More handpicked essays just for you.
On being an atheist h j mccloskey summary
On being an atheist h j mccloskey summary
On being an atheist h j mccloskey summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The existence of God has been a topic of controversy for centuries. In 1968, the article “On being an Atheist”, was written by H.J. McCloskey discussing his personal views and reasons, as an atheist, for not believing in the existence of God. McCloskey attempts to discredit the arguments for the existence of God. In doing so, he critiques the cosmological and teleological arguments as well as discusses the presence of evil and suffering in order to show sufficient evidence to reject the belief in God. The ability to prove God’s existence with a hundred percent accuracy is an impossible task. No one can one hundred percent show proof of the existence of God (Foreman, 2012). McCloskey uses the word proof instead of the word argument to be able to discredit the belief in God’s existence. We will never have absolute certainty but that does not mean that we should stop looking for answers to explain the world around us. Evans …show more content…
As an atheist, there is no sadness and hurt that the all-powerful, loving God of the universe did nothing to prevent the hurt and suffering they now face. However, without a belief in a higher power, an atheist struggles to find their purpose and value in life. Instead of having to fight to find purpose in earthly things that will only dissatisfy, an atheist can find comfort in finding a peace that lacks all understand and a purpose in life when they find God (Craig, 2008). In times of trials and suffering, believers have faith that God will never leave them and has a greater plan. However, non-believers have only themselves to give them comfort in times of pain and suffering. A true atheist will eventually find no purpose or comfort in life because they believe they are their own “gods.” What a lonely and hopeless belief system to have in times of confusion and
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Although explicated on many occasions and by many different authors, the teleological argument for the existence of God provides the best springboard from which to launch contemporary convictions of faith. In the revised edition of his earlier The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne constructs a solid outline that reveals the exact structure of the teleological argument. He presents both forms of the teleological argument , holds each under the light of skeptical review and then provides insight and defense that allows for careful philosophical review.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
Roger White presents an interesting argument for why God must exist. In his argument, White states that everything in the world is finely tuned to live its life accordingly. In order for this to be possible, God must have finely tuned all beings so that they were well fit for life. In depth, this argument is, “If a fact stands in need of an explanation, and a hypothesis explains this fact better than anything else, then they support each other. Our universe being so perfect for life is a fact in need of explanation. The hypothesis that God has finely tuned everything to be where all living beings can exist in this universe is an explanation to this fact. No other hypothesis compares to such a standard as this one. Therefore, the fact that our
Traditions, through all of history have been what people hold onto through difficult times. Whether it is religion or just a tradition when people are truly in dire need of help, there is no such thing as an atheist. You can see this through all sorts of events in history and in modern life. During the holocaust, the Jews were targeted exclusively because of their religion, yet through the hardship they only grew stronger in their faith. Or the disciples of Jesus, they were threatened by nearly everyone they came into contact with, but they pushed on. Even in modern times, when people are faced with extreme adversity, they normally come out with some new tradition, often religion.
Bertrand Russell, a renowned analytic philosopher, argues about the existence of God in his article “Is there a God?” (1952). For most of his life Russell held the opinion that religions are meant to instill distress and helplessness into people’s minds and belief in religion is the major cause for all the deadly conflicts that have occurred in the past. In his article “Is there a God?” Russell discusses how theologians have been presenting their arguments to prove God’s existence and then gives his own reflection on their thoughts. Questioning God’s existence and giving arguments that refute such beliefs could turn into a controversial discussion and many theists, who have blind faith in God’s existence, find such arguments offensive to their beliefs. Taking the sensitive nature of this subject into account, Russell’s article does not display any offensive characteristics and the way he dealt with this issue by taking a neutral stance should be appreciated. Most of his arguments are remarkably convincing, even for theists, and make the reader think about God’s existence rationally. His way of dealing with the issue through rational means is what makes this article suitable for both theists and atheists. However, at some instances, Russell’s bias towards atheism can be observed by pointing out fallacies in his arguments.
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
In some ways the arguments for the existence of God combat each other, in asking which one is more convincing. There are two types of arguments, there are empirical arguments along with a rationalistic argument. Anselm, Paley, and Aquinas are the three significant leaders in the philosophy world for finding an argument for the existence of God. The question that is being posed is which is more convincing, Anselm’s rationalistic proof, or the empirical arguments?
Proving the existence of God is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy effort, I believe that such a task is not possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. In his fifth argument, St. Thomas Aquinas makes as close to foolproof argument that I believe anyone could make, and, for me, it does prove God's existence. However, if that element of faith is not there, I do not think you can completely prove God's existence to everyone.
In his article “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian philosopher took a serious stance on arguments against the existence of God. He offered numerous reasons for the stance he took including, the problem with evil to suggest that one should not believe in God. McCloskey believes that atheism is a much more comfortable and understandable belief as opposed to believing in God who allows the suffering of innocent people just to get the glory out of their lives and achieve the ultimate good. He moves on to say that in the end, to live in this world, a person must seek comfort wherever you can find it. Since atheism was adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, it leads to a spirit of self-reliance, and on to a self-respect, which causes a person to comfort and help those in need of support. In doing so, it will decrease the blows of fate. McCloskey is saying that it is better to help each other than to believe in a God that could not be perfect himself. He states this because he feels that since the world is imperfect than God cannot possibly be perfect. If he were perfect, then the world would be perfect. However, because evil exist, God cannot exist, therefore we must live in this world as it is, and except the ludicrousness of life. His arguments are not logical or are they sound, and it will be complicated and interesting to argue against him and his views.
This paper will try to discuss the three Philosophical Positions on the Existence of God namely, the Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Why do they believe? Why don’t they believe? How do they believe? What made them believe? Who helped them believe? These are just some of the questions that this paper will try to give answers and supply both believers and non-believers the enough indication that whatever their position may be, the responsibility in their hands of whatever reason they have must be valid and intellectual.
This question is inherent in clarifying the undoubtedly success this false belief has had through human’s existence. However, as Malcolm Murray argues in his book: The Atheist Primer, “But why do so many people believe in a god if it is a false belief? This is an interesting question so long as it is not intended to be used as evidence for God’s existence.”1 Professor Murray’s question is crucial in this essay’s discussion. Regardless of the answer given in this essay, if an answer can be justifiably found, the answer to the above question will not be any supportive evidence towards the existence of a god.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
This essay provides a conclusive look at the problems and contradictions underlying a belief in God and the observable traits of the world, specifically the Problem of Evil. The analysis will address the nature of God and the existence of evil in the world, as well as objections such as the "sorting" into heaven and hell objection, God's "mysterious ways" objection, the inscrutability of God objection, values presupposing pain objection, inherent contradictions in "God's freewill," and non-human objections. omnipotent. 2) Evil exists. 3)