Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum: Anselm's Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of his Theological Scheme Book

The greatest theologian of the 20th century commenting on the greatest theologian of the 11th is a real treat. However, none but professionals and the most serious amateurs need apply; a decent knowledge of Latin and at least some theological vocabulary in German is necessary. If you haven't got these things, be prepared to keep Latin and German dictionaries handy and for this to be a bit of a slog. But it's a very rewarding slog.

Anselm proposed a proof of the existence of God that Kant later called the "Ontological Proof." Anselm described God as "id quo maius non cogitari potest"'"that than which nothing greater can be conceived." He thought this was self-evident. He proposed a God that was perfect in every characteristic, infinitely large, good, just, merciful, loving, etc., except that he did not exist. Anselm says, well, he can imagine something greater than your perfect being that does not exist: a perfect being that does exist. Therefore, Anselm says, God exists.

Philosophers and theologians ever since have debated this theory. Aquinas thought it didn't work, although I'm not sure I see a distinction between his Fourth Way and the Ontological Proof. Duns Scotus thought it worked; Ockham thought it didn't. Bertrand Russell thought it worked, then changed his mind. The standard analysis of it comes from Immanuel Kant. Kant thinks that all other proofs, the cosmological, teleological, etc., proofs of the existence of God, all derive ultimately from the Ontological Proof, because all require a concrete concept of God before they become intelligible. Barth seems to agree with Kant's analysis this far. Kant thinks that it doesn't work because "existence isn't a predicate." This sentence, unpacked, means that existence is not a characteristic of something, like being large, or tall, or good, and so on. It is instead a relation of a characteristic to a thing. Even the statement, "X exists," implies that it is something that I observe. Therefore, Kant says, regardless of the situation, the Ontological Proof doesn't work on its own.

This seems like a pretty devastating argument. Kant later rehabilitates the hypothesis of God'and only as a hypothesis or a "postulate," as he calls it'as a corollary of moral reasoning.

Barth, however, doesn't accept Kant's analysis of the argument. He points out that the Argument appears in a small part of a much larger work called the Proslogion, much of which is a long prayer in metrical Latin. Within this context, it is not so much a "proof" in the philosophical sense'let's face facts here, no one ever became a Christian because he lost an argument'as it is in the theological sense. Within its own context, i.e., as part of a prayer or psalm, it is a "space-opener." The God of the Ontological Proof is a pretty impoverished being. None of the historical interactions between God and Israel, or the experiences of the early Church with the Trinity, are shown or in any way implied by the Proof. Its function is to reposition God at the middle rather than as a peripheral figure that we are attempting to access. From there, in the context of the entirety of the Proslogion, it functions as a subject of meditation and an invitation to learn more about God. Nothing more.

In short, this is an amazing book for any student of philosophy, theology, or intellectual history, written by one of the greatest theologians of recent history. But it requires a fair degree of familiarity with historical arguments and with the people involved in order for it to make any sense. So, I give it a qualified recommendation.