Who is credited with writing much of Proverbs?

Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Eve Tushnet

Home
Catholic
Religious Music & Entertainment

Last updated on: May 18, 2006 at 5:36 pm by Eve Tushnet

2006-05-18T17:36:00-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

ONCE YOU KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW WHO: So I’ve had two problems with St Anselm’s “ontological proof” of God. (You know, the one about how God is that than which no greater can be conceived.)

The first is the problem just about everyone has: The proof is like LSD. From what I’ve heard (…I have no firsthand experience here), LSD provokes these crazy visions, and you’re so sure that you have access to ultimate reality, and it’s amazing–and then the drug works its way out of your system, and you can’t get into that part of your head again.

So too with the ontological proof. Every now and again I think I’ve made my brain turn that corner, grasped the entirety of that crazy Mobius strip of theology. And then… five minutes later, it’s just gone.

But my other problem is maybe more interesting. I groused that even if Anselm’s proof “went through,” all he’d proved was an empty box labeled “God.” He’d basically proved Platonic forms. That’s completely less interesting than the Christian God.

Today, a quick comment at Amy Welborn’s place made me think perhaps I was wrong about this criticism. Amy’s comment:

One point that struck me a couple of weeks ago as I was mulling over these matters was that in Jewish Monotheism and Hebrew Scriptures 101, there was always this emphasis on the difference between the Jewish way of thinking about God and, say the philosophers’ way. The Jews were not about God as a collectionof attributes. One knew who God was by reflecting on what God had done through and for Israel. Which indicates, then, that although these events might be seen through the eyes of faith, they were keenly intent on understanding these events. There was an historical core to religious experience in Judaism, an understanding that translated right into the Christian experience of Jesus.

(link)

This got me thinking about how far Anselm’s claims actually get us. He’s in some respects taking up the claim of Plato’s Parmenides (if the One is not, then nothing is) and in some ways working the same theological plot of land I describe in this post about Augustine, the sunflower, and the asymptote. I had thought that Augustine did it much better; now I’m not so sure.

If Anselm’s proof works, it would behoove us to look around for a claimant to the godhead who talked in ways compatible with that proof: a god who claimed to be ultimate reality, morally best and somehow more alive than us. This sounds, actually, a lot like the God of the Bible. “I am that ‘I Am'”–I am what it is to be; I am more thoroughly than any other thing could be; I am the source and summit of Being. (CS Lewis, in the introduction to The Problem of Pain, puts what might be the same question this way: Why does the Biblical God unite morality and “the numinous” or the sublime? Other religions don’t make their sublime gods the standard of morality; other philosophies don’t imbue their moral standards with the awe and personality that attend the Biblical God. What difference does this difference make?) People argue that Hellenistic philosophy somehow corrupted the early Church; but why was the Church so attractive to the philosophers? Perhaps because it answered some of the questions they’d already discerned. Certainly the Christian story allows for the most striking elements of Platonism: love as the spur to wisdom, Being as something separate from this world that nonetheless somehow flows into the particular beings we see all around us.

In other words, if Anselm’s proof goes through, by knowing how Good or Being is, we can know who Good/Being is; and by looking to the actions of God we can fill the empty box, and know what it looks like to be good, to be real.

Now, okay: I don’t think reason alone–or aesthetic acuity, through which we can tell intriguing stories from bland ones–can walk across the “if” in that preceding paragraph. Walking across the “if” is what faith is. And really, this entire post is incredibly speculative, since it’s been years since I read the ontological proof, or really any Anselm.

[eta: Except for the part where that’s totally not “what faith is” at all. Why do I let myself get carried away by imagery??? Obviously, no one should have “faith” in Anselm’s proof–that’s just ridiculous. Sometimes I think I should listen to myself when I talk… so that I can make what the philosophers call “sense.” Sorry people. I still think the rest of this post is useful.]

But I think I might understand better now why Anselm approaches theology the way he does. Maybe he’s trying to show us how, because when we see how, we’ll look around and find only one culprit whose m.o. fits the facts: We’ll flip through the Identikit and come up with a sketch of God.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 17, 2006

Next Post

May 18, 2006

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who is credited with writing much of Proverbs?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hezekiah Agur David Solomon