Q94 ~ After proposing an argument meant to demonstrate that God exists, Anselm addresses the question of what God is. How does Anselm take up this question? As Anselm thinks through the paradoxes and quandaries that arise in effort to know the divine nature, what does he learn about God and his relation to God? Is what he learns in tension with, or a corrective of, what he learned from the opening demonstration of the existence of God? Why or why not?

94.  After proposing an argument meant to demonstrate that God exists, Anselm addresses the question of what God is. How does Anselm take up this question? As Anselm thinks through the paradoxes and quandaries that arise in effort to know the divine nature, what does he learn about God and his relation to God? Is what he learns in tension with, or a corrective of, what he learned from the opening demonstration of the existence of God? Why or why not?

RW: This question is basically identical to #99 (which I also outlined); those two outlines only differ in the language used (not the content), and are largely unchanged from previous years’ work (esp. used: 2009/11).  As is my custom, I reformatted, but didn’t add an intro (the question gives the necessary 4-part structure).

Note: this outline uses TNG as shorthand for “That whom nothing greater can be thought” and GCT for “greater than can be thought.”

I)     How Anselm takes up the question

A)   The opening demonstration (chs. 2-3) shows that God exists and is “that than which nothing greater can be thought” (=TNG)

B)    Anselm derives the other divine attributes from his fundamental conception of God as TNG. God has those properties that are great making.

1)    “God is whatever is better to be than not to be” (ch. 5)

2)    The qualities: justice, truth, happiness, percipient, omnipotent, merciful, impassible & whatever else is better to be than not”

II)   The paradoxes

A)   Certain attributes seem in tension and incompatible with each other

1)    While Scotus added non-contradiction to the definition of TNG, Anselm seems simply to have assumed that God could not possess properties which were actually contradictory.

B)    The specific paradoxes

1)    How can he be percipient even though He is not a body?

(a)   It seems that only corporeal things should be able to perceive because perception depends on the senses, and those exist in a body.

(b)   Solution

(i)    Perception is aimed at knowledge

(ii)  Therefore it is appropriate to say that whatever knows also perceives, even if in a very different way from humans.

(iii) TNG is percipient, in that He knows everything about which people have sensation

(iv) But he knows sensible things in a higher, immaterial, better way

2)    How can he omnipotent if there are things he cannot do?

(a)   God can’t do things that are evil (e.g., lying, and “making the true false”) or things that involve imperfection (e.g, being corrupted).

(b)   Solution

(i)    Confusion of language: The ability to lie, etc., are misleadingly called “abilities” or “powers,” since they are actually weaknesses–one who does these things makes himself weaker, giving evil power over him.

(ii)  Thus one “can” do these things in virtue of weakness, not strength. (One way to read this is that God is better for being necessarily as powerful as he is—it is not possible for evil to have power over him.)

3)    How can he be merciful and impassible?

(a)   If God is impassible, then he does not feel compassion; and if he does not fee compassion then he does not experience sorrow (= being merciful, according to Anselm; the two are linguistically related.)

(b)   Solution

(i)    TNG is merciful in relation to us (that is, he performs merciful actions to us and we feel the related emotions)

(ii)  But TNG is not merciful in relation to himself (that is, he does not feel the emotions, like sorrow, associated with mercy).

4)    How can he be both just and merciful? (The hardest one)

(a)   It seems to contradict God’s perfect justice to spare the wicked. (ch. 9)

(b)   Solution

(i)    Anselm seems to suggest several answers in this section, but after each returns again to the puzzle as if it has not been laid to rest. In the end he suggests that “only what you will is just, and only what you do not will is not just.” I take it he thinks this is the closest thing he has to a solution.

(ii)  However, Anselm doesn’t seem confident that this really solves the quandary, and, even if this explains why God can be good even in sparing the wicked, he concludes that “no reasoning can understand why” God, in his goodness, chooses to be merciful to some and not others who are alike in wickedness.

(iii) Here are several other things he says in addressing the problem that he doesn’t seem to regard as conclusive:

(i)    It is better to be good to both good and wicked people. Also, it is better to be good to the unjust through both punishment and sparing than just through punishment; thus, TNG is merciful because he is good. 

(ii)  We must believe that mercy is compatible with justice, for we know TNG to be good and one cannot be good without being just.

(iii) In sparing the wicked TNG is just in relation to Himself (His goodness), but not just in relation to us

1.     But we do experience God’s mercy when he saves us. (Here, it looks like he’s just to himself, and merciful to us)

2.     Yet, it is also just, in relation to himself, for God to punish the wicked (because its supremely just to punish the wicked)

3.     Conclusion: justice requires mercy, since God is being just to Himself (His goodness) in showing mercy to sinners. But, it is still just to punish sinners, & we cannot understand why God shows mercy & punishes when he does.

III) What Anselm learns about God and his relation to God

A)   About God: “You Are Something Greater Than Can Be Thought”

1)    Being greater than can be thought (GCT) is one more great-making attribute:

(a)   It is possible to think of a being that is greater than we finite creatures can think of (so it seems possible that there be one).

(b)   Such a being would be greater than one we can think of.

(c)   Thus, TNG is GCT.

2)    The justice dilemma may be taken as evidence that there are some things about God that are beyond our understanding

(a)   Anselm thinks we can be confident that justice/mercy don’t conflict but we aren’t certain how this is so.

B)    About his relation to God: “How & Why God is Both Seen & Unseen by Those Who Seek Him”

1)    Seen: We have found that God is TNG, and (thus) that God is happiness, truth, goodness, just, merciful, omnipotent, percipient, impassible, etc.

(a)   Whatever Anselm has seen, he has seen through God’s light.

2)    Unseen: Yet, why does my soul not perceive you?

(a)   Perhaps Anselm did see God’s light and truth, but not all of God; he did not see God as He really is. 

(b)   The soul ever strives to see more, but cannot see completely because of its own darkness.

IV) Tension or corrective?

A)   Puzzle about “You Are Something Greater Than Can Be Thought”

1)    Our understanding is too weak to grasp God (TNG) because he is a being GCT (and the soul has been weakened by sin)

B)    Anselm thinks this is NOT problematic for premise #1 of the opening demonstration (= that God is TNG) (See 44-5)

1)    God as the object/referent of “TNG” is “something greater than can be thought.” 

2)    Nevertheless, the words “TNG” are still capable of being comprehended, and thus exist in the understanding.

(a)   Moreover, Anselm’s resolution of the conflict between the divine attributes shows that TNG is not a false thing.  It is possible.  (Or as Scotus will add, God is TNG w/out a contradiction.)

[RW: Perhaps it would be more straightforward cover the puzzle before showing what GCT contributes?  Still, I kept what the collective wisdom thinks is right.]