Anselm basically made an argument from definition and his definition is, "something greater than which we can conceive of nothing." He breaks his argument into three basic parts, but before I state these it is very important for you to remember that his audience was a primarily Christian one. He didn't make his argument for the existence of God for atheists or agnostics but for believers. What that means is, basically, a Buddhist could take his reasoning and apply it to Buddha quite easily and it would be convincing, to Buddhists but to no one else.
He opens up his dialog stating, "Now we believe you to be something greater than which we can conceive of nothing." If you do not understand this sentence the rest of my explanation will be totally lost on you. The very fact that we can conceive of Him is important as well as that we can conceive of nothing greater. In His essence God is infinite (and beyond) to being the Being which nothing greater can be conceived. Anselm makes this statement then goes on to prove it, in order to use it as evidence later. His proof is simple, we have a concept of this being in our minds, if He existed only in our minds then he would not be the greatest being, if He existed in reality he would not be the greatest being, He must therefore by definition exist in both reality and in our conception in order to be the being which nothing great can be conceived. If He did not, then the definition of, "greater than which we can conceive of nothing" would not be applicable to Him and He would not be this Being.
Anselm then goes on to prove that it is literally impossible to think of this Being as not existing. Now, imagine if you will, two circles. One circle is "things it is possible to imagine as not existing" or more plainly, things that you can think of life without. The other circle is the Being, what Anselm says is that in order for this Being to be what He is there can be no other idea or thing which is greater than He. If you can put the Being circle inside the things that you can think of life without circle then the Being is not actually the Being, he's some other thing. If he really was that which nothing greater can be conceived then we couldn't imagine Him as non-existent. Because then that circle would be greater and the definition would be inapplicable.
The definition of this Being is the cornerstone, strength, and structure of Anselm's argument. Well, what about the non-believers? How can they then consider God as non-existent if it is impossible. Anselm started off by calling them fools (yeah... great way to win an audience) and then proceeds to say how the conception of a man can be different than reality. If they do not rightly understand the definition of this Being then they, of course, do not believe Him to exist because He is not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" in their minds. If He was that Being in their conception then they would believe (which goes back to his opening statement, "if I do not believe I will not understand").
My take on Anselm's ontology. Ok, this guy is way smarter than I am in just about every way you look at it. His goal was to make a self-sufficient argument which was sufficient for Christians and in this he was successful. But his argument would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to convince a non-believer of God's existence (or an agnostic that this God is the God of the Bible) but beyond that he never stretched his argument beyond the metaphysical into reality. Don't get me wrong, he didn't want to make his argument evidential beyond the area of the mind and the nature of an infinite spirit but because of his lack of the effects of the metaphysical upon the physical he can't prove anything. He can only say there is strong evidence for the existence of God because we have a conception of this Being. To me this basically means that his argument will continue to be a true inspiration in philosophy and logic but not much of a force in apologetics.
Dt
He opens up his dialog stating, "Now we believe you to be something greater than which we can conceive of nothing." If you do not understand this sentence the rest of my explanation will be totally lost on you. The very fact that we can conceive of Him is important as well as that we can conceive of nothing greater. In His essence God is infinite (and beyond) to being the Being which nothing greater can be conceived. Anselm makes this statement then goes on to prove it, in order to use it as evidence later. His proof is simple, we have a concept of this being in our minds, if He existed only in our minds then he would not be the greatest being, if He existed in reality he would not be the greatest being, He must therefore by definition exist in both reality and in our conception in order to be the being which nothing great can be conceived. If He did not, then the definition of, "greater than which we can conceive of nothing" would not be applicable to Him and He would not be this Being.
Anselm then goes on to prove that it is literally impossible to think of this Being as not existing. Now, imagine if you will, two circles. One circle is "things it is possible to imagine as not existing" or more plainly, things that you can think of life without. The other circle is the Being, what Anselm says is that in order for this Being to be what He is there can be no other idea or thing which is greater than He. If you can put the Being circle inside the things that you can think of life without circle then the Being is not actually the Being, he's some other thing. If he really was that which nothing greater can be conceived then we couldn't imagine Him as non-existent. Because then that circle would be greater and the definition would be inapplicable.
The definition of this Being is the cornerstone, strength, and structure of Anselm's argument. Well, what about the non-believers? How can they then consider God as non-existent if it is impossible. Anselm started off by calling them fools (yeah... great way to win an audience) and then proceeds to say how the conception of a man can be different than reality. If they do not rightly understand the definition of this Being then they, of course, do not believe Him to exist because He is not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" in their minds. If He was that Being in their conception then they would believe (which goes back to his opening statement, "if I do not believe I will not understand").
My take on Anselm's ontology. Ok, this guy is way smarter than I am in just about every way you look at it. His goal was to make a self-sufficient argument which was sufficient for Christians and in this he was successful. But his argument would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to convince a non-believer of God's existence (or an agnostic that this God is the God of the Bible) but beyond that he never stretched his argument beyond the metaphysical into reality. Don't get me wrong, he didn't want to make his argument evidential beyond the area of the mind and the nature of an infinite spirit but because of his lack of the effects of the metaphysical upon the physical he can't prove anything. He can only say there is strong evidence for the existence of God because we have a conception of this Being. To me this basically means that his argument will continue to be a true inspiration in philosophy and logic but not much of a force in apologetics.
Dt
No comments:
Post a Comment