Response To Atheism

Response to “On Being an Atheist”
Ida Hart
PHIL 201 – B30 LUO
Dr. David Beck

McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist” contains arguments that he uses to explain Atheism, the non-existence of God. Using the claims made by theists and attempting to taint the character and nature of the Christian God, he points out what he calls several defects of the arguments. In his introduction he offers a brief reminder to fellow atheist stating the grounds and the inadequacies of these grounds for theism. He later calls them “proofs”, alleging that the proofs do not provide adequate justification for believing that God exists. This only proves that he is among the many that choose to use the arguments in the wrong way. He, along with others

McCloskey’s claim that you need, “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 52), is not reasonable. McCloskey’s alluding to the probability of certain examples of purpose and design as the work of a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer causes it to be disputable, (McCloskey, 52).
Evans and Manis purposes an example of a design that proves the existence of a designer of the universe. The analogical version confronts the argument stating that some objects exists to serve the other, thereby fulfilling a proposed goal. I suggest that materials which are intelligently combined together are types of manmade machinery that comes from an intelligent design, (Evans and Manis, p.

McCloskey argues, “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” (McCloskey, 56). The argument is based on the assumption, that for God to exist and be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent there should be no evil since He would have the power to eliminate it. “It does not seem to be true…that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. What is true, perhaps, is that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can without the loss of a greater good or the allowance of a worse evil,” (Evans ad Manis, p. 160). If evil was to be eliminated, this would be probable cause for the elimination of the human race, considering it is the source that commits this evil out of their free will. Evil exists, as the opposite of good, and without both, there would be no evil or good (unbalance as some considers it). It is important to appreciate the fact that the opposite of something helps in understanding the meaning for its exact