ANSELM1033-1109

Anselm is one of the most important Christian theologians in the West between Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

His two great accomplishments are:

1) his Proslogium - in which he undertakes to show that Reason requires that men should believe in God

2) his Cur Deus Homo?

in which he undertakes to show that Divine Love responding to human rebelliousness requires that God should become a man.

He was born in Italy about 1033, and in 1060 he entered the monastery of Bec in Normandy to study under Stephen Lanfranc, whom he succeeded in office, first as prior of Bec, and later as Archbishop of Canterbury.

In 1078 he was elected abbot of Bec. The previous year, he completed a work called the Monologium, in which he argues for the existence of God from the existence of degrees of perfection (Aquinas's Fourth Way is a variation of this argument).

In 1087, while still at Bec, he produced his Proslogium, an outline of his "ontological argument" for the existence of God. Taking as his text the opening of Psalm 14 ("The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."),

Anselm undertakes to show that the fool is contradicting himself -- that the concept of God is unique in that anyone who understands what is meant by the question, "Does God exist?" will see that the answer must be "Yes."

The argument has received mixed reviews from the start. Almost at once another theologian, Gaunilon, wrote, "A Reply on Behalf of the Fool." Thomas Aquinas rejected Anselm's argument as inconclusive (and is followed in this by most Roman Catholic writers today).

Kant practically made his reputation as a philosopher by explaining in detail what he thought was wrong with Anselm's argument. On the other hand, Leibniz and others have thought it valid.

A modern Plato professor (R E Allen), no friend of Christianity, says of the argument: "It is one of the most exasperating arguments in the history of philosophy. Every time that you think you have finally refuted it, you end up finding something wrong with your refutation

Modern defenders of the argument include Goedel (the writer on mathematical consistency and provability), Hartshorne, and C Anthony Anderson ( University of California at Santa Barbara).

Anderson is an atheist. He was asked how he reconciled his atheism with his defence of Anselm, and he said, "I am an atheist on faith. Surely you have met theists who believed in God on faith, despite knowing arguments on the other side that they could not really answer."

King William II of England had no fondness for the Church, and at the death of Lanfranc he kept the See of Canterbury vacant until he was gravely ill, whereon he promised to let Anselm be made Archbishop.

Anselm was made Archbishop (4 December 1093), the King recovered, and the two began to dispute the extent of the King's right to intervene in Church matters. Anselm went into exile in 1097 and remained in Italy for three years until the King died in 1100.

During that time Anselm was instrumental in settling the doubts of the Greek bishops of southern Italy about the doctrine of the Filioque (the principal doctrinal difference between Eastern and Western Christians),

He also devoted the time to writing a book known as Cur Deus Homo? (meaning Why DID God Become Man?). In it he puts forward the "satisfaction theory" of the Atonement. Man's offence of rebellion against God is one that demands a payment or satisfaction.

Fallen man is incapable of making adequate satisfaction, and so God took human nature upon Him, in order that a perfect man might make perfect satisfaction and so restore the human race.

The success of his work may be gauged by the fact that many Christians today not only accept his way of explaining the Atonement, but are simply unaware that there is any other way.

After the death of King William II in 1100, Anselm returned to England at the invitation of the new king Henry I, only to quarrel with Henry about the lawful extent of the king's control over the selection of bishops and abbots (it must be remembered that these officials had civil as well as religious authority).

Anselm was again in exile from 1103 to 1106. In 1107 a compromise was reached, and Anselm returned home to Canterbury, where he lived his last few years in peace, dying 21 April 1109.

From the Preface to the Proslogion:

‘I have written the little work that follows... in the role of one who strives to raise his mind to the contemplation of God and one who seeks to understand what he believes.’

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God – St Anselm 1033-1109 (Proslogion, chps 2,3)

Gaunilo’s challenge ( and Anselm’s reply) On Behalf Of The Fool (11 century)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Meditations On First Philosophy (1641)

Objections to the Ontological Theory

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Norman Malcolm (1911-90) Anselm’s Ontological Argument , 1960

Alvin Plantinga (1932-)

God, Freedom and Evil , 1974Other objections – David Hume

(1711-76)Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)Bertrand Russel (1872-1970)

The ontological argument for the existence of god is an attempt to establish the truth of the proposition "god exists" not through evidence or experience, but instead through a priori (at first sight-an argument that does not need

sensory experience evidence)reasoning from the content of the concept of

God

Thus, the argument can be reduced to the claim that

simply because we have a concept of god, then there

must also exist this god

Does God Exist Because He Must?

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one of the oldest arguments in Christian theology. It is also one of the most difficult to understand because it relies solely upon logical arguments and not at all upon empirical evidence.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was one of the most influential proponents of this argument, and phrased it so

We have a concept of a Perfect Being:Such a Perfect Being must necessarily exist.Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.

Somewhat more difficult to understand, he also wrote:

‘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.

Buried within all of that philosophical double-talk is the argument that in order for a being to qualify as “Greatest” (i.e., no “greater” being can be conceived of), it must have the quality of “existence.” If this “Greatest” being were simply an idea in people’s minds, then it would not have its own existence and, hence, wouldn’t really qualify as “Greatest” anymore.

If you find that to be nonsense, then you aren’t alone. Even one of Anselm’s contemporaries, a monk named Gaunilo, noted that argument allowed for satirical copy-cats:

We have a concept of a Perfect Island:Such a Perfect Island must necessarily exist.Why? If it did not exist, then it would not be Perfect.

Basically, the rebuttal here suggests that if the Ontological Argument is valid, then absolutely every perfect thing we can think of must also simultaneously exist in reality — but we know that that isn’t true. Therefore, there must be some flaw in the argument itself.

Anselm and those who accept his argument do not agree with this critique. First, they argue that a “Perfect Island” is not really a concept but merely an imaginary idea — but this just begs the question of why their “God” is not also just an imaginary idea.

Second, they argue that the idea of a “Perfect Being” is more valid because it is universal among human beings. Unfortunately, that is more assertion than substance. No proof is offered of it and contrary evidence certainly exists.

But of course, even if it is true that the idea of a “Perfect Being” were reasonably universal, how does that demonstrate that the concept is more valid? That resorts to the logical fallacy that anything which is popular is more likely true.

And besides, there are other ideas which have as much or nearly as much universality as the idea of a “Perfect Being” allegedly has. What about the concept of the “Perfect Meal” or the “Perfect Spouse”?

Other Ontological Arguments have been offered on the basis of mathematics, logic and other sciences. The arguments here state that the existence of perfect relationships in those fields points to the existence of a perfect being.

This does not really amount to much, however, since perfect relationships do not really exist in the way human beings and rocks do. Instead, they are concepts in our minds — if the analogy is really to be used, then it should be accepted that a Perfect God is also just a concept in our minds. This is a conclusion few atheists will disagree with.

A final example of an Ontological Argument was offered by Descartes, who suggested that we all have within us the idea of a perfect, infinite Being. But since we ourselves are neither perfect nor infinite, then this idea could not have come from within us. Instead, it must have come from outside of us — from a real perfect, infinite being. In his own words:

For though the idea of substance be in my mind owing to this, that I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, seeing I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite.

One objection to the Cartesian Ontological Argument is something already noted: one can merely assert that all humans have an innate idea of a perfect, infinite Being. It cannot be proven and there does exist real contrary evidence.