Analysis Of The Article ' On Being An Atheist

In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is

In some ways, it is refreshing to read H.J. McCloskey's article, "On Being an Atheist". Most people assume atheists are simple nihilists who do not subscribe to any sort of convictions or beliefs. The author's text, however, refutes this conventional viewpoint by producing several reasons for embracing atheism, many of which are studied and labored counterarguments to typical claims of theists. The most important part of this essay is found in its opening paragraphs, in which the author makes a very prudent point in explaining the fact that most theists do not require elaborate proofs or empirical evidence to substantiate their beliefs in a divinity. Those who do have not completely subscribed to faith, but to testaments of man's deductive prowess, which should not be confused with faith. However, the author makes a number of points that he believes alludes to fallacies in theism that those well versed in theism can handily refute.

In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity.   McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, which are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design.   He pointed out the existence of evil in the world that God made.   He also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith. According to McCloskey, proofs do not necessarily play a vital role in the belief of God.  Page 62 of the article states that "most theists do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious belief, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors."  However, he feels that as far as proofs serve theists,

Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist.  This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.  McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

The real meat of the concept of first cause is completely left out. The argument from contingency and the temporal argument are never mentioned. When making an argument for or against anything, both sides should be explained equally and fairly. This is a one sided argument. When McCloskey argues against the cosmological proof he uses the argument against first cause and a necessary being as not being an argument, because one cannot say something is necessary for existence just because of its mere existence. If McCloskey wanted to try and validate his argument at this point, it would have been more logical to try and explain away the necessary being cause with The Big Bang Theory, or evolution. Then a real debate could ensue with a counter argument of creation. There are many valid points to be made with C-14 carbon dating and the fact that there is nothing new under the sun. DNA remains the same in all creatures and if evolution was a fact, something would have evolved past what it has been in so many years. There are no new creations and if anything mankind on a general basis seems to be de-evolving in some areas. McCloskey’s argument is not sound. An argument is not a real argument or debate by just simply saying it cannot be. His argument is just so much spinning on the subject. It seems to be one of those if I say it is, so then it is. All the proofs for the existence of God

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

Upon reading H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” it appears that McCloskey has quite the interesting yet sometimes understandable outlook on theism. In regards to “proofs”, McCloskey notes that there are three main arguments that defend God’s existence, which he calls “proofs.” These three arguments are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the argument from design. (McCloskey, 1968) He tells of his beliefs in regards to these “proofs” and theism in general is seemingly ignorant and “miserable.” On several occasions McCloskey refers to these “proofs” as they unable to be established without a doubt as a proof should be; therefore, he believes that they should in turn be abandoned as false information. (McCloskey, 1968) Within Foreman’s presentation “Approaching the Question of

In conclusion if one wants to hold the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God, then the proof of the principle of sufficient reason needs to have more evidence. The principles of sufficient reason are what make up the premises of Cosmological Argument in which have no evidence of being true. Therefore one cannot use the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God, until the principle of sufficient reason has more evidence to back its

In critiquing the article written by William Lane Craig title “The Cosmological Argument” let me first define how some define the cosmological argument. In reading about the cosmological argument it is basically an argument that begins with the existence of the universe and tries to prove God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas said it this way, (1) “everything in the universe is moved by something else. Unless we can go back in time forever, with things being constantly moved by something else, there must be a point where movement started.” (Godwin) Aquinas goes on to say, “there must be a Prime mover that began movement in the Universe, when there was nothing, and this is God.” (Godwin) In the bible, it states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty,

It is interesting that McCloskey refers to his grounds for evidence as proofs for according to Mark Foreman, who is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Liberty University, proof carries with it connotations of certainty that actually originate from the field of mathematics and is not meant to be used regarding philosophical arguments pertaining to the existence of God. Theists cannot prove the existence of God 100%; ergo, the naturalists and atheists cannot provide 100% proof that God does not exist.

Three reactions of the cosmological contention have been advertised. To start with, some say matter is everlasting and is not needing a "first cause." Second, some say if everything needs an answer, who is god?" Third, some say that regardless of the possibility that beyond any doubt some being created our universe to exist, this does not demonstrate the presence of the Christian God. All it shows is that there is some effective being that made the

This argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking, “Does God have a cause of his existence?”If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain. If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is as follows: The world could not exist by itself so there must be a first cause that brought him into existence. The universe can not have an infinite past, he must have had a beginning, or to the extent that anything that starts with a cause, there must be a first cause. The fact that the universe has a beginning implies that it has a cause. But this cause is it necessarily God? William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument in (1979), says he can prove it. The creative cause of the universe created something that did not

In the article, “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey discusses the reasons of why he believes being an atheist is a more acceptable than Christianity. McCloskey believes that atheism is a more rational belief versus having a God who allows people to suffer so he can have the glory. He believes to live in this world, you must be comfortable. The introduction of his article, he implements an overview of arguments given by the theist, which he introduces as proofs. He claims that the proofs do not create a rationalization to believe that God exists. He provides 3 theist proofs, which are Cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the argument of design. He also mentions the presence of evil in the world. He focuses on the existence