New vs. Old Apologetics

New Apologetics The concept of God we hold is well-described as follows:

“What are you, then, Lord God, than whom nothing greater can be conceived? But what are you, except that which, as the highest of all beings, alone exists through itself, and creates all other things from nothing? For, whatever is not this is less than a thing which can be conceived of. But this cannot be conceived of you. What good, therefore, does the supreme Good lack, through which every good is? Therefore, you are just, truthful, blessed, and whatever it is better to be than not to be. For it is better to be just than not just; better to be blessed than not blessed.” (St. Anselm, Proslogion)

Many Catholics and non-Catholics are settling for belief in a manifestly *unjust* God (contrary to what is officially taught by the Church). All atheists we’ve encountered are rejecting an *unjust* God that we (and every thinking person of goodwill) should also reject. Most concepts of God (in both believers and non-believers) very clearly fail to correspond to the standard of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Our work is to answer the current philosophical/theological questions without deviating from this highest standard.

Compromise of the sort we intend to avoid is how the “old” apologetics managed to cause such confusion. See this article for a clear description of what we mean:

https://newapologetics.com/a-line-in-the-sand

April 14, 2013 at 5:42pm · 1

Patrick Speckamp I commend you on making the effort to provide a correct understanding of the idea of God. It is much needed and I (and presumably many other people) have been confused, saddened and angered by apologetics who have made ridiculous attempts at doing so, thereby diminishing (or denigrating) basic humanist values, such as freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Although there was not in all cases a political agenda in mind, attempts at curbing or at least devaluating scientific enquiry and research, even for school teaching (‘evolution’!), are also a frequently seen problem with those people. You seem to avoid all of these things, which lends you an enormous amount of credibility.

From what I’ve understood so far, Anselm of Canterbury and his Ontological Argument (along with the Cathecism of the Catholic Church) is one of the most important philosophical sources that supports your argumentations (I’m sure there are more, but this specific argument seems to stick out in your posts).

Now, having thought about the Ontological principle and your rendition of it, it really seems to be the case that the validity of the argument hinges on the idea of whether this “greatest conceivable being” is logically possible.

There is another thought that has sprung to my mind, though. The Ontological Argument seems to conceptualize the mere state of “being” as an attribute that constitutes a superlative (To be is better than not to be). The opposite of it would be “non-existence”. If we now recognize that this argument derives most of its power from the idea that something is logically possible to exist and that existence itself is something ultimately desirable, we must, however, consider that there seems to be no indication that existence is intrinsically better than non-existence. Given the fact that the state of being is one of the main attributes of this ultimate being, how can we know that “to be” is better than “not to be”?

April 17, 2013 at 4:18pm

Patrick Speckamp not at all, go ahead.

April 17, 2013 at 4:38pm

New Apologetics Do you mind if we quote your comment above, and create a new post at the top of the page in which we can hold our dialogue?

April 17, 2013 at 4:38pm

Patrick Speckamp fine with me

April 17, 2013 at 4:39pm