Research Paper on "Response Against Being an Atheist"

Research Paper 5 pages (1816 words) Sources: 1

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Against Being an Atheist

Although it may seem that the current level of popularity of atheism is a modern phenomenon, atheism has existed alongside theism throughout history, and has challenged the defenders of theism even in societies were religious dogmatisms were the rule. Atheism is a Greek term and some Greek philosophers like Socrates were accused of it, which gives us a reason good enough to believe that the concept of atheism was very well-known in ancient Greece. And the fact that the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas had to produce a treatise, giving several reasons for the existence of God is the testament to the fact that even at the time of Christian dogmatic supremacy in medieval Europe, theologians had to defend their theistic positions. This was also true in medieval Muslim world where Al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) had to grapple with the same questions. Nevertheless, there is something remarkable about the level of popularity of atheism in the contemporary era, as the twentieth century had witnessed the rise and fall of a vast empire -- the Soviet Union -- which adopted atheism as a state policy. In Western pluralist societies such as the United States, too, atheism poses a potent challenge to religion and the belief in God in all its forms. These atheists challenge theism by grounding their arguments on reasoning, scientific proof, and even moralism. This paper will attempt to critique a work by an atheist by weighing it against the works of those who defend the theistic position.

The work under review is an article by McCloskey (1968), entitled "On Being an Atheist." McCloskey tries to deconstruct the arguments on which theism is grounded on, by demonstrating "the inadequacy of these grounds," and to show why he believes "there is no God"; "that atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and why theists should be miserable just because they are theists" (p. 50). McCloskey raises important questions related to the atheism v. theism debate, and his reasoning is mostly sound and his questions are very challenging ones to any defender of theism. However, some of his arguments cannot be sustained in the face of serious scrutiny.

McCloskey argues that theism is grounded on three major arguments: the cosmological proof, the teleological proof, and the argument from design. According to him, these arguments cannot establish the case for God and therefore concludes that God does not exist. In so doing, McCloskey misleadingly assumes that these are the only grounds of a theistic position, and opts for atheism although he does not offer any conclusive arguments for the non-existence of God. More than that, while he criticizes the major arguments of a popular religion in his society -- namely, Christianity -- he assumes that his rebuttal of theism in his society must be applicable to all theistic positions. That is, as one philosopher recently pointed out, in response to Richard Dawkins, "akin to refuting a truly bad idea and concluding that no alternative ways of conceptualizing it could" exist (Corlett, 2009, p. 131). Even if McCloskey's arguments against cosmological, teleological, and intelligent design arguments are true, it does not prove God's non-existence. But we do need to emphasize here "if," since McCloskey's arguments are not necessarily true.

McCloskey's first argument is directed against the cosmological argument, which postulates that there must be a creator of the universe. McCloskey objects to this argument because it suggests that "the first cause must be explained as an uncaused cause, otherwise we are left with an infinite regress of causes," and that the "mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 51). In response to this, Evans and Manis (2009) offer a powerful counter-argument. Their argument is based on a premise that there are contingent and non-contingent beings that exist in our universe. Contingent beings are the ones that exist but do not have to. They could well have not existed and the universe would have been there anyway. And the contingent beings would not be complete had they not have an activity of a necessary being as a causal effect. The causal effect must come from a non-contingent, necessary being who "is the only kind of being whose existence requires no further explanation" (p. 69). In summary, Evans and Manis's position goes like this: we know that some contingent beings exist; since they exist, there must be a necessary being whose activity is the ultimate cause of contingent beings; there is a necessary being. While this argument does not necessarily prove that there is one omnipotent, and all-good absolute Creator, it certainly weakens McCloskey's argument mentioned earlier.

On the teleological argument, McCloskey claims that the theory of evolution renders most groundings of that argument meaningless. McCloskey does not even try to prove that the evolutionary theory is an indisputable fact which is accepted by everyone. He argues on a premise that the evolutionary theory is an established fact. But even if his assumption holds true, evolutionary theory does not necessarily disprove the teleological argument and the argument from design. Evolutionary theory explains the order of things, the law of nature, but cannot explain where the order and the natural law came from and why they function in the manner they do. For example, no one would deny that a gasoline-powered car needs gas to be functional. But the car's dependence on gasoline is not an accidental fact. It was designed in such a way by the manufacturer, as it was designed by the manufacturer to have the capacity to reach a certain speed limit. The functions of the car are by design, and not something which exist on their own.

McCloskey further argues that in order to sustain the teleological argument, "genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed" (p. 64). In his opinion, the world is so imperfect that teleological argument simply leads us to conclude that God is an "imperfect planner or designer." But this claim is based on an assumption that what McCloskey considers "imperfect" is a universally agreeable claim. That is not necessarily the case, as many people would have a different understanding of "perfection" and consider the order of things as proof of the existence of a perfect designer. McCloskey's claim that there are no "indisputable examples" of a perfect design is also questionable. One can bring a myriad of examples form the way the law of nature works which can be considered "indisputable examples" of a perfect and intelligent design. For example, all the planets, the moon, and the sun move around their axis in such a perfect manner that we have twenty four hours a day and three hundred sixty five days a year continuously -- without a single interruption -- and we never come too close to the sun or move away from it too long (either of which would destroy any living organism on planet earth). It is not clear how McCloskey can consider the order of things as imperfect.

But McCloskey's "imperfection" argument is not directed against the law of nature or the order of things, but against lack of morality among humans and existence of so much evil in the world. "No being who was perfect," he writes, "could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons." Such reasoning assumes that, if God exists, there must be only good in the world. That the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil. There are several responses to this claim. Suffice to mention that human beings are created in such a way that we would not be able to comprehend the meaning of good if evil had not existed. Only by comparing good with evil, can we understand its meaning and appreciate its existence. One may, of course, object to this argument by saying that the omnipotent God could have used another way of letting His creatures comprehend goodness or that God could have created humans with a superior capability so that they would discern goodness without comparing it to evil. But such reasoning is meaningless, as the possible ways we may expect -- or wish -- God to behave are infinite. Ultimately, God is the supreme Being who acts independently and His actions are not subject to the approval of all His creatures.

Another response to McCloskey is provided by Evans who suggests that theodicy is the way to understand the existence of evil. The evil is permitted by God because the evil leads to a comparatively greater good which would not be possible without allowing the evil. And God designed this world in such a way that humans act with free will. If God bestowed humans with free will and the equal ability… READ MORE

How to Reference "Response Against Being an Atheist" Research Paper in a Bibliography

Related Research Papers:

Atheist When Dealing Research Paper

Atheist

When dealing with the subject of religion or spirituality the idea of philosophical or logical proof is not always applicable. If an individual believes in the existence of a… read more

Research Paper 5 pages (1743 words) Sources: 5 Topic: Religion / God / Theology

---

Theistic Response to the Atheism of H.J Term Paper

Theistic Response to the Atheism of H.J. McCloskey

For a Christian -- a person whose belief in God and Jesus Christ is unshakable and spiritually sustaining -- God is the… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (1961 words) Sources: 4 Style: Turabian Topic: Religion / God / Theology

---

Mccloskey Asserts That the Initial Belief Article Critique

McCloskey asserts that the initial belief of the Christians does not always come because of the belief they have in the existence of God

They always have other reasons for… read more

Article Critique 5 pages (1593 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Religion / God / Theology

---

Respond to Hj Mccloskey Term Paper

Atheist" by H.J. McCloskey and answer the following questions using "Philosophy of Religion-Thinking About Faith" second edition by C.Stephens Evans & R. Zacharary Manis and the article "The Absurdity of… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (2573 words) Sources: 6 Topic: Religion / God / Theology

---

Existence of God on Using Arguments Thesis

Existence of God

On Using Arguments to Establish the Case for God

McCloskey states in his article that the problem with most theists is that they come to believe in… read more

Thesis 5 pages (1540 words) Sources: 3 Style: Turabian Topic: Religion / God / Theology

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>