Anselm’s concept of God.

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, various scholars (philosophers included) have proposed arguments for or against the existence of God. These arguments are centred toward the question on whether God really exist. On this threshold, Anselm in his Proslogium attempts to give an argument on the existence of God through the ontological perspective. The ontological argument as it is known has raised a lot of concern to both Christian thinkers and philosophers. Some have tried to support it while most of philosophers have had issues with this position. Nonetheless, it is quite interesting to see the way this erudite church father strenuously tried to proof the existence of God through a two-way method which are; a priori and a posteriori reasoning.  For us to understanding Anselm, we should first understand his notion of God and what informed his worldview. He sees God as the greatest possible being we can ever conceive, for us to have the concept of a being beside whom nothing greater can be conceived it means that such being cannot only exist in the intellect; it must also have an actual existence in reality. This is one of his major positions which he took as the root of his arguments.

Therefore this essay shall explore the position of this erudite church father. By way of methodology, this essay shall first deal with a brief biography of Anselm so as to show us the factors that informed and influenced his thought; after that we shall dwell briefly on the Anselm’s concept of God. This will help us to understand his idea of God and how he will be addressing God; basically we will be aware that the age he was into was the age of scholasticism.  This will also lead us into the consideration of the various positions he held while trying to drive home his points to prove the existence of God. This essay will treat various things concerning the argument but basically it is aimed at exposing the ideas of Anselm’s ontological arguments which are found in his Prologium. But before his ideas in ontological argument can be exhausted, this essay shall be making use of his other argument on the existence of God, which is found also in his Monologium. This is not to complicate issue but to have a common vehicle through which we can drive home the arguments of this intellectual church father. Towards the end, this essay shall be making a brief evaluation of the entire works and afterwards conclude.

ANSELM OF AOSTA

Anselm was born in the city of Aosta, he was born in 1033AD during the era of Scholasticism and was considered the greatest thinker of the eleventh century. He was a monk and prior in his abbey at Beck and afterward was made a Bishop of Canterbury.[1] Going through his general works, Anselm has been identified to belong to an Augustinian tradition. Anselm was very important in the history of theological development and speculation. He never distinguished between theology and philosophy. For him, a Christian should try to understand and to apprehend rationally all that he believes so far as this is possible to the human mind. His Augustinian thought is seen in his famous motto credo, ut intelligam.

His famous works are; the Monologium, the Prosslogium and the Cur Deus Homo, in these three work he treated extensively the problems of relationship between faith and reason, existence of God and freedom. The last we can say about him in this essay is that he was the first to develop an ontological argument for the existence of God.

ANSELM’S CONCEPT OF GOD

As earlier noted in the introduction, Anselm, in the chapter two of his proslogion conceives God to be that which nothing greater can be conceived. The very fact that we have the concept of a greater being it must surely exist in reality for our senses cannot conceive what is outside reality.  God is the absolute goodness and wisdom. It is through him that all other things draw their goodness and wisdom. Things participate objectively in goodness and these participations for him must tend towards a particular perfection, that is, the perfection of goodness. It is this perfection of goodness that all other things that are participating look upon as ideal. There is a being which is best, and greatest, and highest of all existing beings.[2]

ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The arguments Anselm gave can be found both in his monologium and proslogium. In these two, he uses different processes. Bearing this in mind, the major focus of this essay is on the ontological argument but a minor insight shall be given to his other argument so as to better convey his argument in the Poslogium, which is the main concern of this essay. In this essay, these two procedures shall separate these two procedures so as to have a vivid enumeration of the whole arguments. But before that, it will be pertinent that we know this. Anselm follows the procedure of a posteriori in his Monologium and the procedure of a priori in his Proslogium.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

As we have earlier commented, the procedure of his a priori argument can be found in his Proslogion. Here he develops his ontological argument. Here he worked from the definition of a thing so as to discover its existence. In trying to drive home his argument, he posited that the denial of God makes one foolish. This is seen in his famous quote which he borrowed from the scripture “there is a God although the fool said in his heart there is no God”[3] he propounds his argument in such a way that even the fool cannot negate or deny it.[4] It seems more like a criticism than an argument. Anselm was trying to proof the existence of God and at the same time making a criticising the fool who said in his heart there is no God. According to Anselm, the fool on hearing the concept of a being besides whom nothing greater can be thought of understands it in his intellect but does not understand it to exist in reality. There are different senses when we say that an object is in the understanding and an object to exist. An object still in the intellect cannot be said to be in existence according to Anselm.

In the line of this explanation, Anselm states his position that even the fool can concur that something can exist in the understanding for when he hears the concept of that of which nothing greater can be conceived, he understands it, and this understanding exist only in the intellect. But for Anselm, a thing cannot be said to exist only in the understanding. The very fact that it has been conceived in the intellect already qualifies it to be in existence. This argument shows vividly his argument from ontology because in it, he proceeds from the idea of God (that is God, existing in the understanding), to God as a reality. Anselm is not at home with those who have the idea of God, whether denying or accepting him, and yet deny his existence. For him it is absurd for one to have the idea of God and yet deny his existence, because whatever exists in the understanding has an existence.[5] Also, if the idea of that in which nothing greater can be thought of, is only in the intellect, then something greater can be thought of it in the reality; so it exist both in the intellect and in reality.[6]

Anselm attempts to establish an argument which will be sufficient, by itself alone, to prove our entire belief concerning the divine science. His argument can conveniently be positioned in a syllogistic order.

·         God is that which nothing greater can be conceived

·         But that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist both in idea mentally and in reality

·         Therefore, God exists in the idea mentally and in reality.[7]

Consistent with this view, he says that that which cannot be conceived is not God. So for him, God is always available for our intellect to conceive. The intellect is prone to conceive God and that is the reason for his existence. Anselm is not saying that the existence of God depends on our judgement whether we can conceive him or not but the very fact that we can conceive him, makes its undeniable.

If a mind could conceive anything greater than God, then such creature would rise above God, which is absurd. Anything that is, outside of God is said not to exist. It is only in God that it belongs to exist more truly and in a higher degree than all others. Anselm worries why the fool will say that God does not exist, since it is so evident in the rational mind that God exist in the highest degree of all.[8]

THE ARGUMENT FROM A POSTERIORI

Having shown his argument from a priori which is basically ontological, we shall now explore the argument found in his Monologium. In his Monologium, which follows a procedure of a posteriori, Anselm uses the traditional argument which is based on the contingency of finite beings and on the grades of perfection. The method is working through concrete facts.   

This captures his first argument in the first chapter of his Monologium. This argument is developed from the degrees of perfection which are found in creatures. In this argument like the ontological argument, Anselm keeps making reference to he who has not come to the knowledge of God. He follows the idea of goodness. There is a desire in all men to enjoy only those things which they supposed to be good. Relating this to the man who has not come to the knowledge of God, Anselm posits that there will come a moment when he has to consider the cause by which these things are good. There is a standard of goodness to which all things participate in different degrees and to which they approximate more or less nearly.[9] It shows the fact that there is always a model to be looked upon where other things strive towards that. Where there is better, there is always a best to which the better is aiming and which grades the level of goodness of the better.

EVALUATION

Following the discussing so far, we have come to a certain awareness of what the ontological argument is all about. By way of evaluation, as being equipped by the information given, some flaws and misconceptions about God can be detected. These cannot however be called mistakes but it must have come through his platonic training. It is Platonic in the sense that he is an Augustinian in thought pattern. The argument is more like a private letter to God and may not be his intention to expose it for critical studying.

As it has been shown in his brief biography, he was an abbot and so most of his writings might be during the course of meditation and we cannot just discard these arguments on the basis that many people have found fault with it. We can still find sense in the point he is trying to drive home. It might see also that he is a bit biased and sentimental in the manner he addresses the person who does not believe. This is seen in the way he calls them fool. But if we can evaluate it more clearly, we can see that he is not actually attacking the unbeliever rather he cannot understand that given the diverse evidences in nature, a person still doubts the existence of God, even to the extent of doubting what he already conceived in his intellect. He finds it absurd that someone can think of something greater than that to which nothing greater can be conceived. People like Thomas and Gaunilone have denied this argument but we can still find people like Dun Scotus, Descartes, Leibniz and Hegel, who supported this ontological argument.  We shall not go on to show how these persons reuted or supported this ontological argument because of our space and time limitation.

CONCLUSION

            At the end of this essay, it has tried much to achieve its said aim and objectives which are stated in the introduction of the essay. By way of summary, we first looked at the biography of Anselm, we went further to show his idea of God so as to predispose our minds on the way he will be talking about God in his ontological argument. We have explored the ontological argument which is our main aim, and has gone as far as bringing in his other argument found in his Monologium, to lubricate the comprehension of our reader on this issue. Lastly we were able to give a brief evaluation and overview of the entire work.

            It is worthy to note that Anselm has contributed immensely to the history of philosophy through this ontological argument. Like it is said somewhere in the body of the essay, he is the first to argue for the existence of God through the ontological means. This goes further to show his ingenuity and zeal for an intellectual approach towards God. We cannot throw the dirty water with the child, the fact that there are errors in his arguments does not invalidate his argument or render his argument worthless in the philosophical and theological terrain even in life general.   

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anselm of Aosta, Monologium.

Anselm of Aosta, Proslogium.

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Medieval Philosophy. London: Continuum, 2003.

Mondin, Battista.  A History of Mediaeval Philosophy. Rome: Pontifical Urbanian University, 2010.

   

---

[1] Cf. Frederick Copleston, A history of Philosophy: Medieval Philosophy (London: Continuum, 2003), p. 156.

[2] Anselm of Aosta, Monologium, 1.

[3] Anselm of Aoster, Proslogium, 2.

[4] Cf. Battista Mondin, A History of Mediaeval Philosophy (Rome: Pontifical Urbanian University, 2010), p. 248.

[5] Frederick Copleston, op. cit., p. 162.

[6] Cf. Anselm of Aosta, Proslogium, 2.

[7] Frederick Copleston, op. cit., p. 162.

[8] Cf. Anselm of Aosta, Proslogium,3.

[9] Cf. Frederick Copleston, op. cit., p. 159.