Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response

182 Pages·2006·1.09 MB·English

by  Daniel A. Dombrowski

P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
This page intentionally left blank
ii
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
RethinkingtheOntologicalArgument
ANeoclassicalTheisticResponse
In recent years, the ontological argument and theistic metaphysics
have been criticized by philosophers working in both the analytic
and continental traditions. Responses to these criticisms have pri-
marilycomefromphilosopherswhomakeuseofthetraditional,and
problematic,conceptofGod.Inthisvolume,DanielA.Dombrowski
defends the ontological argument against its contemporary crit-
ics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of
God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic
metaphysics. Dombrowski builds on Charles Hartshorne’s crucial
distinction between divine existence and divine actuality, which
enablesneoclassicaldefendersoftheontologicalargumenttoavoid
thefamiliarcriticismthattheargumentmovesillegitimatelyfroman
abstract concept to concrete reality. His argument, thus, avoids the
problemsinherentinthetraditionalconceptofGodasstatic.
DanielA.DombrowskiisprofessorofphilosophyatSeattleUniversity.
He is the author of fourteen books and more than one hundred
scholarlyarticles,andhehaswrittenbroadlyintheareaofprocessor
neoclassicaltheism.
i
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
ii
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
Rethinking the Ontological Argument
A Neoclassical Theistic Response
DANIEL A. DOMBROWSKI
SeattleUniversity
iii
cambridge university press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb22ru,UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521863698
©DanielA.Dombrowski2006
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionof
relevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplace
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
Firstpublishedinprintformat 2006
isbn-13 978-0-511-22645-8 eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn-10 0-511-22645-4
eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn-13 978-0-521-86369-8 hardback
isbn-10 0-521-86369-4 hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofurls
forexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,anddoesnot
guaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
Contents
Acknowledgments page vii
Introduction 1
1 HistoricalBackground 7
2 PoetryversustheOntologicalArgument:RichardRorty’s
Challenge 32
3 DeconstructionismandtheOntologicalArgument:
TheCaseofMarkTaylor 62
4 IstheOntologicalArgumentWorthless?GrahamOppy’s
Rejection 84
5 Oppy,PerfectIslands,andExistenceasaPredicate 110
6 RivalConceptsofGodandtheOntologicalArgument:
ThomasMorris,KatherinRogers,andAlvinPlantinga 129
Bibliography 155
Index 167
v
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
vi
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
Acknowledgments
I am extremely grateful to Donald Viney and to an anonymous reader
fromCambridgeUniversityPressforinsightfulcommentsonanearlier
version of this book. Likewise, I am appreciative of comments I have
receivedfromfacultyandstudentsatJohanWolfgangGoetheUniversity
in Frankfurt (especially Thomas Schmidt), as well as from faculty and
studentsattwouniversitiesinPoland:UniversityofSilesiaandCatholic
University of Lublin (especially Piotr Gutowski). The chapter on Rorty
hasbeenimprovedasaresultofcriticismsfromvariousmembersofthe
SocietyfortheAdvancementofAmericanPhilosophy;likewisethechap-
ter on Taylor has benefited from criticisms by various members of the
SocietyfortheStudyofProcessPhilosophy.MuchofChapter2appearsin
anarticleofmineinvolume38ofMetaphilosophyandmuchofChapter3
is based on an article in volume 21 of American Journal of Theology &
Philosophy. I have also learned much from a public debate on the onto-
logicalargumentIhadatSeattleUniversitywithJamesReichmann.
vii
P1:FCW
0521863694pre CUNY398B/Dombrowski 0521863694 April19,2006 6:6
viii