Talisker Tutorial's Great Books III Assignment 6 Study Questions

Great Books III Study Questions for Assignment 6

Study Guide For Anselm's PROSLOGIUM

First, about the reading: Anselm can be difficult reading, but not because he uses difficult language--he doesn't; his language and style is very plain and direct. Rather, it's because he reasons very closely. Therefore, read slowly and carefully, and reading aloud will help.

Second, for background please follow this link and read Philip Schaff's excellent discussion of Scholasticism, the philosophical/theological system of the Middle Ages of which Anselm was the first great figure. By the way, I highly recommend buying and reading Schaff's 8 volume set, The History of the Christian Church. You can buy it at an excellent discount from CBD.

Third, please read this short but very good summary of Anselm's life (which also has the virtue of being accompanied by a very cool picture of Canterbury Cathedral).

STUDY QUESTIONS

Shaff on Scholaticism

1. How does Schaff characterize scholasticism?

2. a) What are the dates of Anselm's life? b) Under which kings did he serve at Canterbury in England? c) How would you summarize his character and accomplishments?

Anselm's Proslogium

"Credo Ut Intelligam" ("I believe in order that I might understand") and the Ontological Proof for the Existence of God

3. Chapter 1: With what attitude or spirit does Anselm write his book? How is this attitude like Augustine's in his Confessions?

4. Chap. 1: What is the relationship between understanding and faith for Anselm? What biblical support can you find for this position? (A good starting point might be Psalm 111:10 and Romans 1:21)

5. Chap. 3: Summarize Anselm's argument in the first paragraph: why does he say that the proposition "there is no God" is a logical contradiction? (Think carefully here: Chapter 3 is telling us that we must substitute the phrase "That which cannot possibly NOT exist" for the single word "God" in the fool's statement "God does not exist." Try this ... scroll to bottom.) Note: Compare Anselm's argument with Boethius's discussion (scroll to bottom) in The Consolation of Philosophy, bk. 3, prose section 10.

6. In the second paragraph, why does he say that God exists more truly than all other beings?

7. Chap. 4: How can the fool conceive of that which cannot be conceived (the nonexistence of God)?

8. Chap. 7: How is God omnipotent when He is also "incapable" of corruption, lying, or illogic?

9. Chaps. 9 and 10: How can the just God spare the wicked? Is He good in punishing the wicked? In showing mercy to them? Why both?

10. Chaps. 12 and 22: What is the difference between God and His creatures in what each needs for existence? (compare again the second paragraph of chap. 3)

11. Chaps. 14 and 16: What double effect does the light of God's truth have on the finite mind? In chapter 1 he had asked "where [or what] is the unapproachable light in which God dwells?" In chapter 16, he says, "this is the unapproachable light"; what answer has he found to his question in chap. 1?

12. Chap. 18: What state of mind has he fallen back into? What is his solution, or to what does he turn?

13. Chap. 26: For what purpose does he seek knowledge? For its own sake or for some further end? What is the relation or connection between chapters 1 and 26? Has he found by chapter 26 what he sought in 1?

14. Through what general stages can you trace his thought in the Proslogium?

15. In his Preface (page 47) Anselm says he is looking for a single argument which alone would suffice to demonstrate that God truly exists--this argument or Proof is most concisely set forth in chapter 3. What is the relationship between this argument and the rest of the book as you described it in your answer to question number 12 above?

16. Consider the middle paragraph on page 4 of the Introduction--given "credo ut intelligam", then what condition must be met in Anselm's attackers or defenders besides being familiar with his writings? What response to Anselm's Proof would we expect to find in an unbeliever? Did Achilleus reject Agamemnon's offer in Iliad 9 because it was insufficient?

17. If I already believe, why have a "proof" for God's existence? (3rd paragraph of Preface, last paragraph of chap. 1)

End of study questions

Scholasticism (excerpted from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, on Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Scholasticism is the term given to the theology of the Middle Ages. It forms a distinct body of speculation, as do the works of the Fathers and the writings of the Reformers. The Fathers worked in the quarries of Scripture and, in conflict with heresy, wrought out, one by one, its teachings into dogmatic statements. The Schoolmen collected, analyzed and systematized these dogmas and argued their reasonableness against all conceivable objections. The Reformers, throwing off the yoke of human authority, and disparaging the Schoolmen, returned to the fountain of Scripture, and restated its truths.

The leading peculiarities of Scholasticism are that it subjected the reason to Church authority and sought to prove the dogmas of the Church independently by dialectics. As for the Scriptures, the Schoolmen accepted their authority and show an extensive acquaintance with their pages from Genesis to Revelation. With a rare exception, like Abaelard, they also accepted implicitly the teaching of the Fathers as accurately reflecting the Scriptures. A distinction was made by Alexander of Hales and others between the Scriptures which were treated as truth, veritas, and the teaching of the Fathers, which was treated as authority, auctoritas.

It was not their concern to search in the Scriptures for new truth or in any sense to reopen the investigation of the Scriptures. The task they undertook was to confirm what they had inherited. For this reason they made no original contributions to exegesis and biblical theology. They did not pretend to have discovered any new dogmas. They were purveyors of the dogma they had inherited from the Fathers.

It was the aim of the Schoolmen to accomplish two things,—to reconcile dogma and reason, and to arrange the doctrines of the Church in an orderly system called summa theologiae. These systems, like our modern encyclopaedias, were intended to be exhaustive. It is to the credit of the human mind that every serious problem in the domains of religion and ethics was thus brought under the inspection of the intellect. The Schoolmen, however, went to the extreme of introducing into their discussions every imaginable question,—questions which, if answered, would do no good except to satisfy a prurient curiosity. Anselm gives the best example of treatises on distinct subjects, such as the existence of God, the necessity of the Incarnation, and the fall of the devil. Peter the Lombard produced the most clear, and Thomas Aquinas the most complete and finished systematic bodies of divinity.

With intrepid confidence these busy thinkers ventured upon the loftiest speculations, raised and answered all sorts of doubts and ran every accepted dogma through a fiery ordeal to show its invulnerable nature. They were the knights of theology, its Godfreys and Tancreds. Philosophy with them was their handmaid,—ancilla,—dialectics their sword and lance.

In a rigid dialectical treatment, the doctrines of Christianity are in danger of losing their freshness and vital power, and of being turned into a theological corpse. This result was avoided in the case of the greatest of the mediaeval theologians by their religious fervor. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura were men of warm piety and, like Augustine, they combined with the metaphysical element a mystical element, with the temper of speculation the habit of meditation and prayer.

He is far from the truth who imagines the mediaeval speculations to be mere spectacular balloonings, feats of intellectual acrobatism. They were, on the contrary, serious studies pursued with a solemn purpose. The Schoolmen were moved with a profound sense of the presence of God and the sacrifice of the cross, and such treatments as the ethical portions of Thomas Aquinas’ writings show deep interest in the sphere of human conduct. For this reason, as well as for the reason that they stand for the theological literature of more than two centuries, these writings live, and no doubt will continue to live.1312

Following Augustine, the Schoolmen started with the principle that faith precedes knowledge—fides praecedit intellectum. Or, as Anselm also put it, "I believe that I may understand; I do not understand that I may believe" credo ut intelligam, non intelligo ut credam. They quoted as proof text, Isa. 7:9. "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established." Abaelard was an exception, and reversed the order, making knowledge precede faith; but all arrived at the same result. Revelation and reason, faith and science, theology and philosophy agree, for they proceed from the one God who cannot contradict himself.

In addition to the interest which attaches to Scholasticism as a distinct body of intellectual effort, is its importance as the ruling theology in the Roman Catholic Church to this day. Such dogmas as the treatment of heresy, the supremacy of the Church over the State, the immaculate conception, and the seven sacraments, as stated by the Schoolmen, are still binding, or at any rate, they have not been formally renounced. Leo XIII. bore fresh witness to this when, in his encyclical of Aug. 4, 1879, he pronounced the theology of Thomas Aquinas the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, and the safest guide of Christian philosophy in the battle of faith with the scepticism of the nineteenth century.

The Scholastic systems, like all the distinctive institutions and movements of the Middle Ages, were on an imposing scale. The industry of their authors cannot fail to excite amazement. Statement follows statement with tedious but consequential necessity and precision until chapter is added to chapter and tome is piled upon tome, and the subject has been looked at in every possible aspect and been exhausted. Duns Scotus produced thirteen folio volumes, and perhaps died when he was only thirty-four. The volumes of Albertus Magnus are still more extensive. These theological systems are justly compared with the institution of the mediaeval papacy, and the creations of Gothic architecture, imposing, massive, and bly buttressed. The papacy subjected all kingdoms to its divine authority. Architecture made all materials and known mechanical arts tributary to worship. The Schoolmen used all the forces of logic and philosophy to vindicate the orthodox system of theology, but they used much wood and straw in their constructions, as the sounder exegesis and more scriptural theology of the Reformers and these later days have shown.

Try this ....

The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

The fool's statement is "God does not exist."

Step One: Anselm's argument begins with the assertion that God is that being than which nothing greater can be conceived. We can conceive in our understanding of this being.

If we can conceive of this being as possibly existing in reality and not just in our understanding, then we must admit that the being existing in reality would be greater than the one existing only in our understanding, so we must conceive of God as existing in reality, not just in our understanding.

Step Two: Anselm then shows that the term "God" must refer to a being which must be defined as "that which cannot possibly not exist," because necessary, non-contingent existence must be a characteristic of the greatest being conceivable. Such a being must be greater than one equally great in all ways but existing contingently, as creatures do.

So the term "God" = "that which cannot possibly NOT exist."

Since "that which cannot possibly NOT exist" is the definition of this being, we can plug it into the fool's statement in place of the single word "God", giving us "[That which cannot possibly NOT exist] does not exist."

This is a obviously a self-contradiction (the terms contradict each other, as they do in the proposition "this circle is square").

Thus, the statement "God does not exist" is a logical contradiction; i.e., it's not merely wrong, it's nonsense.

"Boethius's discussion"

Lady Philosophy to Boethius, in Boethius's The Consolation of Philosophy:

" 'Now consider,' she continued,' where it [true happiness] lies. The universally accepted notion of men proves that God, the fountain-head of all things, is good. For nothing can be thought of better than God, and surely He, than whom there is nothing better, must without doubt be good. Now reason shews us that God is so good, that we are convinced that in Him lies also the perfect good. For if it is not so, He cannot be the fountain-head; for there must then be something more excellent, possessing that perfect good, which appears to be of older origin than God: for it has been proved that all perfections are of earlier origin than the imperfect specimens of the same: wherefore, unless we are to prolong the series to infinity, we must allow that the highest Deity must be full of the highest, the perfect good. But as we have laid down that true happiness is perfect good, it must be that true happiness is situated in His Divinity.' "