Deductive Arguments (Anselm)

-

A deductive argument is one in which a conclusion is necessitated by its premises. They typically use a priori arguments, meaning they are often true by definition rather than from experience.

The Ontological argument is a deductive argument for the existence of G-d. Its name comes from the Greek "ontos" meaning "being", so it is an argument concerned with being.

Anselm

Anselm was born in 1033 in modern day Italy. He was a devout Christian from a young age, with the local monastery refusing him in his teens because his father would not give him permission. Eventually he became a monk at the age of 27, becoming known for his rigor and enthusiasm for spiritual life. He would later become Archbishop of Canterbury until he was exiled for bickering with the King. After his death, he became a saint in the eyes of the Catholic Church and the Church of England. 

In 1078, he wrote Proslogion, meaning "discourse" in latin. It was not written with the intentions of conversion, but helping those with faith understand ("faith seeking understanding"). It is written as a meditation in which G-d is addressed directly.

Proslogion 2

In this argument, Anselm defines G-d as "That than which no greater can be thought" i.e the greatest being imaginable.

P - There are two ways to concieve of G-d: existing in the mind, or existing in the mind and in reality (in intellectu and in re)

P - If G-d existed only in the mind, then a greater G-d would be one that existed both in the mind and in reality

P - There cannot be something greater than TTWNCGBT

C - G-d must exist in both the mind and in reality (in intellectu and in re)

Proslogion 3

Here, he argues that G-d's non-existence is logically impossible and necessary.

P - G-d could either be necessary (has to exist) or contingent (could possibly not exist)

P - a neccessary being is greater than a contingent being

C - G-d is a contingent being

C - G-d has to exist, cannot not exist

QUOTE BANK!!

Psalms 14:1 and 53:1: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no G-d.'"

Anselm P2: “For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists.” 

Anselm P2: “…there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.”

Anselm P3: “…it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist.”

Anselm P3: “…There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist…”

Anselm P3: “…whatever else there is, except thee alone, can be conceived not to exist.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Situation Ethics: Fletcher and Agape

-
Fletcher, influenced by earlier moral theologians, advocated a ‘new’ approach to Christian ethics between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism. His solution was that we should always use the principle of love or agape (selfless love) applied to each unique situation, meaning that ‘right’ decision in one circumstance cannot be a blueprint for all circumstances. Fletcher considered his teachings as firmly grounded in ‘classical’ Christianity, a key text being Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", indicating for Fletcher that the practical application of Christian love (agape) involved a more flexible approach to rules. For Fletcher, ‘absolute’ principles of right and good are not realistic; they became problematic if applied blindly without considering specific situations. He quotes Henry Miller's reference to legalism as ‘the immorality of morality’.  Fletcher argued that the Church’s legalistic approach that used ‘prefabricated rule...
Read more

Utilitarianism: Application

-
The use of animals for medical research Often, the principle of utility (or the ‘greatest happiness principle) is used to argue that human happiness in the long-term outweighs the suffering of animal experimentation. However, such philosophers as Peter Singer says we should have a rule against causing harm or suffering to any sentient being. However, the purpose of animal experiment should be considered; medical research after all, is more noble than cosmetic safety tests. The sheer numbers benefitting from successful treatments or controlling epidemics over against the amount of pain caused for animals is justification enough. Whether one uses Bentham or Mill is another variant. The above arguments would certainly support Mill; however, Jeremy Bentham argued famously, ‘the question is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But can they suffer?’ and indeed was an active campaigner for animal rights. Another point to consider is that any conclusion reached on for this area is difficu...
Read more

Irenaean type Theodicies

-
Irenaeus, like Augustine, did not have a systematic theodicy; unlike Augustine, Irenaeus presents God as responsible for the possibility of the existence of evil. This was deliberate because God wanted human beings to develop the qualities that would make them spiritually perfect. Crucial for Irenaean type theodicies is the first part of Genesis 1:26: ‘Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.”’ For Irenaeus, human beings were created with partial maturity, but the potential to develop and grow into the image and likeness of God. Thus, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden not because they were perfect and then sinned, but because they were immature. Hick Medieval theologians, and in last century the theologian John Hick, made an analogical distinction between ‘image’ (possessing the potential qualities of God’s spiritual perfection) and ‘likeness’ (actualising those qualities). John Hick disliked a literal reading of Genesis; instead h...
Read more