Analysis Of On Being An Atheist By H. J. Mccloskey

While McCloskey’s article may resonate with some atheists and seem to be a valid attack on the theist’s belief, it fails to strike any real blows and instead shows the disparity that comes with atheistic beliefs. In his article, McCloskey uses the term “proofs” rather than arguments when discussing the three ideas that he finds to be the most motivating forces for theist’s to theistic beliefs. In the article, he states that “move ordinary theist to their theism”(3). He believes that these “proofs” do not offer definitive evidence that proves God exists without even the slightest room for doubt; therefore, the belief in God should be completely abandoned. For an individual who claims to believe in a worldview based on self-reliance and science, this is completely contradictory.

H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence.

In the article “On Being an Atheist”, H. J. McCloskey tries to show that believing in God is unreasonable. McCloskey first tries to point out flaws in theism by trying to disprove the cosmological and the teleological arguments. After trying to show the flaws in the two argument he brings up the problem of evil to try to discredit theism as a self-contradictory belief. At the end of his article he tries to show his readers that atheism is comforting and that theism is not. When you go through McCloskey’s argument it shows many flaws in his reasoning as he wanted to show that it is impossible that there is a God.

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.

The article “On Being an Athiest,” by H.J. McClosky, was very interesting. McClosky basically lets us know that as atheists they do not believe in God and why they do not believe in the God that theists do. According to McCloskey, there are three proofs for a theist to believe in God; the cosmological, teleological, and the argument from design. McCloskey refers to the arguments for God as “proofs” and he suggests that we cannot establish a case with these “proofs”.

In H. J. McCloskey’s On Being an Atheist article, he argues against two philological design arguments: the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. He also discusses his views on theists’ faith, the existence of evil, and free will. McCloskey states in his article that theists’ views on atheists are wrong. This statement I found out was true after reading his entire article. My previous view was that atheists did not care about following rules or being moral.

Philo first begins his argument by stating that if God is truly dominant than he can control everything. Afterwards he continues on to state that if God was willing to avert evil but not able to than he was inept. If he is able to avert it but not willing to, he is malicious. With that being said, Philo concluded that if God truly believed in the well being of man-kind, than there would be no evil in this world. Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see.

Additionally, McCloskey claims that since the universe exists that there cannot be a being who created it (On Being an Atheist, 1968, p. 51). C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis in Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith suggest, when discussing the non-temporal form of the cosmologica... ... middle of paper ... ...iefs of an Intelligent Designer, but gives weak examples and the use of “proofs” to try to show atheism is the way to go. He does not give an unbiased view of atheism and uses emotional tactics to try to sway readers to his side. Evans and Manis provide sound arguments in order to combat McCloskey’s damaging argument which he unsuccessfully proves atheism is better than theism. Works Cited Craig, W. L. (2008).

In the essay, McCloskey refers to arguments like the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and arguments from design as proofs. He argues that since there is no evidence to prove these arguments to be true, therefore they aren’t and for that reason the idea of the mere existence of God should be removed from our thinking. McCloskey’s argument is an age-old ploy used by atheists to use logic and emotion to conform individuals to their beliefs, definition of God, and why God should be all-in-all forgotten about. These proofs may be considered sound by individuals who share their ideas and they can confirm beliefs of a doubting believer, but they are not the origin from which religious belief flourishes. The development of such beliefs like the belief in the existence of God stems from various factors and reasons.

Page 1 H.J. McCloskey claims that “proofs” are not valid and do not provide enough evidence that God exists. In the article, he claims that these “proofs” should be abandoned but he also claims that theist do not come to God or religion solely based on these “proofs”. In the article on page 62, McCloskey quotes a colleague saying, “most theist do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion based on other reasons and factors.” Theists believe in God and His Word over any “theory” that scientist can come up with. The Bible outweighs any other “theory” to theists.