question on Anselm...?

Question

How does Anselm proceed from the concept of God to prove that God exists "in reality"?

Answer 1

St. Anselm "proceeded" from the concept of God to God existing in reality because, for him, the definition or concept of God makes it impossible for God not to exist. For instance, attempt to conceptualize God as St. Anselm conceptualizes Him: that which a greater cannot be thought. As you think of that which a greater cannot be thought, ask yourself if it exists. Does it? If it does not exist then you are obviously not thinking of that which a greater cannot be thought for anything that exists would be better. If that is so, then you need to revise your concept to include existence. If your concept does exist then that is God, the greatest thing that can be conceived. We would liken it to trying to think of a colorless green balloon. The very concept of a "green balloon" denotes the presence of a color and is held in the defention of a green balloon.

There have been many debates concerning what has been called the ontological argument. Kant, for example, sincerly questions the validity of tacking on existence as an attribute by definition. It would be like thinking of the best unicorn that you can think. Well that unicorn must then exist because it would not be the best if it did not. To this I might add that St. Anselm actually implicitly answers this in his response to Gaunillo by pointing out the difference between categories. If one thinks of the best unicorn then that is something all together different than that best "thing." For instance, if this unicorn were to truly be the best then it would be the greatest only if it were infinite, all good, omniscient, omnipotent, etc... These greatest oddly sound more like the concept of God and less like that of a unicorn. The point is, then, that when one attempts to apply this to anything other than "that which a greater cannot be thought (God)," the concept forces one to approach God by continuing to attribute "God-like" qualitites to what was previously one being. He himself states that this only works for God because of the concept, yet he has gone unheard for many years.

In addition to the above mentioned critque of the "proof" some existentialists would question St. Anselm's presuppositions of what is "greater," and rightfully so. What indeed is greater? While the objective value of what is good and thus greater is a long topic for another post, I would ask you if you would rather have an existing hundred dollar bill in your hand or a non-existing? Would you rather have an existing house or a non-existing? Etc... Please keep in mind that even such things that we would rather see not exist (e.g. nuclear weapons, disease, etc...) are determined to be not good existing things only because of the way that we use them or respond to them (e.g. use to kill one another, wrongfully fear death/pain, etc...)

A lengthy explination and perhaps off topic but I hope that it helps.

Answer 2

I quote the following passage which sums up Anselm's reasoning: "
Anselm's form of realism led him to the belief that by giving proper attention to universal concepts one could prove the truths of theology. He accepted revealed truth, but was convinced that one should exercise reason in apprehending the truth. For example, he was convinced that by "necessary reasons" he could demonstrate the existence of God. Because God is the greatest of beings, Anselm reasoned in his Proslogion, he must exist in reality as well as in thought, for if he existed in thought only, a greater being could be conceived of. Thus from consideration of an ideal or universal Anselm believed that he could derive truth about what actually exists."