More handpicked essays just for you.
On being an atheist by h j mccloskey
Phil 201 response paper essay on being an atheist by mccloskey
Article being an atheist by h j mccloskey liberty university
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskey’s failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists’ arguments.
The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article. For one, atheists refute the belief of an all powerful being because it will result to absurdity. According to them such a being should be able to create an object that is both a circle and a box or if not create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot carry. But such a rebuttal should not be considered as worthy to be accepted. It is only a mockery. Atheists fail to remember that the God who is being supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral argument is a God of reason....
... middle of paper ...
...ant us that dream except God. He alone provided the promise of a life devoid from unhappiness, fear, hunger, despair and even death. He alone has the ability to grant true justice to anyone because of his capacity to see deep within a person’s heart. He alone has the power to do what we cannot do and that is comfort enough for any responsible theist. It is a comfort which is immeasurable and cannot be equated with words. It is a comfort which gives us strength to move forward amidst the evil and injustice we see in this world. It is the very thing that makes us want to live for tomorrow.
Works Cited McCloskey, H. J. “On Being An Atheist.” 1968.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Mackie in his paper Evil and Omnipotence, constructs an argument against the idea of the possibility of a God existing that has the characteristics laid out by the main religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These characteristics include that God is omnipotent, or He is capable of stopping evil, and omni benevolent, or He wants to eliminate evil and He is entirely good. Mackie systematically goes through his logical thought process as well as his response to any type of criticism or alternative solution that might arise. The main point of his argument is to establish that God, as constructed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, could not possibly exist. It is one of the most highly regarded arguments towards atheism.
McCloskey dives right into the meat of his article by addressing what he refers to as “proofs” he claims were put forth by theists. I think that it is imperative to know the difference between a “proof” and an argument. A proof contains a note of certainty. It suggests that something can be known to be 100% truth. In one of the recent PointCast presentations, Dr. Foreman insists that we cannot know any with a complete certainty that we have absolute truth about the existence of God. Therefore these ideas should be put forth as arguments and not as proofs. In fact, if looking at it the other way, he cannot know for certain that his ideas are correct. If he uses his rebuttals to the theist’s arguments, they seem contradictory several times. As we have no absolute certainty for either side, we are left then to find the best possible explanation. This is widely used in cases where things simply cannot be known for certain such as the example of the black hole that Dr. Foreman used. Science can’t fully expl...
Furthermore, he brings religion into his arguments. He defines God as an invisible being that we cannot fully understand but accept as the creator of the universe, which is true as it is the definition of God. But he wrongly believes that the question of origin requires us to believe in the existence of God, because atheists also have their own theory on origin, even if they do not believe in God. There are multiple actual examples taken from different religions about how God created the universe. The writer claims that many of the...
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
...mpossibility for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God to exist in a universe where evil exists. The qualities in question are categorical, omnipotence, omniscience and being perfectly good, and the only way to account for the existence of evil is to limit in some way one of the categorical characteristics. What this does is change the quality of omnipotence to the lesser quality of extremely powerful. And in admitting any restrictions to any of the classical attributes of God is to admit that the logical impossibility is in fact valid. What a person needs to do is examine the problem objectively first, and only after reaching their objective conclusion can they then apply it to their religious beliefs.
Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
Some Christians have said that God is infinite, but this concept cannot be supported biblically. The only characteristic of God described as infinite is His knowledge or understanding. Therefore, the argument does not hold, since the God of Christianity is not described as infinite. It is for this reason the ontological argument can fail as a theistic proof however it is not an easy answer to the question as it holds both 'for' and 'against' reasoning for the theistic proof in the existence of God.
Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a particular system of faith and worship or a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion (Oxford Dictionary, 2014). From religion, many new groups, communities and further derived religions have formed. Closely related to religion and with endless controversies surrounding it’s classification as a religion is the concept of Atheism- which is defined as the disbelief or rejection of a deity. Descending from this is a social and political movement in favour of secularism known as New Atheism. Understanding the historical content concerning the emergence of atheism, this essay will then address how various aspects within the field inclusive the goals, structures and approaches have emerged and developed over time in comparison to the original atheist ideals.
Even though Atheists pray that there is nothing after death, it will not provide an escape or any shelter from the coming wrath of The Holy God. Can man stand naked before the King of Kings, in the revealing light of all truth? Can he answer for every single one of his sins? When judgment comes, no man will ever be good enough. Therefore, Atheism is useless, in fact the only good thing Atheism displays is irony. It is ironic that the core philosophy of Atheism is “Think for yourself” (285) yet the majority of its followers, if not all, fail to do so completely; therefore Atheism is a fool’s religion with severe devotion to ignorance. It is ironic because it preaches tolerance yet is grossly intolerant of anyone who doesn’t accept the Atheist faith. Again, as Ehrenreich’s children revealed, “the world would be a better place” (285) without other religions. Lastly, it is ironic because Ehrenreich speaks of her family being “disillusioned with Christianity” (284) while she herself is enslaved to the deceitful illusion of Atheism. Atheists will find no hope in any other man’s help either, and the weight of their sins will drag them all helplessly into
...nough to support the idea of God’s existence, I consider the debate to have no winner, because, the arguments of Dr. Dacey are also strong enough to prove his position. However, in these debates the double answer is not possible, because in reality the existence of God can be true of untrue, without anything in between. In my opinion, God exists, and I strongly believe in His existence. I consider the question “Does God Exist?” to be the issue of faith, and there cannot be true or false arguments, because all the people are willing to decide, whether they believe in existence of God, or not. It is the inner choice of everybody, and sooner or later we will all find out the truth.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
This passage captures the essence of how the average religious person views atheism. Atheism is probably the least popular and least understood philosophical position in America today. It is often approached with fear and mistrust, as if one were about to investigate a doctrine that advocates a ...
The proposition that God exists from the desired point of view states that for every desire that we have, there is always an object or situation that was meant to satisfy the yearning. The argument suggests that there can be no desire without an object that is supposed to quench it. Most of the things that we wish to achieve are in most cases artificial. However, there are times when we go beyond the worldly desires and feel that there is a hollow part within us that no object on earth can fill. During such times, the only being that can give such a person the peace that he/she desires in God.
In the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why ‘The Ontological Argument’ is unsatisfactory.