Essay on Response to “on Being an Atheist”

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

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

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.

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.

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.

Brown, Neil. "The New Atheism and The Existence of God.” Compass, 46, no. 3, 2-5. Kensington, Australia: Compass, Spring 2012.

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, they reject religion as apart of not only a rejection of ignorance, but also a rejection of their religious family and association of religion itself, says Catherine L. and Caldwell-Harris who are published in the Department of Psychology for Boston University, Lesley College,University of Haifa, and Trinity College. This is a stark contrast to theism, which is the belief in god and is the case for many Americans. This demographic is about 83% of America’s population, according to the most recent census. About 16% of the population, or about 34,169,000 people are of an unaffiliated position, which would include Atheists,

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 central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

The Teleological Argument, also known as the Argument from Design, is an argument that claims that God designed the world, and he designed it with a purpose – as teleological comes from the Greek word 'telos', meaning 'end' or 'purpose'. It is an á posteriori argument which gathers evidence and uses our experiences of things from life. It is empirical and also an inductive argument and is based on the premises that; complex things in the world have been created by a designer, the world is complex and looks designed, therefore, the world must have a designer – that designer is God. The conclusion is, at best, highly probably but not certain.

The belief in Gods has always existed throughout human’s recored history. Whether it be the Greek Gods: Apollo, and Zeus, or the Judeo-Christian God, believed by Christians in modern day society. The belief of God has always existed among humans, however, assuming God does not exist, what explains the cultural evolution of such a false belief, namely religion? I shall argue that the reason this false belief is successful is because it manipulates human nature better than any other belief by these three points: an avoidance of death (the soul), a sense of worth (knowledge), and a sense, or need of belief (faith).

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want