H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...have had to adopt a way to avoid living pointless, meaningless lives. Craig calls it the Noble Lie that they live under. Ultimately, McCloskey, were he to win his arguments would have to face the conclusion that there is no point to this universe that we are in, no point to life. Fighting for the self-reliance and the self-respect he finds in this fight gives him some sort of short term purpose to the life that he lives here on earth. Works Cited Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. Evans, C. Stephen and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. McCloskey, H.J. “On Being an Atheist,” Question 1 (February 1968): 51-54
Coherence is an essential part of the theist’s belief structure. The individual arguments when joined collectively hold just that, coherence. While individually they do not point to evidence together they do. This coherence forms a basis of truth, supporting each other in their claim and not contradicting them. In this manner they establish truth where facts are lacking. If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
Be denying the importance of nature God’s creation Christians are participating in a form of blasphemy
His exclamations against those who don't change their live to find all the “marrow,” hidden in society, shows his passion for “sucking,” the positive features which enable him to ensure he has spent his time effectively. Lastly, this related to “living deliberately(…),” expressed by Thoreau. This philosophical idea distinguished the difference between simply who simply are alive in comparison to one who lives a life that they know that they “truly live(…),” instead of later realising they haven’t done what they as individuals wanted to do. This contrast is symbolised by the comparison of McCandless and the social norm. The fact that McCandless felt implied to not take short cuts through modern day advancements suggested by the “plane,” and instead wanted to complete his trip in the way he desired leads to him exemplifying the meaning of living deliberately by Thoreau. Nonetheless whilst they are both different individuals, McCandless lifestyle and actions portray the life based on the philosophical ideas of
In the article,"An Atheist Manifesto," by Sam Harris he discusses how God does not exisit because if he did exist there would not be any evil in this world. As I was reading this article I found it very intresting how Harris is so negative and believes that everything that happens is God's fault. "....at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?No,.." stated Harris. He should understand that God gave us a gift called "free will," and with that gift it comes with a price that we should live with the consequeces by the descisions we make as human beings. I liked this article because it showed me the other side of the coin
In this philosophical essay regarding God and the controversial existence of objective morality, I will argue in favour of Shafer-Landau’s conclusion that if you are an atheist, then you should object the proposition that objective morality requires the existence of God. In addition, for Shafer-Landau’s argument to make sense, I will be mentioning the Argument from Atheism, a classical argument based upon moral skepticism. I will also be providing Shafer-Landau’s arguments in objection to the Argument of Atheism along with key pieces of terminology and definitions which are crucial to understanding his argument in support of objective morality. Lastly, I will be providing possible theistic and atheistic objections against Shafer-Landau’s criticisms
In this paper, I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.
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. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Atheists may make a good argument that God does not exist but there is no documented evidence proving evolution like the documented writings in the Bible telling the story of how God created the heavens and the earth. McCloskey is correct that “proofs” do not prove God’s existence but they do help see the viewpoint of theists. It is ultimately up to each person to believe in what they want to believe in. God gave us free will to be able to choose for ourselves. McCloskey talks about free will negatively and also brings up the point that since evil exists, God cannot. This is not true by any means and we will dispute McCloskey’s points throughout this essay.
One’s worldview is usually dependant on how the particular individual interprets life and its occurrences. Additionally, if one believes something to be so, it will be so to them. It’s all a matter of perception. However, which perspective is truly accurate: Agnosticism, Theism, or Deism? These three worldviews have been the subject of countless debates throughout history and that have yet to be concluded. The purpose of this philosophical essay is to suggest that theism is likely to be considered the correct worldview.
Clive Staples Lewis, author of The Screwtape Letters, was a famous novelist throughout the 20th century, and a prominent Oxford professor. He grew up hating God as an atheist writing works like “De Profundis” in which he curses God. Lewis fought in the first world war as a second lieutenant, and was pulled out for a million dollar wound. J.R.R. Tolkien and he were very good friends, Tolkien playing an important part of Lewis' conversion in 1931. From this he developed a firm faith which greatly changed his perspective, both in his writing career and his teaching. The Screwtape Letters, was written by Lewis to aid us in dealing with the temptations and mindsets that are prevalent in our day. This book is from the perspective of Screwtape a senior demon, counseling his nephew, Wormwood, through a series of correspondences. Screwtape teaches Wormwood how to deal
Alain de Botton, the author of Religion for atheists : a non-believer's guide to the uses of religion believes that agents should be able to stay as committed atheists and still find religions practical, compelling and encouraging. It is possible for atheists to be uninterested by the doctrines of the Christian Trinity and the Buddhist Eightfold Path and nonetheless at the same time be provided with the ways in which religions save sermons, advocate morality, provoke a spirit of community, inspire travels, motivate gratitude. In the first section of the book 'Wisdom without Doctrine', de Botton holds that it is possible for atheists to balance a disbelief in religion with a selective admiration for religious ceremonies and notions.
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?