Nonbelief as Support for Atheism Essay

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

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.

On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.

In his refutation of the atheist’s argument using “the problem of evil”, Thomas B. Warren denies one of Mackey’s “additional premises” to his basic argument; he stated in “Proposition W6”, “It is not the case that a good, omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely,” (Warren 1972). On this matter, I wholeheartedly agree with Mackey and disagree with Warren. A good, omnipotent Being (God) does eliminate eliminate evil completely; He would not be good if He did not eliminate evil to the greatest of His abilities, and being omnipotent, He possesses the power to eliminate evil completely. The problem with Warren’s proposition is that, whether intentionally done for the sake of simplifying his argument or a matter of simple oversight, it binds God to something He is in no way bound to: time. As will be discussed later, God exists outside of time and is not bound to it, because He is its Creator. To assert that God is not obligated to eliminate evil completely because evil exists in the temporal world, and then attempt to harmonize that fact with God’s goodness, is fallacious; it is binding God to time, and assuming that because He has not done something already, that He is not in the process of completing it nor will He do it eventually. This matter will be examined more thoroughly later in this writing.

The third premise is crucial. Proponents of the design argument for rationality of belief in God argue that—

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

There has been a great debate between theist and atheist for such a long while; is God real? Does God exist and if God exist what proof do we have? An atheist would raise the question if God exist, then why do we have so much evil in the world and if God is truly real and omnipresent why would He make all of the evil cease? Now on the other hand the theist would argue that point and say according to the Word of God we as humans have free will-free to do right and free to do wrong. Well this can possibly raise another question what is right? Or better yet What is wrong? How can right and wrong be justified? In the article “On Being an Atheist. McCloskey raises some very common and relevant arguments posed by atheists.

The English philosopher Stephen Law’s “The evil-god challenge” is a retort against the arguments raised in favour of the theistic belief that the world was created and is governed by an all knowing, supremely benevolent being. In order to refute the existence of the notion of a “good-god” as constructed in the arguments of theists, law has constructed his own hypothetical entity the “evil-god”. Law’s challenge stems from the logical and evidentiary problems that the concept of evil presents to the conception that there exists a supremely benevolent god. These problems are justifying the supreme goodness propagated as being part of the classical monotheistic understanding of god in a world where evil undeniably exists. Supporters of classical monotheism have created theodicies that justify why a wholly benevolent being would allow evil and suffering in a world fully under his control. In response Law suggests that the duty of, “those who believe in the god of classical monotheism, then, is to explain why, if belief in an evil god is highly unreasonable, should we consider belief in a good god significantly more reasonable?” (Law 360). Even if evil and good can coexist in the world, is not the former evidence against an all-encompassing god only interested in the ensuring of the latter?

As our society evolves, we continue to perceive norms and morals individually, although, society likes to dictate that we should all be the same. According to our culture, an individual who doesn’t believe in the existence of God is an atheist; that is our everyday assumption of someone who is atheist, is just agnostic. Even by just typing into Google, “What is Atheism?” in a matter of 0.34 seconds, it answers that it is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. But according to an atheist society website, American Atheist, they state that “Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion”, thus leaving people in a state of confusion on what actually is Atheism.

This book shows how to respond theologically, reasonably, and practically to the most frequent objections to Christianity today: Objection one…God is Not Real- Logically, atheism and agnosticism do not make sense. Atheism needs

(Davis p. xix). The purpose of this paper is to critique Davis's claim and to

People in our society today who have the atheist point of view on religion, which is the belief that there is no god, are going against the so-called norms of society, and therefor are seen as deviant. Deviance is just an idea. Society determines what is deviant by the ideas they hold of what should be the norm. Atheism is seen as a negative deviance, or below the norm. They have a status that is placed on them in society. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe in evil, although that is how it is sometimes viewed from people in society who have a specific religion or faith. Atheism, which is not a new idea, has been evolving in our society, and is the reason for problems leading to debate and court cases, and for

The Boy Scouts of America still prohibits atheists from joining their ranks. Scouts must pledge to “do my duty to God and my country,” and the BSA has resisted calls to remove religion from the oath. Scouts have even been asked to leave their troops after their non-theistic beliefs were discovered. In 2009, Eagle Scout Neil Polzin was fired from his job as an aquatics director at a Boy Scouts camp after his role with a secular student group was uncovered (Wing).

This paper tends to summaries the main arguments and approaches of Mankiw, Rome and Weil (1992, MRW hereafter) and Manuelli and Seshadri (2005, MS hereafter), also compares and contrast their main findings. Finally, the paper will give some brief comments and criticisms on these two papers.