Assess Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach
St Anselm, an 11th century monk, who took up Boethius' idea of a TIMELESS God who seems
all past, present and future simultaneously ‘as though from a lofty peak’. Anselm developed
Boethius' understanding of God's timeless nature, interpreted time and understood the past and
future to exist in the same way that the present does. Time is thus understood in the fourth
dimension alongside height, wish and depth which all relate to space. Through critical analysis,
it will become clear that Anselm's four dimensionalist approach fails and strips humanity of a
relationship with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God.
Anselm conceptualises a god with whom we cannot have a relationship with.
Boethius' timeless understanding of time has been developed into a four-dimensionalist
understanding of time by Anselm. Anselm argued that the past and future exist in the
same way that the present does. Time should be understood as the fourth dimension
alongside height, width and depth. God is in control of time and space. Understanding
the eternity of God as fourth-dimensional means according to Anselm we do have free
will as God can see the free choices that we make and have made in the past and will
make in the future. Thus for Anselm, we can be held morally responsible for our actions
which we choose freely and which God can see at all times. Nonetheless,
understanding God in such a way makes it very difficult for humans to have a
relationship with God. If God was outside time and was able to be in the future as well
as in the past and present it might not be possible to please or anger God. Additionally,
If God can see every decision we can make as the past and future exist in the same
way as the present do we are not truly autonomous beings as whatever we will do God
will always be aware thus removing any sense of free will. Therefore, Anselm has failed
to resolve the problem of divine conflicts and his four dimensionalist approach is
unsuccessful.
Anselm presents an incoherent idea by interpreting God's eternal nature as TIMELESS.
Boethius argues that God does not see past, present and the future in temporal terms
as humans do but rather simultaneously ‘’as though from a lofty peak’’. The fact that
God can see us making those choices, and knows what our future choices and their
consequences will be, does not restrict our freedom to act freely. Ideas of past, present
and future work differently for God. Anselm added to this and argued that because God
is not limited by time or space he can be in the past, present and future all at once, just
as he can be the whole universe at once. God is not constrained by time but is in control
of them. Therefore, we can still be praised or blamed for the moral choices that we
make in time because God’s knowledge of our choices is not foreknowledge
(knowledge in advance) as there is no ‘in advance’ for God. Thus God cannot be
accused of a lack of wisdom for not realising Adam and Eve would betray him nor for a
lack of morality for allowing evil dictators to be born. As time occurs simultaneously for
God, Boethius claimed that we, therefore, have genuine free choice and can be
rewarded or punished justly. However, as convincingly emphasised by Anthony Kenny,
St Anselm, an 11th century monk, who took up Boethius' idea of a TIMELESS God who seems
all past, present and future simultaneously ‘as though from a lofty peak’. Anselm developed
Boethius' understanding of God's timeless nature, interpreted time and understood the past and
future to exist in the same way that the present does. Time is thus understood in the fourth
dimension alongside height, wish and depth which all relate to space. Through critical analysis,
it will become clear that Anselm's four dimensionalist approach fails and strips humanity of a
relationship with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God.
Anselm conceptualises a god with whom we cannot have a relationship with.
Boethius' timeless understanding of time has been developed into a four-dimensionalist
understanding of time by Anselm. Anselm argued that the past and future exist in the
same way that the present does. Time should be understood as the fourth dimension
alongside height, width and depth. God is in control of time and space. Understanding
the eternity of God as fourth-dimensional means according to Anselm we do have free
will as God can see the free choices that we make and have made in the past and will
make in the future. Thus for Anselm, we can be held morally responsible for our actions
which we choose freely and which God can see at all times. Nonetheless,
understanding God in such a way makes it very difficult for humans to have a
relationship with God. If God was outside time and was able to be in the future as well
as in the past and present it might not be possible to please or anger God. Additionally,
If God can see every decision we can make as the past and future exist in the same
way as the present do we are not truly autonomous beings as whatever we will do God
will always be aware thus removing any sense of free will. Therefore, Anselm has failed
to resolve the problem of divine conflicts and his four dimensionalist approach is
unsuccessful.
Anselm presents an incoherent idea by interpreting God's eternal nature as TIMELESS.
Boethius argues that God does not see past, present and the future in temporal terms
as humans do but rather simultaneously ‘’as though from a lofty peak’’. The fact that
God can see us making those choices, and knows what our future choices and their
consequences will be, does not restrict our freedom to act freely. Ideas of past, present
and future work differently for God. Anselm added to this and argued that because God
is not limited by time or space he can be in the past, present and future all at once, just
as he can be the whole universe at once. God is not constrained by time but is in control
of them. Therefore, we can still be praised or blamed for the moral choices that we
make in time because God’s knowledge of our choices is not foreknowledge
(knowledge in advance) as there is no ‘in advance’ for God. Thus God cannot be
accused of a lack of wisdom for not realising Adam and Eve would betray him nor for a
lack of morality for allowing evil dictators to be born. As time occurs simultaneously for
God, Boethius claimed that we, therefore, have genuine free choice and can be
rewarded or punished justly. However, as convincingly emphasised by Anthony Kenny,
