80 likes | 329 Views
Proofs For God’s Existence. (or are they really proofs?). St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033/34-1109). Born Aosta, Italy (then Piedmont) fleeing his family, traveled to Normandy, where he became a Benedictine (1060), then later to England Became Archbishop of Canterbury 1093 (against his will)
E N D
Proofs For God’s Existence (or are they really proofs?)
St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033/34-1109) • Born Aosta, Italy (then Piedmont) • fleeing his family, traveled to Normandy, where he became a Benedictine (1060), then later to England • Became Archbishop of Canterbury 1093 (against his will) • Proslogion composed 1078
Anselm’s argument • God =df. “something greater than which cannot be thought” (in other translations: “that than which no greater can be thought”) • Such a thing can be thought of (what is meant by the expression can be understood) without any commitments to its existence • Q: what is strange/unique about Anselm’s formulation?
Anselm’s argument (cont’d.) • Such a thing cannot consistently be thought of as not existing. Why not? • To think of “something greater than which cannot be thought” as not existing would involve thinking a contradiction (which is impossible); therefore that thing cannot be thought of as not existing. Therefore, that thing exists. • Therefore, God exists • (elegant little proof, isn’t it?)
Problems with Anselm’s argument? • Does the expression of the concept involve some kind of verbal trickery? (for e.g. must “the most perfect dog” exist?) • Is this really a proof? (for e.g. what would a proof for the claim “a bachelor is an unmarried male person” look like?) • Is there really a contradiction here?
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) • Joined Dominican order against the wishes of his family; led peripatetic existence thereafter. • Considered the most learned man of his day; much in demand as teacher and lecturer. • Summa Theologica never finished, following ‘ecstasy’ in Dec. 1273
Aquinas on God’s existence • Believed, as against several interesting objections, that God’s existence can (and needs to be) ‘demonstrated’ (‘proved’, in the modern sense). • By this he meant 2 things: 1. That God exists is not ‘self-evident’ or axiomatic or a matter of definition 2. That God exists is something which we can be completely sure of, as a matter of reason (and not simply of faith)