Not long ago, I met with some friends, Christians and non-Christians, for a philosophy
discussion. We discussed Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument for the existence of
God. None of us was convinced that Anselm's proof was valid. In the beginning of the
evening, we agreed with Schopenhauer who called Anselm's argument a "charming joke,_
but we went on talking and found ourselves challenged by Anselm's argument. It triggered a
discussion that clarified various issues of our thoughts. This paper will be an investigation of
the implications of Anselm's argument in the context of the contemporary western world -- an
investigation of the multiple tangents from Anselm's philosophy to the streams of the popular
mindsets of our time.
Anselm (1033/4-1109), archbishop of Canterbury, lived in a time when many people felt that
philosophical method possessed an intellectual respectability which theology lacked. Some
theologians called Dialectics, like Anselm, started to apply philosophical dialectic and logic
to theological issues. The question of the time was how the independence of philosophy
could be reconciled with the Catholic position. In 1072, Peter Damian defined philosophy as ancilla dominae (maid of the Lord). Among the Dialectics, Anselm belonged to the group
of the Realists.
About 1070 he started his writing career. His most important works are Proslogium,
Monologium, and Cur Deus homo. Although calling Anselm the "father of Scholasticism_
might be an exaggeration, he set the trend in theology and philosophy for the following
centuries by explaining the Christian faith in a rational, logical system. In the 12th century,
the Roman Catholic Church made him a saint, and in the 18th called him doctor ecclesiae.
Anselm became best known for the ontological argument for the existence of God which he
first formulated in the Proslogium. It goes as follows: God, Anselm defines, is the "being
than which nothing greater can be conceived._ Since existence in reality is greater than
existence in understanding alone, i.,q.n.m.c.p.11 existing in reality is greater than i.,q.n.m.c.p.
not existing in reality. Hence, if i.,q.n.m.c.p. existed not in reality, it were not i.,q.n.m.c.p.,
for something greater than it could be conceived. This is an absurd contradiction in itself:
"certe hoc esse non potest." [...]
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
A POST-MODERN PROOF
DEFINITIONS OF 'GOD' AND REALITY
OTHER FOOLS
CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
The paper investigates the contemporary implications of St. Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument, specifically examining how his philosophical framework addresses modern and post-modern conceptions of "foolishness" and the nature of belief in a secularized world.
- Analysis of the ontological argument in the context of the hermeneutic circle.
- Examination of the interplay between faith and philosophical/scientific methodology.
- Re-evaluation of the definitions of "God" and "reality" within post-modern thought.
- Critique of relativism and the role of absolute truth claims in religious discourse.
Excerpt from the Book
A POST-MODERN PROOF
It is one of the dogmas of our time that one cannot prove the existence of God. It seems that before the Enlightenment, people believed in proofs for God's existence, and then Kant came and showed that they are all impossible. However, the underlying issue is that it takes more than a proof to come to faith. It takes conviction and repentance which are works of the Holy Spirit. Paul expresses this when he points out that the "message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Paul sees Christians and non-Christians operating within different frames of reference, and what is powerful in the one frame, is foolishness in the other.
Amselm makes a similar statement: The fool in Psalm 14:1 does not believe in God's existence, precisely and only because he is a fool. Anselm himself probably did not see that it is a question of different frames of reference. He wants to make a philosophical proof, and calls anyone whom he could not convince not only foolish, but also "dull." However, by quoting Scripture the way he does, he makes his argument compatible to what contemporary thought calls the hermeneutic circle. The Hebrew word for 'fool' in Psalm 14, nabal, can also be translated 'ungodly person,' i.e. somebody whose hermeneutic circle excludes God. At the latest since Heidegger, scholars are aware that all understanding is interpretation influenced by the frames of reference we bring to it. A frame of reference consists of previous understanding and interpretation. We interpret A according to how we interpret B, B according to C, and C according to A, thus completing the circle.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: The author presents Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument, framing it within a modern discussion about the validity of philosophical proofs for God's existence.
A POST-MODERN PROOF: This section explores how Anselm’s argument intersects with the concept of the hermeneutic circle and why subjectivity plays a crucial role in understanding the existence of God.
DEFINITIONS OF 'GOD' AND REALITY: The chapter clarifies the Scholastic distinction between existence in intellectu and in re, arguing that objective reality exists independently of human perception.
OTHER FOOLS: The author critiques modern secular responses to the existence of God, such as the analogy of the gardener, and addresses the limitations of pluralistic relativism.
CONCLUSION: The paper concludes that faith is not merely a product of logical proof but requires a fundamental shift in paradigm—a miracle—to move from intellectual apprehension to genuine belief.
Keywords
St. Anselm, Ontological Argument, Proslogium, God, Reality, Existence in Re, Existence in Intellectu, Foolishness, Hermeneutic Circle, Post-Modernism, Faith, Scholasticism, Relativism, Theology, Philosophy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this paper?
The paper examines St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God and assesses its relevance for understanding belief within the contemporary, post-modern intellectual landscape.
What are the primary thematic areas discussed?
Key themes include the distinction between reality and intellectual concepts, the limitations of the hermeneutic circle, the nature of idolatry, and the tension between religious faith and modern secular relativism.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine how Anselm's philosophical methods can still offer meaningful insights into twentieth-century Christian thought and modern critiques of religious belief.
Which scientific or philosophical methods are utilized?
The author employs a comparative philosophical approach, synthesizing historical theological methodology with modern concepts like structuralism, semiotics, and the hermeneutic circle.
What topics are covered in the main body of the text?
The main body covers Anselm’s original logic, the definitions of "God" and "reality," a rebuttal to modern secular skeptics, and an analysis of how current societal worldviews impact the possibility of faith.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is best characterized by terms such as Ontological Argument, Proslogium, Hermeneutic Circle, Reality, Post-Modernism, and Faith.
How does the author interpret the term "fool" as used by Anselm?
The author interprets the "fool" not just as an atheist, but as anyone whose hermeneutic circle is closed off from acknowledging the existence of an objective, supreme reality.
What is the relationship between the author's analysis and the hermeneutic circle?
The author argues that while human understanding is always filtered through a frame of reference (the hermeneutic circle), Anselm’s argument forces a confrontation with the limits of that frame, pointing toward the necessity of faith for true understanding.
Why does the author conclude that proof is not enough for faith?
The author concludes that because all data are interpreted within a pre-existing frame, logical proofs cannot bypass the need for a subjective, transformational "new birth" or miracle to shift that framework.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Otto Guggemos (Autor:in), 1998, St. Anselm and his fools in today's world, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/108849
