Analysis Of H. J. Mccloskey's On Being An Atheist

1595 Words7 Pages
In February of 1968, H.J. McCloskey published an article called “On Being an Atheist,” in the journal Question One. In his article, McCloskey makes a very entertaining explanation in why the argument of God’s existences fails. This paper responds to McCloskey’s arguments via a theistic worldview.
McCloskey attempted to show that atheism is quite a bit more reasonable, as well as comfortable than theism. McCloskey uses the word “proof” instead of “theory” to add fallacious power to his argument. There are many of his concepts that are accepted as a truth, but cannot be absolutely proven. Nothing can be proven one hundred percent. They are simply based on a whole bunch of concepts that we know to be true. This could be said in regards
…show more content…
This is an argument from design and implements a source of intelligence in which the universe came to exist. They both start at the cosmos, however the Theological Argument discussed as an organized entity with a purpose, that believers deem as evidence of intelligent design. He talks about there being a distinct difference between Theological Argument and Argument From Design, yet does not make it clear in this article exactly what that distinct difference is. McCloskey elaborates that this argument is unsatisfactory in proving God’s existence. He states, “…all we should be entitled to conclude was that there was a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer.” (McCloskey, 52)
With this being said, McCloskey is referring to the fact that nature is, in fact, broken, even if it is believed it to be perfect. He also makes another claim towards the Theological Argument. He states, “To get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” (McCloskey, 52) This idea is, however, a false one. The standards set the defender of the argument to which he cannot live up to
…show more content…
He states what he believes to be the solutions theists give to solve the problem of evil. These solutions include the fact that the pain is unreal, God’s punishment for sinning, what makes the world better, and is God’s way of reminding men of his existence while also warning them to repair their ways. He argues that atheists are not affected by evil like theists are, which is why life is more comfortable for atheists. Evil does exist in the world, but evil also makes the world a better place. McCloskey claims that the presence of evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” (McCloskey, 52) This is not reasonable, however, since evil does not discriminate between theists and atheists. If it did then it would hold true that atheists do live more comfortably. Suffering, evil, and imperfections are among all human beings and all living things in the universe. To me, the problem of evil is one of the biggest problems that theists face. In order to acknowledge the existence of evil, McCloskey also acknowledges the opposite existence, as
Open Document