Abstract

Part II ends with a preliminary conclusion that brings the various claims of these thinkers together and argues more fully that they are all on some level engaged in an apologetic project, although this apologetic differs from the modern one associated with natural theology. It employs their various treatments of Anselm as a way of distinguishing their interpretations from those of modernity that read Anselm's treatment as a straight-forward proof or argument for God's existence. These thinkers instead focus on Anselm's experience of God and do not treat it as a logical proof.

Share