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