beatrice_otter (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
beatrice_otter) wrote2007-02-20 10:57 pm
beatrice_otter) wrote2007-02-20 10:57 pm
Letter to Anselm
One of my classes is Philosophy for Theology, and I'm enjoying it more than I thought I would. We read a different philosopher each week, and there are no tests or papers. Instead, we are to write a 2-3 page single-spaced letter to each philosopher, assuming that they are a member of our congregation, responding to each work. Writing these letters is one of the most fun assignments I've had in any class in years (intellectually stimulating and interesting not being the same as "fun"), so I decided to post them here for all to see. The first philosopher, two weeks ago, was Anselm of Canterbury; we read his Proslogium.
February 12, 2007
Anselm of Canterbury
Canterbury Cathedral
Cathedral House
11 The Precincts
Canterbury, CT1 2EH United Kingdom
Dear Anselm,
Thank you so much for sending me an advance copy of your newest work, the Proslogium. It is a great work of thought, and I hope it will prove useful to those who wish to discuss God with atheists, agnostics, the unchurched, and all other manners of non-believers. I read it with much interest, and I have a few notes I’d like to give for your consideration.
First, congratulations are in order for coming up with such a brilliant proof of the existence of God. Indeed, given your description of how it came to you, I wonder if it was literally an inspiration—that is, from the Holy Spirit. The questions raised in the first Chapter are those which have plagued humanity since the beginnings of our race, and the answer you pose in the second chapter is one that can be accepted by people of any creed (or no creed at all!). Once such a common ground (the existence of God) has been established, true dialogue is possible for the first time, as the question turns from the existence of God to his character and his relation to humanity.
This is where the problems I have with your arguments begin. Intellectual examination of one’s beliefs is a good thing, certainly, and your goal of understanding your faith (and passing that understanding on to anyone who may benefit from it) is a good thing. However, depending on pure logic and reason in the matter of faith is problematic, at best. I am reminded of Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1 Corinthians, 1:21-25) It is true that you are arguing here primarily about the existence of God, and not emphasizing matters of ‘theology’ or belief past that. However, when you bring up aspects of God’s being (his justice and mercy, for example), I fear that you fall into the problems the Greeks faced in hearing the Gospel. That is, you are depending on pure reason to guide you, and you are assuming that God’s definition of reason is the same as yours. The first is unwise, and the second is impious.
For example, your affinity for Greek philosophy leads you to reason in Chapter VI that “God is … passionless; for it is better to be [this] than not be.” This may seem to be so, and a glance through history at the unfortunate consequences that such passions as hate and fear and even love have produced may incline us to believe that it is so. Yet God is described as possessing a wide variety of emotions in Scriptural passages from the entire Bible. His anguish when his chosen people turn from His way is moving, and is one of the most common themes of the Old Testament. It is continued in the New Testament, such as when Jesus says in Matthew 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (I would also point out that one of the most important parts of Scripture, the events leading up to the Crucifixion of Jesus, is known as his “Passion.”) God is also frequently described as angry, sad, happy, and a variety of other emotions. To deny this is to imply that virtually all of the authors of Scripture were wrong in their conception of God, or at least mistaken in this fundamental area. I am sure you did not mean to do so, yet that is the way it is said. Your logic may be as flawless as one of Plato’s Forms, yet if it reasons from unsound principles (in this case, ones that are clearly disproved in Scripture), your conclusions will be faulty.
There are also a few instances of circular logic. The one most obvious to me was in Chapter IX where you argue that God must act with justice because God is just. This requires great circumlocutions to prove that God acts with both mercy and justice at the same time, in regard to the wicked. If you accept the premise that God is not passionless, and that his love is greater than his wrath, and furthermore that his conceptions of justice do not agree with ours because his conceptions of wisdom do not agree with ours, I think you will find this issue does not require circular logic.
I know you are trying to reach those who may not share our faith as well as those who already believe, and as such bringing in arguments from a Scripture that non-believers do not accept as authoritative could be counter-productive. The problem with this approach is that we are, as Christians, people of the Book in a fundamental and profound way. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God; our faith and belief structure flows from it. Theological/philosophical arguments made from natural law and clear reason are acceptable only in so far as they do not contradict Scripture. This is a fact that anyone dealing with matters of faith and belief must grapple with. I’m not saying that your solution to this problem must be the same as mine but, as a Christian, you cannot ignore it.
I do, however, agree with your assertion at the beginning of Chapter VII that “To be capable of being corrupted, or of lying, is not power, but impotence.” Today’s society often praises the most treacherous, the most devious, the most venal of people. One can see this tendency particularly in the entertainment industry and popular culture; I could name numerous examples. A mistaken belief that this venality gives one freedom from conventional moral strictures (and that this ‘freedom’ is to be desired!) is at the heart of the decadence our society is so fond of. Instead, such ‘freedom’ leads most often to other bondages, of addiction, materialism, and malice. It is unfortunate that the ones most in need of your insight are the ones least likely to read your work. Would some paraphrase of this into a more everyday language be appropriate?
Cordially,
Beatrice Otter
February 12, 2007
Anselm of Canterbury
Canterbury Cathedral
Cathedral House
11 The Precincts
Canterbury, CT1 2EH United Kingdom
Dear Anselm,
Thank you so much for sending me an advance copy of your newest work, the Proslogium. It is a great work of thought, and I hope it will prove useful to those who wish to discuss God with atheists, agnostics, the unchurched, and all other manners of non-believers. I read it with much interest, and I have a few notes I’d like to give for your consideration.
First, congratulations are in order for coming up with such a brilliant proof of the existence of God. Indeed, given your description of how it came to you, I wonder if it was literally an inspiration—that is, from the Holy Spirit. The questions raised in the first Chapter are those which have plagued humanity since the beginnings of our race, and the answer you pose in the second chapter is one that can be accepted by people of any creed (or no creed at all!). Once such a common ground (the existence of God) has been established, true dialogue is possible for the first time, as the question turns from the existence of God to his character and his relation to humanity.
This is where the problems I have with your arguments begin. Intellectual examination of one’s beliefs is a good thing, certainly, and your goal of understanding your faith (and passing that understanding on to anyone who may benefit from it) is a good thing. However, depending on pure logic and reason in the matter of faith is problematic, at best. I am reminded of Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1 Corinthians, 1:21-25) It is true that you are arguing here primarily about the existence of God, and not emphasizing matters of ‘theology’ or belief past that. However, when you bring up aspects of God’s being (his justice and mercy, for example), I fear that you fall into the problems the Greeks faced in hearing the Gospel. That is, you are depending on pure reason to guide you, and you are assuming that God’s definition of reason is the same as yours. The first is unwise, and the second is impious.
For example, your affinity for Greek philosophy leads you to reason in Chapter VI that “God is … passionless; for it is better to be [this] than not be.” This may seem to be so, and a glance through history at the unfortunate consequences that such passions as hate and fear and even love have produced may incline us to believe that it is so. Yet God is described as possessing a wide variety of emotions in Scriptural passages from the entire Bible. His anguish when his chosen people turn from His way is moving, and is one of the most common themes of the Old Testament. It is continued in the New Testament, such as when Jesus says in Matthew 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (I would also point out that one of the most important parts of Scripture, the events leading up to the Crucifixion of Jesus, is known as his “Passion.”) God is also frequently described as angry, sad, happy, and a variety of other emotions. To deny this is to imply that virtually all of the authors of Scripture were wrong in their conception of God, or at least mistaken in this fundamental area. I am sure you did not mean to do so, yet that is the way it is said. Your logic may be as flawless as one of Plato’s Forms, yet if it reasons from unsound principles (in this case, ones that are clearly disproved in Scripture), your conclusions will be faulty.
There are also a few instances of circular logic. The one most obvious to me was in Chapter IX where you argue that God must act with justice because God is just. This requires great circumlocutions to prove that God acts with both mercy and justice at the same time, in regard to the wicked. If you accept the premise that God is not passionless, and that his love is greater than his wrath, and furthermore that his conceptions of justice do not agree with ours because his conceptions of wisdom do not agree with ours, I think you will find this issue does not require circular logic.
I know you are trying to reach those who may not share our faith as well as those who already believe, and as such bringing in arguments from a Scripture that non-believers do not accept as authoritative could be counter-productive. The problem with this approach is that we are, as Christians, people of the Book in a fundamental and profound way. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God; our faith and belief structure flows from it. Theological/philosophical arguments made from natural law and clear reason are acceptable only in so far as they do not contradict Scripture. This is a fact that anyone dealing with matters of faith and belief must grapple with. I’m not saying that your solution to this problem must be the same as mine but, as a Christian, you cannot ignore it.
I do, however, agree with your assertion at the beginning of Chapter VII that “To be capable of being corrupted, or of lying, is not power, but impotence.” Today’s society often praises the most treacherous, the most devious, the most venal of people. One can see this tendency particularly in the entertainment industry and popular culture; I could name numerous examples. A mistaken belief that this venality gives one freedom from conventional moral strictures (and that this ‘freedom’ is to be desired!) is at the heart of the decadence our society is so fond of. Instead, such ‘freedom’ leads most often to other bondages, of addiction, materialism, and malice. It is unfortunate that the ones most in need of your insight are the ones least likely to read your work. Would some paraphrase of this into a more everyday language be appropriate?
Cordially,
Beatrice Otter