Abstract
In the first part of my paper, I shall consider how Anselm of Canterbury’s so-called ontological argument has been misapprehended by those treating it as a proof for the existence of God. In the second part, I shall focus on Chapter One of the Proslogion and on the Epistola de incarnatione Verbi to show what Anselm’s real purpose was regarding the problem of the existence of God. I shall support my view by referring also to the thought of John Henry Newman and Henri de Lubac.
Highlights
T A question which, I think, should be asked at any conference devoted to proofs for the existence of God, is whether they are of any use as far as ascertaining God’s existence is concerned: are proofs for the existence of God useful or are they just a pastime for idle philosophers?
Ever since the ancient Sceptics declared dogmatism to be abhorrent to the enlightened mind, dogmatic certainty has become a “res non grata” for philosophers
Erefore, the simple answer to our question is “no.” Ontological proofs for the existence of God are of no use as they are unable to achieve what they intend
Summary
Anselm’s a itude is practical: he knew well that to accept God’s existence is a ma er of faith and of the grace of God. In the Grammar of Assent, Newman sees the insufficiency of logical arguments, albeit appreciating their use for other purposes: Logic does not really prove; it enables us to join issue with others; it suggests ideas; it opens views; it maps out for us the lines of thought; it verifies negatively; it determines when differences of opinion are hopeless; and when and how far conclusions are probable; but for genuine proof in concrete ma er we require an organon more delicate, versatile, and elastic than verbal argumentation.[18]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
