Anti-realists: truth/ falsity does not depend on correspondence to world but on person’s understanding of world. From an anti-realist perspective, religious believers are right to say “God exists”, based on their belief in God as a concept in their faith community, To say “God exists” is true, by definition of who God is (the OA exactly). So for them the OA is helpful - they are not concerned with making empirical, synthetic claims.
Parodies of the OAEg a being no worse than which none greater can be conceived – suggests the devil exists.
eg a being no less than which no lesser being can be conceive – even the most insignificant being that exists would be greater than one that did not – so this suggests that the least being ie the devil, does not exist.
Parody does not show that concept/ definition of God is incorrect, but does show that the premises need not be accepted. Proper response is either to reject all possible or maximal entities, or to withhold judgement or refuse the conclusion on the basis of the arguments offered.
Anselm himself says it is “Faith seeking understanding“. The definition of God impresses on believers God’s attributes of maximal excellence/ great-making properties egomnibenevolence/ omnipotence/ omniscience/ eternal etc.
To have a conception of God is to accept a reality of what is being thought about – God as maximal being who must necessarily exist. There is no positive reason to think such a conception of God is contradictory, unintelligible or deficient. So believers do not need to amend their view.
An atheist can accept the definition of God, while denying that anything falls under this description (move from analytic to synthetic is invalid - can’t conclude what reality contains from logical ideas, which only apply to rules of thought/ expression.). So it only persuades those who already accept idea of a maximal being, and so his necessary existence- functions as a deductive argument from the premise of such a possible being. Circular argument, based on the definition.
Russell was himself convinced at one point of the rationality of faith as presented in the OA (see quote p.16) Shows faith is rational and belief in God’s existence follows logically from understanding who God is - not pure fantasy. It suggests it is reasonable to believe in the possibility of a maximal being, since this is “possible” (but an atheist will deny this).
Karl Barth: sees Anselm as providing a meditation on the nature of God. Necessary existence of God as an assertion of faith. Rejects Descartes’ rationalism as valid. Belief in God should not depend on reason, but on faith, or relationship of humans with God is completely changed.