![\"\"](\"https:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/_niPwTW3rBbU\/SAyLVU2ZFdI\/AAAAAAAAA3g\/bfa6hMAxzKA\/s1600-h\/anselm.jpg\")
<\/a>I see that today is the feast of St Anselm<\/a>, one of the first, perhaps actually the first Christian to put forth the ontological argument<\/a> for God. The ontological argument is, I believe, the second most popular attempt (after the argument from design<\/a>) at a logical argument for the existence of a deity. Essentially this argument goes that we can conceive of God is in itself a proof of the existence of God.<\/p>\nI\u2019ve personally never found it particularly compelling. But it has inspired any number of people, including Charles Hartshorne<\/a>, a central figure in the development of Process thought<\/a> which would have a significant impact on late twentieth century Unitarian Universalist theology.<\/p>\n It is also interesting that a similar tact has been followed by some Buddhist<\/a> thinkers who\u2019ve observed how if the mind can conceive of something larger than itself (like a mountain, or may I suggest, a god), then as that thing is contained within the mind that should be taken as evidence the mind is the greater thing\u2026<\/p>\n Personally, I don\u2019t think the ontological argument passes the smell test, so I\u2019m with Bertrand Russell on this one, when he made the ironic observation \u201cIt is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.\u201d<\/p>\n A lot fits inside our skulls.<\/p>\n And, in and of itself, that doesn\u2019t appear to prove much of anything\u2026<\/p>\n I think those who really care about God might more profitably look in other directions.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/33904114-1658401644627348130?l=monkeymindonline.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"