San Anselmo: Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God

San Anselmo: Faith, Reason, and God

1.1 Ser = Think. This concept belongs to the Presocratics, who are rationalists. The first is Parmenides, for whom both terms are equal, and this underpins all the Presocratics (less critical). For Ockham, the problem is not the existence of God, but the essence of this naming. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that you cannot know God's essence because we would have to be God to know this. According to San Anselmo, that in which nothing greater can be conceived must exist not only in thought but also in reality, for something to reach perfection it must be real. A being that only exists in the mind will be less perfect than another that does so in reality. Ockham defended the justification of reality, stating that to know, you simply need to believe (Faith) and that God is will, not understanding.

1.2 Relation Between Faith and Reason For San Anselmo, both are necessary to ensure the existence of God, and they complement one another to achieve understanding of Christian truth. Reason helps faith classify its contents, and faith illuminates reason. The goal of religion is salvation, and reason is reality. Knowledge of the origin of this relationship arises from a series of threats that endanger religion, and is used as an argument to defend the right, so the first philosophers were born Christians. For Ockham, reason and faith are separate ways of knowing.

Commenting on the Argument

The argument begins with a prayer in which philosophy is linked with religion, trying to prove the existence of God rationally. It follows with an argument, which gives a definition of God, which is manifested in the conclusion, and that this included the existence of God (``That which nothing greater can be thought``).

San Anselmo relies too much on human reason, and this is a mistake, because each person could reach a different point. With this definition, even the unbelievers, who he calls ``insensatos``, would agree, as God is treated in their understanding, in their head, but they do not believe in it, so then the idea of God would exist. Afterwards, San Anselmo attempts to relate intellectual life, wondering if the real is more real, the real God or the idea we have of real. He defended what is real, which led him to end his argument with the conclusion that God exists in understanding and in reality.

Critiques of San Anselmo's Model

The model of St. Anselm is a Platonic model based in rationalism and realism, which argues that God exists in our intellectual understanding and the real. The pure Platonists, such as Descartes and Spinoza, will agree with this argument, but others like St. Thomas Aquinas would disagree. St. Thomas would be based on sensitive observation, which could only prove the existence of God based on his work, because if you can see a world created, it is because it has a creator. Kant also was based on sensitive observation, but unlike St. Thomas, he argued that one can believe in God, but not know. These two authors ridicule the St. Anselm's model for several reasons:

1. Take a leap of thought to being. The example given by Kant is that it is not the same to think I have 10 coins in his pocket as to actually have them.
2. The definition given by God is not possible, since the idea of God we can have is limited.
3. Everyone has different ways of thinking then, how many ideas are of God?
4. Christian philosophers coincide with Anselm that God exists, even though everyone would see it differently.

Ockham wanted to separate philosophy from religion (Ockham's ``knife``). He said philosophers all they did was multiplying entities and based on his principle of economy, i.e., nature works as simple as possible, by that the more simple explanation, but true.