Critically evaluate the reading

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

Anselm Arguments 3

The Ideology of Faith and Understanding of God Nature Developed by Anselm Arguments

The Ideology of Faith and Understanding of God Nature Developed by Anselm Arguments

From the beginning of religion and the beliefs, many people have developed different concepts which try to define the nature of their Gods. However, the understanding of their Gods relied on the nature of how they perceived him which can term as faith. The complexity that exists in defining the nature of Christian God has been seen through the rise of contradicting perception of different religious leaders from the beginning of acknowledgment of God. Anselm developed four concepts that tried to generalize the definition of nature of God throughout his writing in the ‘Molologion’ and ‘Proslogion’which developed for philosophical ideologies/dialogues termed as, ‘De veritare, ‘Delibertate’, ‘De grammatico arbitrii’and finallyDe casu diabilo’. In these four dialogues, Anselm tried to develop a monolog definition of the identification of God rather than the existing complexity produced by the Christian doctrines. This case study, therefore, aims to assess how Anselm presented his arguments and whether he succeeded in finding the clear and straightforward definition of God nature (Loewe, 2014).

‘De veritare’ ideology on the truth nature of God, Anselm developed a concept of how people defined God. He argues that people’s weakness is that they tend to believe what is quantifiable. The rational nature of people makes them not to achieve the exact definition of the existence and the divine attribute of God. He claims stated that failure of acknowledging God was foolish as the plasms argued: “there is no God.” (Loewe, 2014). The argument behind defining the actual nature of God was that God existed in a form that was above any though that would be powerful such that the least though that one could have of the powerful being of supernatural. His argument, however, did not aim to undermine the power of faith, but he tried to argue the concept of believing in a supreme nature of supernatural being. The existence of a self-existence that sorely powerful that any thought that could though be a human being. He continues to argue that the concept of doctrine that God existed in the most powerful though that would be developed still left a chance that still someone could still think of something else that is more powerful that what he/she had thought before. Therefore, it lacked the appropriated gauge to define the actual nature of God in a single argument.

‘De grammatico arbitrii’ dialogue on freedom of choice, Anselm argued that the earthy concepts would not quantify God ability. He claimed that God ever knows (foreknowledge) is unquestionable; the same concept developed two themes that he tried to explain the good and the bad lucks that happen in future. And since God ever knows is he the one who plans for the misfortune or not (Fortin, 2013. This question of suffering and the punishment brought the contradiction in explaining why the sinners still go unpunished. Anselm argued that God is not justice because the actual nature of the term justice is that the evil ought to be punished, to explain this contradicting argument, he defined the character of God as merciful, and he is slow in punishing the sinners while looking forward to them to turn from their evil deeds. In this concept, he defined God as solely dominant over his judgment and free from any human perception. For instance, if an act for this case called ‘Y’ occurred to be ‘Y’ then God knew it will happen.

In the time factor, as Anselm defined in Proslogion 6 is that God cannot be defined with the time value. According to Plato’s ‘Timaeus,’ time is a continuous phenomenon of eternity involving shifting from one era to another. Therefore, God cannot be defined with time since if so, it would mean that God has some sections of the event which will lose the meaning of the whole existence of God (Thornton, 2012). Anselm added that due to the fact that God cannot exist in parts, he is everlasting and outside the time constraints. Anselm defined clearly in the ‘Monologion’ 22 that if God is not restricted in the condition of place and time. God must be then not enclosed within the time boundaries which would develop parts of events. Therefore, the conclusion of his argument states that if something is under no substance constrained by confinement of time, then no law of place and time forces it to develop a multiple of itself (Loewe, 2014).

Though Anselm developed a compelling arguments on the nature of God through four ideologies which include the ability, holiness of God, the place and time factor, he still failed to develop a monologue argument of concept of God whereby he even made it more contradicting when he argued that God nature cannot be defined by the earthly languages. Since Anselm failed to develop a single argument to explain the nature of God, Anselm developed a theory that argued that none of the earthly languages can fully qualified to describe the nature of God (Asiedu, 2012). The argument he developed in the Monologion 26 elaborated that, for a human to explain a concept, he have to figure it out in the mind with the reference of what he knows, and since nothing is comparable to God, then no language qualified to describe God.

To conclude, understanding of one’s God relies on the nature of faith and trust the person in question have to his/her, God. Faith and belief are unquantifiable elements that can only exist in who believe in his/her God and only him/her who can define the actual nature of his/her, God. Therefore, though Anselm developed a compelling argument to describe the nature of God, his argument applies to his faith where no one can define the exact true nature of God leaving no question to other believers.

Reference list

Loewe, C.L., 2014. Review of Thomas M. Osborne Jr., Human Action in Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2014.

Asiedu, F., 2012. From Augustine to Anselm: The Influence of De Trinitate on the Monologion.

Thornton, M., 2012. English spirituality: an outline of ascetical theology according to the English pastoral tradition. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Fortin, J.R., 2013. Asiedu, FBA, From Augustine to Anselm: The Influence of “De Trinitate” on the “Monologion. The Review of Metaphysics, 66(3), pp.565-566.