Summary Of ' On Being An Atheist

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.

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.

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

The Cosmological Argument has several forms, but is essentially a proof for the existence of the God of classical theism. It investigates to respond to the human wonder for answers to questions like “who created the universe?” It is an a posteriori argument, meaning that it is based on our experience of the world around us. The argument has been around for many years, but it was St. Thomas Aquinas in his book ‘Summa Theologica’ who established the argument as we know it today. Aquinas had five proofs for the existence of God, of which three are cosmological; they are the First Cause Argument, the Prime Mover Argument and the Argument from Contingency.

In H.J. McCloskey’s article entitled “On Being an Atheist” he builds an argument against the existence of God. He wrote this article with the intentions of arguing in contradiction of two of the three theistic proofs, which are: cosmological argument, theological argument. H.J. McCloskey presents an aggregate dispute that’s pulls in the Cosmological and Theological arguments and combines them together. The cosmological case he put together is concerning the existence of God, and the theological case serves as the intellectual case. Together these arguments make a strong snowballing case. However these arguments are not the only subjects addressed in his article. McCloskey also touches on the Atheism as being comforting and the problem of evil.

In his article “On Being an Atheist,” McCloskey argues against the claims of a God, and addresses many of the Christian ideals in his writings. He refutes what Christians believe as truths, and gives many reasons as to why these truths are false, and why he believes Christians are blind to their real existence. He gives examples of the beliefs that Christians follow, and seeks to discredit those ideas. He mentions the general idea of a Creator, but specifically focuses on the Christian ideal of a God.

In today’s society there is a lot of skepticism regarding the belief in God and his existence. There has been and will always be the question of whether or not we have a God who is all seeing and all knowing. In the article “On Being an Aetheist” by H J McCloskey the existence of God is challenged through dismissing the arguments of cosmological and teological evidence. McClosky’s main objective in the article is to give an account that if God existed then how are there so many evil and unfathomable issues happening around the world?

To be honest with you I think some of McCloskey questions of the existence of God are based and as a Christian I know I have questioned the existence of God at one point in my life. I had to really learn the hard way. From the article one can see that McCloskey is trying very hard to dismiss every claim of the theistic view. From the videos on blackboard, when someone decides to prove something or someone, then that means there is certainty and assurance that thing is absolutely true. The truth of the matter is that we cannot prove one hundred percent of the existence of God and that is why an Atheist like McCloskey would say that without evidence then there is no God. McCloskey try’s his best to scientifically prove that the creation of

“Most theists do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors.” (McCloskey, H.J., “On Being an Atheist”. Question 1. February 1968.) To simply say that God exists “because” is not a valid argument of proof by any means. To say that God exists because that’s what you were taught or because someone told you it was right, or because some event that you believe he saved you from is also invalid. McCloskey argues that theists do not necessarily back up their arguments of God’s existence with valid prods or evidence. Simply saying something “is” does not mean it exists. Forman states that theists should back up their beliefs with arguments based on the possibility that they could be defeated. Meaning there are arguments that could be presented to argue his believes but that he has yet to hear an argument that invalidates his belief/stance in/on God. Foreman states that based on the world around us we have all seen evidence of God’s existence Foreman argues the “minimalists qualities of God,” meaning, what are the minimal concepts that ate believable to prove God’s existence Foreman states that the criteria for this would be the creator of the universe, has intelligence and intelligence behind it. That it’s a morally perfect being, that it’s a personal being. He believes that these attributes of a being are the attributes of God. He argues that we should not true to “prove” God’s existence because

McCloskey claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-prefect, uncaused cause.” The argument does not state there is a God, but it makes a claim that something caused everything to come into existence. The view of a theist is that there is a God and this argument gives “key elements of the theistic conception of God” (1982, 59). With the conclusion of this argument, many views of God can be determined. “If someone accepts the conclusion, the proper attitude for him to adopt is surely a desire to learn more about God” (ibid, 59). In the Christian view, we learn about God by reading His word. The word is considered the revelation of God. “Revelation is the act whereby God gives us knowledge about Himself which we could not otherwise know” (Towns 2002, 29). People need to understand that just this view or argument alone does not justify a case for God but with the others, it does.

Theists and atheists have debated the existence of God for eons. Is there a God? If there is an all-powerful, omniscient being of sorts, then what proof do we have that he exists? If God does exist then why is there so much evil in the world? Why do innocent people suffer? Such questions may never be answered definitively. In the article “On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey presents some arguments made by theists in favor of the existence of God and then proceeds to debate those arguments from an atheistic perspective. The arguments discussed include the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. McCloskey also discusses the problem of evil and how it can serve as evidence that God does not exist. McCloskey offers some thought-provoking and opinions in his article, but they do not serve to completely discredit the arguments and ideas that theists present to favor the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God.

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

H. J. McCloskey is the author of the short article “On Being an Atheist”. He has also written many more books on the support of atheism. For this essay we will be looking at his article “On Being an Atheist”. In his article, McCloskey examines many Christian arguments for the existence of God. McCloskey not only says that Christians are wrong in using these arguments but he critically analyzes them from the view point of a devout atheist. While H. J. McCloskey gives his strong beliefs on the existence of God and reason behind evil being in the world, a Christian can still stand firm in their beliefs because of supporting evidence.

I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God. The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it all, this starter is known as the “Prime Mover”. The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not believe the argument is successful.