Anselm critique

Ontologism sufficiently discredited?
This condemnation by the Holy Office is quite sufficient to discredit Ontologism, regarding which it is enough to say here
…that, as already observed, experience contradicts the assumption that the human mind has naturally or necessarily an immediate consciousness or intuition of the Divine,
…that such a theory obscures, and tends to do away with, the difference, on which St. Paul insists (1 Corinthians 13:12), between our earthly knowledge of God (“through a glass in a dark manner”) and the vision of Him which the blessed in heaven enjoy (“face to face”) and seems irreconcilable with the Catholic doctrine, defined by the Council of Vienne, that, to be capable of the face to face or intuitive vision of God, the human intellect needs to be endowed with a special supernatural light, the lumen gloriae and
…finally that, in so far as it is clearly intelligible, the theory goes dangerously near to Pantheism.

St. Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God’s existence in his Summa theologica, objected to Anselm’s argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed.The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know his essence, only he could use the argument.His rejection of the ontological argument caused some Catholic theologians to also reject the argument.


Kant – proposition/necessity
Kant questioned the intelligibility of the concept of a necessary being. He considered examples of necessary propositions, such as “a triangle has three angles”, and rejected the transfer of this logic to the existence of God. First, he argued that such necessary propositions are necessarily true only if such a being exists: If a triangle exists, it must have three angles. The necessary proposition, he argued, does not make the existence of a triangle necessary. Thus, he argued that, if the proposition “X exists” is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X exists in reality.
Grier, Michelle (February 29, 2004; substantive revision 28 February 2007). “Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 30, 2011.

Anselm reaffirmed
In 1960, Norman Malcolm published Anselm’s Ontological Argument. He sought to distinguish what he saw as two ontological arguments proposed by Anselm in Chapters 2 and 3 of his Proslogion. Malcolm supported Kant’s criticism of Anselm’s argument in Chapter 2: that existence cannot be a perfection of something; however, he identified what he sees as a second ontological argument in Chapter 3 which is not susceptible to such criticism.
Malcolm identified two key arguments of Anselm’s second: first, that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible, and secondly, that God is a being “than which a greater cannot be conceived”. Malcolm supported that definition of God and suggested that it makes the proposition of God’s existence a logically necessarily true statement (in the same way that “a square has four sides” is logically necessarily true). Though Malcolm rejected the idea of existence itself being a perfection, he argued that necessary existence is a perfection. This, he argued, proved the existence of an unsurpassably great necessary being.
Sobel, John Howard (2004). Logic and theism: arguments for and against beliefs in God. Cambridge University Press. pp. 81–82.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: