Rethinking the Ontological Argument A Neoclassical Theistic Response [Hardcover]

In this volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics.In this volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic metaphysics. His argument avoids the problems inherent in the traditional concept of God as static.In this volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic metaphysics. His argument avoids the problems inherent in the traditional concept of God as static.In recent years, the ontological argument and theistic metaphysics have been criticised by philosophers working in both the analytic and continental traditions. Responses to these criticisms have primarily come from philosophers who make use of the traditional, and problematic, concept of God. In this volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic metaphysics. Relying on the thought of Charles Hartshorne, he builds on Hartshorne's crucial distinction between divine existence and divine actuality, which enables neoclassical defenders of the ontological argument to avoid the familiar criticism that the argument moves illegitimately from an abstract concept to concrete reality. His argument, thus, avoids the problems inherent in the traditional concept of God as static.Introduction; 1. Historical background; 2. Poetry v. the ontological argument: Richard Rorty's challenge; 3. Deconstructionism and the ontological argument: the case of Mark Taylor; 4. Is the ontological argument worthless?: Graham Oppy's rejection; 5. Oppy, perfect islands, and existence lC¢