Mike Dunn
In the ninth century C.E., the Benedictine monk and Arch-bishop of Canterbury named Anselm was one of the first to challenge what God is. Instead of taking the theological approach to the question, he decided to challenge it philosophically.
He developed what is now referred to as the “Ontological Approach.” It is a philosophical approach to God that is still used today. How does it work? Well, grab your thinking caps; it is a hard concept to grasp.
Anselm explains that “by ‘God’ we mean an absolutely unsurpassable being, a being that cannot conceivably be improved upon.” Essentially, he believes God is perfection.
He then uses an example of a painter to explain the concept (if you just want the Anselm for Dummies version, skip the next couple paragraphs).
“For it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, another to understand that the object exists. For when a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding and he understands that it exists, because he has made it.”
Finally, he sums up his argument:
“And assuredly, that then which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that then which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being then which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived.”
That’s a lot to digest right? I give you a second to think it over…is your mind blown yet? Good. Here is my opinion on his argument:
Western thought is that God is the greatest being in the world. Most of people have the “understanding” that God is this “supreme being” that cannot be improved upon. Therefore, because he exists in understanding, God actually exists.
A refutation to this argument would be something like “leprechauns exist in understanding but that doesn’t mean they are real.” This is true, however, one could also argue that things that don’t exist in understanding, such as undiscovered planets or life forms, are real without our knowledge.
Anselm’s argument is valid. Just because we have no proof of God—or another superior being—doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We all have an understanding of God, which might be enough to prove God’s existence.
Well, now that you all have had your fair dose of philosophical thought for the week, I hope you all have a great week. Try not to lose sleep over this.
