Back to Anselm

In his two treatises on the existence of God Anselm tried to prove that we all have an assumption of God’s existence, even in the very words we would use to deny His existence. He assumed, therefore, a resident knowledge in our minds which both precedes any knowledge from any other source, and which exceeds in excellence any gained in our lifetime. If we, for example, compare one thing to another and can call the one better than the other, or more beautiful than the other, then we have to have in our minds some inkling that there is a goodness or a beauty which cannot be exceeded for its’ purity, for its’ complete and absolute lack of anything that is not good or not beautiful. Even if we know of nothing that actually is this pure in this world, yet our minds ordinarily and commonly are pre-inclined to ascend to this ideal in order to compare one thing to another.

We might well wonder whether this is a learned condition or whether this is a predisposed condition. For example a child sitting in a classroom must first have it proved to him that a certain thing is true, such as 1+1=2. This is fairly easily done by holding up two fingers, one on each hand. But this still begs the question, for the fact that the child’s “light comes on” concerning this rudimentary principle is the proof itself connecting with that which naturally receives approval in the mind. That is to say, the same light should go on in every child’s mind when they “get it”. Both the proof and the mind connect in such a way that it is difficult to ascertain which was first: the mind would not have gotten it unless the proof was given; but the proof would not have made any difference unless the mind was predisposed to assenting to proofs.

Of course we can all try to put up different standards of that which is right, or is good, or is true, or is beautiful. There may be a vast difference between the truths one person will accept and those which another will accept. But both will insist on the truth of their standard, and will claim to have accepted it on the basis of a proof. Therefore it is the basis of proof that is in question here, for the one will believe one proof while another believes another proof, and neither will naturally accept the other’s proof; yet both call for an acceptance to a true standard based on a proof.  But they both assume a natural predisposition of the mind to a true standard. There is a most basic and most perfect truth and goodness and righteousness and beauty which must exist before the mind can understand and assent to anything as either truer, better, more right, or more beautiful than something else, whether it is a principle, a thing, or an idea. 

At some point in history this assumption which Anselm had has faded away, to the point of the present-day claims of many different kinds of truths and many different kinds of righteousnesses, and that goodness and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. That is, truth and righteousness have no absolute standard anymore, and goodness and beauty are individually defined, or have no common standard.

We have learned to live with the absurdities of such a situation. There are many faiths, for example, each of which believes in a true God. Our modern society easily accepts that there can be many different gods to worship and to serve, and that no one god may lord it over another. Not only are the people of different faiths to get along, but their gods had better accept the notion that there are other gods that have just as many rights and privileges among men’s religions. The fact that this defies the definition of God does not seem to matter anymore. Many religions easily give up the basic definition of ‘God’ in order to gain this right to free worship and service. Any religion which is not tolerant to other religions is too narrow, too intolerant, and too hateful to be a true religion. That which is true is put against what is right, as if contradictory to each other, and this is the best that any god can be.

The laws that govern the society of each nation, of course, will inevitably run into unsolvable contradictions. In today’s local newspaper there is a news article about a student in Chester Basin, Nova Scotia, who was suspended for wearing a T-shirt that had a message on it which read “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The reason for the suspension, according to the superintendent of the school, was that this was not a statement about his own belief but about the beliefs of others. This statement was unacceptable to the school’s standards of tolerance for others. The student’s pastor responded that the religious rights of this student had been violated. That this was a true statement of the student’s beliefs, which may be freely expressed, seems to take second place to the standard of tolerance, which calls for the respect of other religions, and so must accept each person’s religion as equal to another. The point which we notice here is that, in order be accepted as equal, a religion must give up its unique and exclusive claims and beliefs. That is, no religion may claim to be the one true religion if it is to be seen as a religion enjoying the freedoms granted it under the law. The very thing which the law originally intended to safeguard has become the vehicle by which all the strange religions of the world find a place to stand and to practice; this very same basis of religious freedom now prohibits the very thing that religion stands for, namely belief in the one true God.

We have already noted in a previous essay that the modern, commonly accepted definition of ‘faith’ cannot be acceptable to the believing Christian. For the Christian faith cannot be a belief in the absence of all evidences; it has to be a faith even when evidence is absent because of the transcendent things that have been proved. At the very least he believes the Bible because it is true, and for that reason he denies that the Bible is true because he believes in it. He is not saying that the Bible is his favourite faith system; he is saying that the Bible’s truth is true the same for everyone. The fact that there are many or a multitude of people who do not believe it makes it no less true for everyone. The Christian believes that the Bible instructs him in real and unchanging truth, not at all inferior to scientific truth, not because he is not a scientist but because the Bible has a firmer foundation for knowledge. ‘Faith’ cannot be a belief for which there is no evidence; it must be a belief for which there is evidence, an evidence which is superior to any other so that he can rely on it in faith when it calls him to stay the course even beyond to evidences.

The point being raised here is that, since Anselm’s time, there has been a great shift in definitions and usages of terms. We can assume that these all came about under the influence of the philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but one cannot do so without taking each one to task. This, again, would involve an assessment of their views and teachings which itself would beg the question. It is best to try to state this shift in self-evident terms rather than to provide evidences and proofs which themselves may not stand up to the same standards as applied to these philosophers.

One could make a mental note, say, of Psalm 139, written by David long before the Greek philosophers. David here speaks of things that go far beyond the best of the Greek philosophers, when he speaks of God omniscience and omnipresence, of His yet being distinct and independent from creation instead of being a part of it, and of His creating even the mental faculties which men exercise in the improvement of the soul. Long before philosophers sought that which make men happy, before they understood that there could not be many gods without a one supreme God, before they found contentment in being followed rather than in leading, David recognized that a submissive heart to the God who sustains body and soul by His perfect will is the key to full happiness and contentment. The Old Testament word which we tend to use for Matthew 5, but which is still rendered “blessed”, is ‘beatitude’: the complete and perfect satisfaction of all desires.

Here we are again, full circle! The values by which men judge all things are truth, goodness, and beauty. Somehow our mind accepts what is true, not only because it is true but partly because it is good and beautiful too; it accepts what is good, not only because it is good but partly because it is true and beautiful too; and it accepts what is beautiful, not only because it is beautiful but partly because it is true and good too.  And we can’t have these a priori notions in our minds and hearts unless we are yearning to be completely without falsehoods, completely without evils, and completely without repulsive images. We have an image of that which is perfect, and we are not fully happy unless and until we attain to it. We are back at Anselm’s assumptions again.