02/25/2022 – St Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109): His Ontological Argument for the existence of God.
Just as with my post on Boethius earlier this week, my source for Anselm is the same: “Classics of Western Civilization” – Eighth Edition by Steven M. Cahn. Let’s start with a short bio of Anselm:
http://www.normandyvision.org/article31010701.php
It is interesting how reknowned theologians have lined up, both pro and con, on Anselm’s ontological argument for the exististence of God. My daughter and I reviewed it together back when she was a freshman in her freshman Philosophy honors class. She was blessed in that her professor at Tarleton State was a Christian. (imagine that!) She lined up on the side that it was logically sound and I was con, thinking it “begged the question”. But quite frankly, I think I would need to go further into Ian Logan’s work from the University of Leeds in order to seriously weigh in.
First, to answer the question: Why bother with this?, let’s look at Anselm’s motto from the bio:
“Anselm’s motto was “Faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). By this he meant in effect “an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God”. His position was not that faith should be replaced by understanding. Anselm said: “I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand”.” I would add it is a practical application of Romans 12:2, worshipping God through our mind.
Here is Anselm’s argument for the existence of God:
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
And here are my scratch notes, although I don’t count on anyone going beyond this point, haha :
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Anselm argument for God’s existence:
nselms-Proslogion-Significance-Routledge-ebook/dp/B01N1P0HLH/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=proslogion+by+anselm&qid=1640564012&sr=8-13&asin=B01N1P0HLH&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1
15280 -15297 – possible copy section just before Chapter 2 – A prayer to our Lord with bible verses.
Good summary of : Statement and those who weigh in pro and con.
Review
’… provides a much needed reference work for anyone wanting seriously to understand and think about the Proslogion … he does a fine job when it comes to giving readers a sense of Anselm in his historical context.’ New Blackfriars ’…a very stimulating and thought-provoking study. Any Anselm scholar”historians, philosophers and theologians alike”will profit from reading it. It is rich in insights and lucidly written throughout; the reasoning is always clear.’ The Saint Anselm Journal ’Logan’s book offers a clearly argued, interesting, historically sensitive reading of Anselm’s Proslogion. … gives the reader a sense of the many and varied reactions to the Proslogion.’ Speculum ’… it is undeniable that Logan has written a history of Anselm’s argument that serves as a foundation for future studies to build upon. … Logan’s work is a valuable contribution to medieval studies which corrects many misunderstandings and caricatures of Anselm that deserve to be exposed. … Moreover, Logan’s work is a fine introduction to the theology and logic of the Proslogion as well as a needed analysis of its reception since the Middle Ages.’ Journal of Theological Studies –This text refers to the paperback edition.
Ian Logan gained a first class honours degree in Theology from the University of Leeds. He was awarded a DAAD scholarship and undertook post-graduate study at both the LMU and the Philosophische Hochschule in Munich. He obtained his doctorate on Karl Rahner and Anselm of Canterbury from the University of Leeds. He is currently Senior Research Fellow and Tutor in Medieval Philosophy at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University. He has published articles on Anselm in New Blackfriars and the Saint Anselm Journal. Forthcoming articles include: an article on the development of Ms Bodley 271 in G. Gasper & H. Kohlenberger (eds), Anselm and Abelard: Investigations and Juxtapositions, being published by PIMS (2006); ‘Whatever happened to Kant’s ontological argument?’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2007); ‘Whoever understands this: On translating the Proslogion’ in New Blackfriars (2008). –This text refers to the paperback edition.
References and Further Reading
- Anselm, St., Anselm’s Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962)
- Aquinas, Thomas, St., Summa Theologica (1a Q2), “Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident (Thomas More Publishing, 1981)
- Barnes, Jonathan, The Ontological Argument (London: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1972)
- Broad, C.D., Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953)
- Findlay, J.N., “God’s Existence is Necessarily Impossible,” from Flew, Antony and MacIntyre, Alasdair, New Essays in Philosophical Theology (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1955)
- Gale, Richard, On the Nature and Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)
- Hartshore, Charles, The Logic of Perfection (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1962)
- Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, translated by E.S. Haldane and F.H. Simson (London, Kegan Paul, 1896)
- Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn (New York: Colonial Press, 1900)
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, translated by A.G. Langley (Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing, 1896).
- Malcolm, Norman, “Anselm’s Ontological Argument,” Philosophical Review, vol. 69, no. 1 (1960), 41-62
- Miller, Ed L., God and Reason, 2nd Ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1995)
- Pike, Nelson, “Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action,” Philosophical Review, vol. 74 (1965)
- Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York: Harper and Row, 1974)
- Plantinga, Alvin, The Ontological Argument from St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965)
- Pojman, Louis, Philosophy of Religion (London: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2001)
- Rowe, William, “Modal Versions of the Ontological Argument,” in Pojman, Louis (ed.), Philosophy of Religion, 3rd Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1998)
- Sennett, James F., “Universe Indexed Properties and the Fate of the Ontological Argument,” Religious Studies, vol. 27 (1991), 65-79