Anselm Faith Seeking Understanding

The introduction deals with the ideas of authority and perspective, and how they function properly in the process of Biblical interpretation. A key idea is that reading is a dialogue between the text and the reader. Both sides have a role to play. If we acknowledge this, then we must also acknowledge that the perspective of the reader has some significance in how the Bible is interpreted and exercises authority. This dialogical reading transcends the categories of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, and

Anselm of Canterbury was an Archbishop of Canterbury who lived from 1033-1109. As a philosopher and theologian of the catholic church he used his platform to declare the true existence of God. First, Anselm starts his

St Anselm’s account of the ontological argument for the existence of God deals with the ‘existence in the understanding’ vs. ‘existence in reality.’ He defines God as the

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence, for perfection cannot merely exist as a mental phenomenon. God is, according to Anselm, self-evident in the mind. Criticisms to this argument can be found in Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo, who argues that such an argument can be used to - put

The Ontological Argument presented by Anselm is false because of premise two. Anselm argues that God’s existence is provable in a priori, this means that one knows God exists simply by reason alone and therefore does not need any prior experience to know it is true. In the next section, I will explain the premises and defend Anselm’s point. In the third section, I will explain how premise two is wrong.

Anselm believes that existence is broken into two categories, existence in reality and existence in the understanding. Now the only thing that does not exist, is something that you cannot conceive to exist, or understand.

In Chapter 2 of Anselm's Proslogian, Anselm offers what was later to be characterized as his Ontological Argument, which is an argument for God's existence he felt was so strong that even a fool as is said in Psalms 14:1- "who has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". Anselm's argument is as follows :

As a theologian and philosopher, Saint Anselm strove to prove the existence of God in reality. The bulk of his argument is found in Chapter II of Proslogium.

Anselm’s Ontological argument sets out to not only prove God’s existence, but to show that God’s existence is self-evident. Similar to other ontological arguments, it uses a priori knowledge to argue its validity, meaning that the propositions made are derived from internal reasoning instead of sense experience.

Due to the preconceptions I have concerning Anselm’s Ontological Argument, as learnt through course research and lectures. I will like Descartes in his ‘First Meditation’, put these preconceptions to one side and present an essay that explores both sides of the argument in an attempt to reach an independent conclusion. However, I hope to reach the same conclusion as I had before – that is, that the Ontological Argument can be refuted on the basis that there exists a fundamental dissimilarity between the concept of existence in our minds, and that of existence in reality. This essay will present two objections to Anselm’s Ontological argument, namely, the ‘Perfect Island Objection’ and the ‘Existence is not a Predicate’ objection, whilst

Reason, not sacred texts or divine revelation, bring about a sense of divine being as a personal

Religion and god(s) have been a huge part of all philosophy for as long as humanity has had a functioning society. Many philosophers have had attempted to obtain a better understanding of the religion they practice through reflection , observation or some other method. This essay will compare and contrast the philosophical views of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, an ancient Roman philosopher, and Meister Eckhart, a medieval European philosopher. Their views are likely to have many contrasts as they both come for different time periods, backgrounds, and educations. It will likely be, in all probability, more interesting to see were there views of the simplicity and eternity of the divine match than where they differ so we will first examine Boethius views.

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying