A Moorean response to Kant’s critique of the Ontological argument

The ontological argument attempts to demonstrate that the only coherent notion of God includes the notion of God’s necessary existence, and thereby highlights the self-contradiction inherent in proposing that “God does not exist”. In this way ontological arguments seek to prove that God exists. There are a few ways ontological arguments can be spun. For instance, one can try to demonstrate, as Descartes and Anselm do, that one can legitimately go from the essence of God to the existence of God. However, one could also make the ontological argument an epistemological argument: one can say that since the idea of God is the idea of a thing which necessarily exists, then to deny its existence is not rationally possible. If the idea is clear and distinct for any person, as it was for Descartes and seems to be for a considerable number of mystics and philosophers alike, then one cannot even make sense of the proposition that “God does not exist”. Many of you probably know I am, myself, a non-cognitivist with respect to Atheism in this strong sense.

Suppose, however, that one wasn’t completely convinced of the existence of God prior to being exposed to the ontological argument. Suppose the ontological argument brought that person to see clearly and distinctly that God exists, as it often brings people who search themselves and wander through their thoughts face to face with the living God. If such a person has that experience, then what will they answer to Kant’s critique that existence is not a property? Of course Kant’s critique has been dealt with by most analytic philosophers, and it is, it has always seemed to me, not a very good critique at all. However, putting aside my objections to Kant’s objections – supposing one couldn’t clearly see what was wrong with Kant’s clever objections; what then should one respond to them after having become convinced by a good ontological argument? Well, it seems to me that a Moorean response may be appropriate: that we are more sure of the insight of the ontological argument than we are of Kant’s strange critique. I think this is an epistemologically legitimate response within certain domains, and its application here is plausibly legitimate and at least interesting.

About tylerjourneaux

I am an aspiring Catholic theologian and philosopher, and I have a keen interest in apologetics. I am creating this blog both in order to practice and improve my writing and memory retention as I publish my thoughts, and in order to give evidence of my ability to understand and communicate thoughts on topics pertinent to Theology, Philosophy, philosophical theology, Catholic (Christian) Apologetics, philosophy of religion and textual criticism.
This entry was posted in Epistemology, Natural Theology, Philosophy of Religion, Theology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s