Blaise Pascal And Saint Anselm Of Canterbury

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

Prior to reconstructing the argument, I will inspect the 'a priori' ontological argument, an argument that is solely justified through reasoning alone and based upon concepts and logical relations. To begin with, Anselm introduces "the fool", one that denies the existence of a greater conceivable being. He argues that this "fool" understands what is conceived but does not believe it to actually exist. The fool merely conceives of such a being to exist in his mind, because he has been told of its existence. Anselm adopts "the fool's" understanding of God's existence to prove his a priori argument, as if God exists in the understanding alone, but can be conceived to exist in reality, then God must exist in reality.

James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence. He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions

The argument of whether God does or doesn’t exist has been a popular philosophical topic and everyday topic around the world for many centuries. It is a very important concept that philosophers have been trying to grasp since the beginning of philosophy. Anselm and Hume both have arguments that give us reasons to believe whether God exists or doesn’t exist. In this paper, I will venture into Anselm’s ontological argument, Hume’s contra-ontological argument, and objections to both of these arguments.

There are some questions in the religious domain that reason cannot answer because there are situations in every religion that cannot logically be explained. Religions are not rational; therefore, reason alone is not adequate enough to validate religious truths. In this paper, I will demonstrate how reason and faith aren’t separate entities and how both are needed in order to explain all religious truths by examining the ideas of Kierkegaard and Pascal. I will also give a detailed explanation of fideism, show examples of irresponsible fideism and responsible fideism and then argue in favor of responsible fideism; faith fills in the gaps that are left void by reason.

     Many objections have been raised as to the validity and soundness of Anselm’s ontological argument. One of the most compelling and most famous objections was present by Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century. Kant found fault with Anselm’s premise that if something exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists in the understanding alone. According to this objection, “existence'; is not a characteristic or property. Therefore a thing’s greatness would depend solely on what properties it has; whether or not something exists in reality or only in the understanding does not affect its greatness in any way. For example, consider an imaginary one hundred dollar bill with all the same properties as a one hundred dollar bill that does exist in reality. The only difference between the real bill and the imaginary one is that the former

Another part of Anselm's argument is the idea that it is greater to exist in reality as well as mind, rather than simply mind. This speaks specifically to premise 7 of his argument. While in a quantitative sense this is necessarily true (existing in 2 ways rather than only 1, and 2 being greater than 1), it is certainly questionable whether the opponent of this argument would see it as being objectively better. An opponent of premise 7 might say that an idea can remain perfect, like the chocolate cake you dream about eating. Prior to eating it, you perceive it to be perfect, your mouth begins to water, and your conception of that cake you are going to eat exists in your mind in some way. Then, once you eat the cake, it's dry, stale, and the frosting

One of the criticisms of the ontological argument is by the monk Gaunilo. Gaunilo tries to use the same concept of Anselm’s argument to refute the claims he made. He tries to use the analogy of “The Perfect Island”. (1) A perfect island is an island after which nothing greater exist. (2)The perfect island exists in the mind. (3)The perfect islands exist in the mind and not in reality and can be conceived to exist. (4)To exist is better than not exist. Therefore, the perfect islands exist. Gaunilo’s perfect island is similar to the logical reasoning behind Anslem’s argument. He reasons that the thought of a perfect island can exist in the mind. The perfect island is one that which there is nothing greater. If the perfect islands exist in the

The idea of the hero in Greco-Roman culture was integrated into the idea of the saint (in the process of conversion and totalization) by way of Christianity's adoption of and ancestry in the Greco-Roman culture. As Professor Ambrosio indicates, "The need and the search for meaning is shared by all human beings" (Hero or Saint Saul of Tarsus). Thus, it is no surprise to find that a pagan Greco-Roman title is applicable to a Christian whose virtue is viewed as greater than that of ordinary men just as the hero is viewed as greater (in fame, bravery, strength) than ordinary men. The fact that two of early Christianity's most heroic figures (St. Paul and St. Augustine) were Roman makes this integration even less surprising. This paper will discuss the way in which the hero is integrated into the idea of the saint by comparing Saul of Tarsus with Augustine of Hippo two men who underwent a conversion and rose to "heroic" or "saintly" heights in terms of Christian virtue.

The ontological argument of Anselm also includes how the idea of God exists in the mind even of the person who denies that God exists in reality. This means that someone who doubts the existence of God at least knows what God is the greatest thing that can be conceived. Another premise of Anselm is that something that exists in reality, is better than something that only exists in

The Ontological Argument presented by Anselm is false because of premise two. Anselm argues that God’s existence is provable in a priori, this means that one knows God exists simply by reason alone and therefore does not need any prior experience to know it is true. In the next section, I will explain the premises and defend Anselm’s point. In the third section, I will explain how premise two is wrong.

St. Anselm's Ontological Argument has remained one of the most widely-known arguments for a Christian God, as well as simply probably the most famous logical proof of all time, since its inception in the late 11th century. The economical proof uses deductive logic starting from basic given premises to lead the reader to what is meant to be the inevitable conclusion that God must, necessarily, exist. The argument's polished simplicity is both a point in favor and a problem, however, for it provides little explanation for its premises beyond what is to be assumed within the tight structural framework of Christian thought beneath which all medieval philosophy operated. Anselm's proof is a clever piece of logic, and an important one, but its

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

A revolutionary name in philosophy, Thomas Aquinas began his career as a Benadictine monk, following his father’s wishes. However, Aquinas would not be long in this profession, as the Dominican Order would snatch him from his studies. Besides this, Aquinas would be deeply impacted by his mentor, Albertus Magnus. Aquinas would become a forefather of Scholasticism, an idea that through intense, careful study, he could start from the truth and find support in Christian values, rather than being “free” to discover truth, as many philosophers of the time did (Soccio 228). As he developed his ties with the Orthodox church, Aquinas would be given a tall order. He would be asked to knit together the philosophy of Aristotle and the Catholic church’s idea of God into one, new, Orthodox approved philosophy (Soccio 227). In time, Aquinas would develop five ways to explain God, each linked to the teachings of Aristotle. Out of Aquinas’s five Ways, the most convincing is his final argument, the teleological argument, though his other Ways are not without their own merit.

St. Anselm Ontological argument is known to be the most popular Ontological argument however, it is also known to be the most confusing of them all. When defining God Anselm stated "a being than which nothing greater can be thought." By saying this Anselm makes a very strong claim that