The arguments by H. J. McCloskey represented in his article On Being an Atheist bear a notion of getting them abandoned. He states that such “proofs” have no ground to prove the existence of God and his omnipotence for people. In this respect the philosopher aims to describe the characteristic background of when and where the fallacies may appear in the minds of people. The thing is that all arguments are designed for a particular purpose which states a desired result. It is especially amplified by the mass agreement if one respectful and noble person pokes on the ultimate truth which cannot be objected. This is why theological arguments provide only a one-side alternative. In fact, there is no other alternative or choice except of the absolute truth said by theists.
To say more, arguments serve also for a particular design which is indisputable disregarding anything else that might take place as another version against such an argument (so-called counterargument). A counterargument by McCloskey is that there is a huge gap between the perfection and power of a Designer and misery of His creatures. Logically, this statement has much to do with the irrelevance between two concepts. Thus, it is all about absurdity. Proofs stating suchlike nonsense can be easily reduced or refuted by a mature philosopher. However, the vast majority of people are pushed to grow in theism by means of faith.
Buy Being an Atheist essay paper online
Faith has a premise of something good and positive. However, by abandoning the arguments that all-perfect Creator is solely known by His alleged deeds, one becomes enlightened of what is going on at present. The world has nothing to do with perfection as there are wars, human flaws, etc. Everything declares the non-existence of God as the world seems to be in total decline.
Regarding causative-consecutive principle, everything had a particular reason. However, McCloskey is likely to follow this idea, but not in case with the theological dogmas. The question is that an uncaused cause is meant to be both powerful and imperfect as might be seen on the example of the world people live in. The author uses a cosmological argument to prevent any mismatch in understanding the gist of life in which everyone has wallowed so far. Real issues touching upon the statement on cosmological argument have a definite reflection on the part of Evans and Manis’s discussion on the universal truth which is, therefore, all about the temporal argument. Thus, the existence of the universe is taken by granted and the cause of it must be necessary, as alongside time continuum the evolution could not move in its development without a conceptually vital background, i.e. the universe itself.
On the other hand, the cosmological argument serves as a means toward evaluating experiences common for people in order to get the best (or most convenient) interpretation. According to McCloskey’s statement of that there is no necessity to shed light on “all-perfect uncaused cause” there are several ideas on the part of Evans and Manis. The reason is that by relying solely on the cosmological argument it would be not enough to declare the overall judgment on the atheist idea. Moreover, the cosmological argument reaches solely a limited conclusion of the subject matter. In addition, it should be supported by other types of arguments.
Besides, McCloskey highlights the term of “indisputable examples” in order to justify an inconsistent nature of design and purpose proof. In this respect there is nothing that cannot be disputed. Socrates once claimed: The truth is sprout in discussion. This is why to state something based on the factual example means that one has everything to keep up with this idea. Moreover, such arguments have a logical basis which reduces any idea of skepticism. The reality is real, and it means that the alternative is evident in everything.
So, while putting forward an idea that some issues are indisputable whilst the rest require an approach of further justification it seems dishonest and quite irrational. If people claim that God’s truth is indisputable, it means that everything should be indisputable (even if they are victims of felony or fraud) irrespectively of what it is. By contrast, a sound-minded person would likely find out an objection when things look blue than take it for granted. Reason stands on different ways for wisdom and success. A witty person is the one to get away from dogmas. Just because people were given a genuine idea that remains in force solely in their minds but not in reality is not a weighty argument that everyone should follow the same way.
Needless to say, McCloskey calls the standard of indisputability as a “very conclusive objection” in order to get the reader involved into the logic of this term. He just reflects on the idea of the universal truth that only educated and witty people are able to object where no objection is possible or permissible. Definitely, disputability rather than indisputability plays a greater role in finding common ground between interlocutors while discussing theological problems. Furthermore, it is more convenient to take part in finding out truth which seems to be somewhere beyond questionbegging metaphysical opinions.
From reading the book by Evans and Manis, there is a good example being not necessarily indisputable related to the essence of a designer of the universe. It is all about the movement of planets in the solar system. The thing is that all planets except of Venus move in a clockwise direction around the Sun. Venus moves in a counterclockwise direction around the Sun, because otherwise its magnetic field would be harmful to Earth or could even destroy it causing complete reaction. This fact is, on the one hand, full of mystery as of who could make it work. On the other hand, it touches upon the universal rules of celestial body movement and gravity force affected by the Sun.
By the way, McCloskey frequently uses the term of evolution commensurate with the ideas of atheism. Assuming the evolution is true, there are different ways to reflect on this assumption through the ideas of Evans and Manis. Insofar, the authors defer Darwin’s experience admitting natural instincts and moral obligations to be closely related to the theory of evolution. Furthermore, an absolute idea of Darwin was well objected by a number of philosophers (including ardent supporters of atheism like Nietzsche).
While looking at the McCloskey’s argument of imperfection and evil in the world which cannot coincide with the perfection, the cosmological argument with all its limitations matches this topic. The thing is that the cosmological argument is confined to what the religious scriptures tell about God only with no credit to what is going on with people living in the world created by Him. Thus, the Church is likely to remove the scales from eyes of believers in terms of what the Bible says about God but not about the world being constantly in the pit of decline.
The presence of evil in the world which by no means can be related to the perfection of God is implied in the study by McCloskey. It is because there is no sense in creating something perfect by a perfect creator that does not reflect his overall perfection. In this respect many among philosophers reject the logical form of evil as these two concepts of theological representation of God and the reality cannot be collated. Hereby, McCloskey gives a convincing proof of that evil in the everyday life of people is a mirrored image of God.
The idea that God let people do whatever they choose for themselves is what McCloskey puts in order to prove that theists would rather explain why aforementioned opposition of God and evil in the world takes place. However, the argument that God could have forced on a man by showing what right deeds are is more compelling. In this case theists take example solely from the Bible while atheists operate with any useful source. Arriving at the Plantinga and Mackie’s discussion, incompatibility of God and evil is grounded on a freewill defense of people themselves and a freewill theodicy of the Church.
To conclude, McCloskey notes that atheism is more comforting due to the fact that it gives more freedom of mind and more choices of what to do. Conversely, William Craig Lane objects that if for someone God is dead, he/she is dead as well and the destiny of such a person is definitely unrelated to his/her behavior. McCloskey’s statement seems up to the modern mankind especially in the era of high-tech breakthroughs and total progress in different fields of occupation. Craig takes notice of life absurdity without God which collides with the absurd of being a theist stated by McCloskey. Thus, in this situation it is up to an individual which side to take. However, it should be done with a mere extent of sound-mindedness and personal consideration.
Related Free Philosophy Essays
- Relativism and Rationalism
- Religious Freedom, is it Now the Same as Persecution?
- Why is freedom important?
- Descartes’ “Conceivability Argument”
- Knowledge Is Nothing but Perception
- Emergentism and Panpsychism
- Literature and Philosophy
- Paper on the Good Life
- Bible Book Summary New Testament
- Bible Book Summary Old Testament