The Role Of A Fool In Anselm's 'There Is No God'

In the bible, it says that “Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Anselm's reflection to this has become known as the Ontological Argument. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” One way to interpret this phrase is to define “God” as maximal perfection, i.e. the greatest possible being. Anselm justifies his argument by using the idea of a painter. When a painter first knows of what it is he or she wants to accomplish, they have it in their understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. They don’t understand it to exist because they have yet to construct their painting. He is trying to say that there is a difference between saying that something actually exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something actually exists. when you hear the word square, you picture a square, or when you hear the word circle, you picture a circle. Anselm argued when humans hear the word God, they think Supreme Being. When I hear the word “God,” I recognize a God that I know from my personal experiences, but I also know that this God of mine is also working through the lives of everyone, not just mine. He has an intimate oneness with all of us, even if we don’t recognize or know it. I don’t think the God I know of is worried about whether people are religious or not. I think this God is interested in exploring experience, through us.

Philosophers have for long debated on the existence of a Supreme all powerful and all perfect God, Kant, and Anselm being among them. Where Anselm has supported the presence of God and all the attributes that regard to the Him, Kant has risen up with a counter argument. The interaction between the two, the philosophical objection raised by Kant, and what this means to the rest of mankind will be analyzed in this paper.

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.

This argument for God’s existence was developed by the twelfth century theologian and philosopher, Anselm. It is based on Anselm’s declaration that God is “that which nothing greater can be conceived.”

In Proslogion, Anselm argues God’s existence using what has come to be known as the ontological argument. Using the ontological argument, Anselm disproves “the fools” belief that there is no God. However, Anselm does not give enough backing to his arguments. This is particularly true in the fourth point, that it is conceivable that God exists in reality. Although I agree with Anselm, he gives no evidence to support why it is conceivable that God truly exists in reality. Anselm immediately goes from saying how it means more if something exists in reality and understanding than just in the understanding to immediately saying that the fool can conceive that God exists in reality. The

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 :

Something that can be conceived to exist is greater that something which can be conceived not to exist Nothing else has being as true or as great as God If something that which nothing greater can be conceived is conceived to not exist then it is not greater than which nothing can be conceived Con) God cannot be conceived to not exist In chapter three of Anselm’s The Ontological Argument, he purposes the argument that God must exists through the thought of existence.

The belief in Gods has always existed throughout human’s recored history. Whether it be the Greek Gods: Apollo, and Zeus, or the Judeo-Christian God, believed by Christians in modern day society. The belief of God has always existed among humans, however, assuming God does not exist, what explains the cultural evolution of such a false belief, namely religion? I shall argue that the reason this false belief is successful is because it manipulates human nature better than any other belief by these three points: an avoidance of death (the soul), a sense of worth (knowledge), and a sense, or need of belief (faith).

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.

Does God exist? That question has been asked by people for centuries. Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all say that God exists. They would claim that He is the creator of all things and is of a higher being than man is. Others would claim either that God does not exist or that God is not what the Christians, Jews, and Muslims say He is. Both Anselm and Aquinas address this question: Anselm in his "Proslogion" and Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica." The opinions of Anselm and Aquinas as to the nature of God are the same, although Anselm lacks the proof to back up his claims.

People believe that if evil exists then so does God, and vice versa. It is also a common belief that this perfect being is the creator of everything and everyone. From atom to atom and from molecule to molecule, he designed all of it. It is also believed that this God has no flaws and is indeed a perfect being. However, some people will tend to disagree. Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher, proposed a series of counterarguments to many classic arguments on behalf of God’s existence. He dismisses arguments such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument of design, by quickly pointing out their flaws. But just as there are people who discredit God’s existence, there are people who argue that he does exist. Richard Swinburne, a British philosopher, provides his own series of arguments on why God exists. Moreover, his arguments are centralized around the problem of evil. In “Why God Allows Evil”, Swinburne discusses rationale behind God allowing evil to exist. To keep it short and sweet, Swinburne believes that there are two types of evils, moral and natural, and that they exist for a reason.

that if one asserts something then one must deny something. He then goes on by

Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral

Anselm in this case defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm 30). Ontological arguments tend to be a priori, which is an argument that utilizes thoughts as opposed to empirical evidence to prove validity. Anselm addresses the Atheist fool in an attempt to disprove him “since the fool has said in his heart, There is no God?”(Anselm, 30). Anselm stressed that it is obligatory to recognize God as a perfect being that cannot be improved upon, and if someone understands the concept of God, then God exists in that person’s understanding. It is greater to exist in reality than just simply the understanding. The fool understands the concept of God. Therefore the fool has God in his understanding. Suppose God exists only in the understanding of the fool and not in reality. We could then think of something exactly as it existed in the fools understanding but it can also exist in reality, and the being we conceived of would be greater than the being that exists in the fools understanding. Therefore God exists not only in the understanding of the fool but also in reality. By showing that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding, we see that it is imperative that we should believe in God and that it is indeed reasonable.