 but goes on to describe why the Modal Ontological Argument trumps any version of atheism, the affirmative statement that God does not exist.

In logical argumentation the rules which govern which of the two disputing parties has the burden of proof is as follows:

Actuality bears the burden of proof.

Possibility gets the benefit of the doubt.

To state, therefore, that God does not exist is to state an assumption of actuality. To state that God possibly exists is to state an assumption of possibility. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the atheist not the theist, assuming, of course, that the theist understands the underlying modal logic. The argument for the knowledgeable theist is: it is possible that God exists, so God exists, which is the Modal Ontological Argument.

Interestingly the argument for the knowledgeable atheist is: it is not possible that God exists, so God does not exist. This is as close as the atheist can get to a rational position, and unfortunately it is not close enough. But why? Let’s examine the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument as formulated from System K, which incidentally varies from the Reverse Ontological Argument that we covered earlier, which fails at Premise 2. Let propositional object G be a necessary object, God.

G → □G ¬□G → ¬G ◊¬G → ¬G ◊¬G ¬G

This logic is sound and seemingly produces a stalemate between the possibly existing p Modal Ontological Argument and the possibly not existing G in the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument. However, there is one imbalance with this stalemate. There exists, in logical terms, a Symmetry problem between the arguments.

Let us refer to the Modal Ontological Argument as MOA and the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument as ROA. In the case of MOA a person conceives of the possibility of God. In the case of ROA a person conceives of the possibility of no God. Now consider the following statement:

For any sentence S and agent A, if A can conceive ¬S, then A can conceive S.

What this statement tells us is that anyone who can conceive of God not existing—a statement of absence—can also conceive of God existing—an affirmative statement of presence. A couple of ideas bear on this realization. First, the opposite is not at all clearly true. In other words, just because someone can conceive of God does not necessarily imply that someone can conceive of no God. And second, and more importantly, Dougherty says,

“… the opponent of the ontological argument clearly wants ¬ G to be conceivable in support of the main premise ‘ ◊ ¬G ’ of the atheological ontological argument. However, [this] entails that if that is the case then ◊ G has prima facie support. Once that is recognized, then we have reason to believe G and thus ¬ ◊ ¬ G which defeats the prima facie justification of ◊ ¬ G. I think this asymmetry gives more than a merely procedural advantage to the ontological argument.”

As is the case with every line in this section, there is a great deal more that could be said about this argument. In the end, however, we as Christians should not expect that we should find out God apart from God Himself. What we do have, however, is a perfectly rational basis for our belief in God; indeed, a more rational basis than the atheist has for believing that there is no God, which as Alvin Plantinga quipped, “is all anyone could hope to have.”

Subscribe for weekly updates.

Thanks for signing up, recent posts.

• Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret – A Review
• Christian Living, Part 4: Studying the Bible
• Christian Living, Part 3: The Heart in Action
• The Enneagram and Richard Rohr
• Call It What You Want

Subscribe for Weekly Updates

Join our mailing list to receive the latest insights and analysis. Your contact information is private and secure. We never sell or distribute our subscribers' information to third-party vendors or use that information to send spam. Every email you receive will contain an unsubscribe link, so you can cancel at any time.

You have Successfully Subscribed!