In his paper ‘Has the Ontological Argument Been Refuted?’, 97–110) William F. Vallicella argues that my attempt to show that the Ontological Argument begs the question is unsuccessful. 1 I believe he is wrong about this, but before endeavouring to vindicate my position I must first make clear what precisely is the point at issue between us. The Ontological Argument is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Newly devised formulations of the argument are frequently put forward by (...) philosophers in an effort to avoid difficulties that have been pointed out in previous versions. As a consequence there is no possibility of a conclusive proof that every form of the argument embodies the same fallacy. Nevertheless, one can, I believe, prove that all the standard versions of the argument embody a certain fallacy and that, given the nature of the argument, it is therefore unlikely that the argument can be formulated in such a way as to avoid this difficulty. What I tried to show in my paper is that the six best-known versions of the argument all beg the question and that they do so at the same point in the argument, namely when it is asserted that it is possible that an absolutely perfect being exists. It is difficult to see how an ontological argument could be formulated without including this claim as one of its premises, since the distinguishing badge of the argument is the inference from the possibility of an absolutely perfect being to its actuality. It must be unlikely then, if my criticism of these six versions is correct, that there is any way of formulating the argument that avoids this fallacy. (shrink)

Theism, according to David O'Connor, has in recent centuries been on trial for its life, the charge being that the existence of so much evil in the world is incompatible with belief in a benevolent creator. But this trial, he claims is incapable of producing a reasoned verdict.

IN his book, God and Philosophy Professor Antony Flew uses as one of his main weapons against arguments for God’s existence a principle which he calls the Stratonician Presumption. This principle, he explains, was first formulated by Strato, second successor to Aristotle as head of the Lyceum. Flew’s own formulation is as follows.

Mr Kerner believes that there has been a revolution in ethical theory during the present century and here discusses the views of some of the leading figures in the movement—Moore, Stevenson, Toulmin and Hare. Kerner is not very explicit on the precise nature of the revolution and, looking at the work of the members of this quartet, it is difficult to accept that any extraordinary change has occurred. Moore and Toulmin are Utilitarians, Stevenson a Subjectivist, Hare a Kantian. Each of (...) these has presented his views in a highly original and personal manner, but to have provided new bottles for old wine is hardly sufficient reason for being called revolutionaries. Moore has probably the best claim to originality—he could, with some justice, be said to have given a new thrust to moral philosophy and even to philosophy as a whole—but the defender of common sense would hardly recognize himself in the guise of a revolutionary. Perhaps it is time that those who speak of the revolution in philosophy and the revolution in ethics began to take seriously the quotation from Nestroy which Wittgenstein chose as the motto of his Philosophical Investigations: ‘It is in the nature of every advance that it appears much greater than it actually is’. (shrink)