On Being an Atheist

Last, “what position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of religious beliefs?” After giving a response to theist’s argument against atheist, both are to believe that the other is believing a false belief. There are many types of atheist with different thoughts on religious beliefs. There are three different types of atheism discussed in Rowe’s theory. Unfriendly atheism, there is no such thing as a god(s). Indifferent atheism, has no concern in believing that a theist god(s) exists. And friendly atheism is certain that there is a reason theist to have faith in god. Defending his argument about friendly atheism,

In 1968, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian Philosopher wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which is an attempt for his personal reasons to reject the belief in God. In the article McCloskey criticizes against the theistic proofs, which are cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Majority of the article is focused on the evil issues and catastrophic events to innocent people in a world that is supposedly designed by an omnipotent and loving God, which McCloskey believes is a valid case in his arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments as well as his assertions that evil is proof against God’s existence. But, it still remains that the most reasonable explanation for the creator of the universe

If god was all good, all powerful and all knowing, he would not allow the existence of evil.

To reply to McCloskey’s claim that there could not be a God due to the amount of evil there is I would first acknowledge this claim. At first I too agreed with this claim that how could someone so great and loving let so much evil and pain into the lives of people who do not deserve it. Simply because I did not understand how God could be so great and let evil into this world. Since then certain truths about theology have been explained to me so I can understand the good of God verses the evil found in this world.

“Either we must say that God is not wholly good, and that he permits or is even the author of evil. Or we must say that God is not omnipotent, and although he is wholly good and would prevent evil if he could, he is powerless to stop it.” (Fitzgerald 340).

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 William L. Rowe 's paper "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" he sets out to accomplish two main goals. The first goal is directed toward theists, while the second attempts to reach the very wellspring of an atheist 's heart. Foremost, Rowe sets out to show that there is "an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally justify someone in being an atheist" (335). After he has effectively addressed this first issue he moves on to try and convince the atheist that in light of all the evidence that theists are rationally justified (just as much as the atheist) and therefore that atheists should subscribe to what Rowe calls "friendly atheism."

Taken from our class notes, Mackie’s argument for atheism goes as followed: 1) If God exist, then God can do anything that is logically possible including anything we can imagine. 2) If God exist, then God would try to eliminate all the evil and suffering that he can. 3) So, if God exist, then there would be no evil or suffering at all. 4) But, there is a lot of evil and suffering. 5) So, there is no God. “From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible.” (Mackie, p. 201) Basically, Mackie thinks that omnipotent God does not exist because of the amount of evil and suffering in this world. Reason being, Mackie portrays God as an omnipotent and wholly good, meaning that God has no limitation and would easily eliminate all evil. However evil does exist, hence God does not exist. Mackie then explains that is it possible for evil and God to exist simultaneously but if God is both omnipotent and wholly good, they cannot coexist. Mackie states that if a person were to accept the problem of evil they must accept the fact that God cannot be both omnipotent and wholly good. Therefore the answer is to the problem of evil is to believe that God is not omnipotent or wholly good. If God knows that there is evil in this world and is wholly good yet chooses not to

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.

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that 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 idea that God does not exist because evil exists implies the two contradict each other. Obviously, it would seem that an all loving God would deliver us from evil, but the observable world is in itself complex, leave alone the unobservable spiritual one. To illustrate this, consider a gravity: though in appearance the Earth is only pulling on you, and that you exert no gravity back on the earth, but you actually exert the same force of gravity back on the Earth, as seen with Newtons second law of motion. If something as relatively commonplace as gravity could appear as more than it seems, then you must consider the possibility that God permitting evil in the world has a more complex reality behind it, and that we just are not at the threshold of understanding to perceive why it is necessary. To phrase this another way, we are like an animal in our mental faculties compared to God, and as such are unable to understand that He, like a human being with an animal, might do some things that cause us harm for our good, such as removing us from a snare we fall into through pain (Kreeft, 32).

For many years theists and atheists have argued with one another over the existence of a creator, or God. H.J. McCloskey published his thoughts on the matter in a journal article in 1968 titled “On Being an Atheist”. In his article McCloskey aims to discredit cosmological and teleological arguments for a creator and he uses the existence of evil in the world as evidence that a divine creator cannot exist.

McCloskey begins by denying the idea that the existence of a god has been proven by the classical arguments for his existence (McCloskey, 1968). In fact, this is true. The proofs McCloskey references do not prove the existence of god, rather they contend that god is

In today’s world it seems the capacity for those that carry out evil deeds is growing every day. If there is a God in the world, why does evil continue to exist? “Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good.” (McCloskey, 1962) McCloskey goes on to say that if theists believe in an omnipotent God they must also explain the presence of evil. If God is powerful why does evil continue to take place? Why do people continue to suffer? This would mean that God is either imperfect or he is not powerful at all. (p. 187)