Talk:Proslogion

The ethics of belief

 * This entry was copied from Talk Page of Proslogium in the process of merger to this page. Lini 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I read something very interesting the other day concerning the ethics of belief by Louis Pojman from his work Religious Belief and the Will. He believed that rational belief, and a concepion of faith, are the duties of every person according to the best available evidence they find. There is also a responsibility to search for true knowledge if what you already believe is based upon weak evidence. The example Pojman gives is of a physician prescribing a drug which he or she thinks might aid a patient, but the physician's diagnosis was incorrect, and as a result the patient dies. Because the physician had not sought a greater knowledge of a more appropriate drug based on the patient's conditions he or she would be judged culpably ignorant for not seeking out the latest or most appropriate drug. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every individual to take responsibility for what they believe, even if it results in the injury of others. This is not necessarily our moral duty though, according to Pojman, but it is still a responsibility which should be taken very seriously. It is very unwise to believe in something which you know is not backed up by good evidence and/or proof. Therefore, in forming one's religious belief, Pojman writes that it is important that a person follows a rational line of reasoning in the formation of his or her spiritual beliefs. The beliefs that are the most justified are the beliefs that have the best chance of being accurate. He believes that one should even ask questions of their own personal religious beliefs, for the purpose of a genuine search for truth. People have the liberty to do this because it would seem that a God who is morally good would respect the conclusion of a person who honestly saw his or her religious beliefs in God as rationally incapable of being true. The God of the Bible does not work that way though, as according to the Bible there is no excuse for unbelief in God. Nonetheless, it is always wrong for anyone to form a strong belief in something based on weak evidence. -Mancalf 22 January 2006

Proposed merger with Proslogium
The articles are both about the same discourse written by Anselm of Canterbury, but which title shall we use as the primary title in Wikipedia? (The other title will become a redirect). I have seen each of the alternative spellings used in reputable sources on Anselm's writings. Google gives 177,000 hits for Proslogion and 19,400 for Proslogium. I propose merging the text at Proslogium into the text here at Proslogion, and keeping Proslogium as a redirect. If no objections are brought forward, I would hope to perform the merger on or after 22 July 2006. Thanks, Lini 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Carl.bunderson 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started the merger process by changing the articles that link to Proslogium to link to this article --Lini 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All text from Proslogium has been merged into this article. This article could still use some cleanup, citations, and additional information about influence and critical interpretation of Proslogion.  I hope to do some further work in the upcoming days, and also hope that other editors will contribute. The actual process of converting the Proslogium page into a redirect and merging the discussion page content is a project for another day. --Lini 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Today I replaced the text on Proslogium (which had already been merged into this artice), with a redirect to this article. --Lini 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Text about Anselm moved from article
I'm removing the following text about Anselm from the opening paragraph of the article:
 * Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033 or 1034 – April 21 1109), a widely influential medieval philosopher and theologian, held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. Called the founder of Scholasticism, he is famous as the inventor of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Source: Reference.com

Rationale: 1.) This text can be found at the article on Anselm, to which this article links. 2.) Wikipedia is one of the sources for Reference.com, and text is verbatim of that in Anselm article, so it doesn't really make sense to site Reference.com as a source here. 3.) I am using the Consolation of Philosophy article as a good example for this type of article; it is cited as a good article on its talk page, and it does not contain biographical information on the author Boethius in the opening paragraph. --Lini 25 July 2006

Definitively prove the existence of God?
In the text, Anselm writes: "Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam." Translated in the edition I have as, "I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand." This indicates to me that his objective cannot be to definitively prove the existence of God, regardless of what he did or didn't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WittyQuote (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is problematic and perhaps anachronistic to speak of the Ontological argument as a "proof" in the modern sense, which is why is so often called the Ontological argument. I have read somewhere that it is better considered as a demonstration (in the sense used, say, of demonstrations in a chemistry or physics lecture) where it is used (linguistically?) to show that there are ways to define the term God which then allow that term to be used in philosphical/theological discourse.  Or that you cannot use the term "God" without predicating his existence: i.e. you cannot talk of the God who does not exist, in the way you could talk about a mythological creature--because to do so is the same as saying "I don't believe that my mental capacity is finite" (as, I think, Anselm says in his chapter The fool has said in heart there is no God which is a biblical phrase.)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing term?
The article states this proposition: because it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only, the being that nothing greater than can be thought of will both in the mind and in reality

This seems to be missing a verb in the second clause, and so should read: because it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only, the being that nothing greater than can be thought of will exist both in the mind and in reality Shtove (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. FixedRick Jelliffe (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)