H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article. McCloskey dives right into the meat of his article by addressing what he refers to as “proofs” he claims were put forth by theists. I think that it is imperative to know the difference between a “proof” and an argument. A proof contains a note of certainty. It suggests that something can be known to be 100% truth. In one of the recent PointCast presentations, Dr. Foreman insists that we cannot know any with a complete certainty that we have absolute truth about the existence of God. Therefore these ideas should be put forth as arguments and not as proofs. In fact, if looking at it the other way, he cannot know for certain that his ideas are correct. If he uses his rebuttals to the theist’s arguments, they seem contradictory several times. As we have no absolute certainty for either side, we are left then to find the best possible explanation. This is widely used in cases where things simply cannot be known for certain such as the example of the black hole that Dr. Foreman used. Science can’t fully expl... ... middle of paper ... ...have had to adopt a way to avoid living pointless, meaningless lives. Craig calls it the Noble Lie that they live under. Ultimately, McCloskey, were he to win his arguments would have to face the conclusion that there is no point to this universe that we are in, no point to life. Fighting for the self-reliance and the self-respect he finds in this fight gives him some sort of short term purpose to the life that he lives here on earth. Works Cited Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. Evans, C. Stephen and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. McCloskey, H.J. “On Being an Atheist,” Question 1 (February 1968): 51-54
Evans, C. Stephen and Manis R. Zachary. Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Print.
Richard Dawkins is one of the most celebrated atheists in today’s day and age. In Answering the New Atheism, Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker examine his most recognized book: The God Delusion. Is God a delusion? Or are atheists? Many have said “it takes more faith to be an atheist that a theist. “ Hahn and Wiker prove this in their description of Dawkins: “The problem with Dawkins is his against-all-odds insistence that...
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
In this philosophical essay regarding God and the controversial existence of objective morality, I will argue in favour of Shafer-Landau’s conclusion that if you are an atheist, then you should object the proposition that objective morality requires the existence of God. In addition, for Shafer-Landau’s argument to make sense, I will be mentioning the Argument from Atheism, a classical argument based upon moral skepticism. I will also be providing Shafer-Landau’s arguments in objection to the Argument of Atheism along with key pieces of terminology and definitions which are crucial to understanding his argument in support of objective morality. Lastly, I will be providing possible theistic and atheistic objections against Shafer-Landau’s criticisms
Coherence is an essential part of the theist’s belief structure. The individual arguments when joined collectively hold just that, coherence. While individually they do not point to evidence together they do. This coherence forms a basis of truth, supporting each other in their claim and not contradicting them. In this manner they establish truth where facts are lacking. If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God.
H.J. McCloskey claims that “proofs” are not valid and do not provide enough evidence that God exists. In the article, he claims that these “proofs” should be abandoned but he also claims that theist do not come to God or religion solely based on these “proofs”. In the article on page 62, McCloskey quotes a colleague saying, “most theist do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion based on other reasons and factors.” Theists believe in God and His Word over any “theory” that scientist can come up with. The Bible outweighs any other “theory” to theists. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Atheists may make a good argument that God does not exist but there is no documented evidence proving evolution like the documented writings in the Bible telling the story of how God created the heavens and the earth. McCloskey is correct that “proofs” do not prove God’s existence but they do help see the viewpoint of theists. It is ultimately up to each person to believe in what they want to believe in. God gave us free will to be able to choose for ourselves. McCloskey talks about free will negatively and also brings up the point that since evil exists, God cannot. This is not true by any means and we will dispute McCloskey’s points throughout this essay.
One’s worldview is usually dependant on how the particular individual interprets life and its occurrences. Additionally, if one believes something to be so, it will be so to them. It’s all a matter of perception. However, which perspective is truly accurate: Agnosticism, Theism, or Deism? These three worldviews have been the subject of countless debates throughout history and that have yet to be concluded. The purpose of this philosophical essay is to suggest that theism is likely to be considered the correct worldview.
In the text “God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist” Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and William Lane Craig, an atheist and a theist philosopher respectively, debate the existence of God. They present their informed opinions on controversial topics to prove God’s existence, such as arguing the problem of evil, which I will be focusing on. In this paper I will argue that the idea of God is possible, however, given then problem of evil, the idea of a traditional, monotheistic God is not. When I refer to a traditional, mono-theistic God, I mean the characteristics of God depicted in the mono-theistic religions of today, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. This will be shown through exploration of the problem of evil as presented in the text,
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.
In the article,"An Atheist Manifesto," by Sam Harris he discusses how God does not exisit because if he did exist there would not be any evil in this world. As I was reading this article I found it very intresting how Harris is so negative and believes that everything that happens is God's fault. "....at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?No,.." stated Harris. He should understand that God gave us a gift called "free will," and with that gift it comes with a price that we should live with the consequeces by the descisions we make as human beings. I liked this article because it showed me the other side of the coin
Alain de Botton, the author of Religion for atheists : a non-believer's guide to the uses of religion believes that agents should be able to stay as committed atheists and still find religions practical, compelling and encouraging. It is possible for atheists to be uninterested by the doctrines of the Christian Trinity and the Buddhist Eightfold Path and nonetheless at the same time be provided with the ways in which religions save sermons, advocate morality, provoke a spirit of community, inspire travels, motivate gratitude. In the first section of the book 'Wisdom without Doctrine', de Botton holds that it is possible for atheists to balance a disbelief in religion with a selective admiration for religious ceremonies and notions.
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.
Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a particular system of faith and worship or a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion (Oxford Dictionary, 2014). From religion, many new groups, communities and further derived religions have formed. Closely related to religion and with endless controversies surrounding it’s classification as a religion is the concept of Atheism- which is defined as the disbelief or rejection of a deity. Descending from this is a social and political movement in favour of secularism known as New Atheism. Understanding the historical content concerning the emergence of atheism, this essay will then address how various aspects within the field inclusive the goals, structures and approaches have emerged and developed over time in comparison to the original atheist ideals.
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
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.