Essay on Responding to H. J. Mccloskey's on Being an Atheist
Essay on Responding to H. J. McCloskey’s On Being an Atheist by Reed Harvey
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas
Instructor: C. Wayne Mayhall
Due – August 17, 2012
Liberty University
This paper seeks to clarify whether the claims and proofs presented by McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” provide sufficient ammunition to dissuade people from maintaining their belief in God. It was McCloskey’s intent to systematically discredit God and show that life without God is a better proposition. Through this essay evidence will be provided whether McCloskey had it right and atheism ought be embraced or “it is time to seek the Lord.” McCloskey begins his argument by implying that there is no definitive case established for God and therefore belief in such a God is worth abandoning. My response examines several points. The existence of God is the best explanation for what exists in the universe. Scientists believe that gravity explains certain effects; gravity is a consistent undeniable reality. Although scientists have never seen gravity, various physical “laws” define its effects on earth and on the moon. We have not seen God, but the imprint of His fingerprints continue to cause undeniable effects with men. These effects are the best explanation that God exists. Were we even to take the minimalistic approach, are not there evidences of an intelligent Creator reflected through such human characteristics such as personality, morality and intelligence. No other species minimal description compares with the God of the Bible. Yet, wherever trail of history has taken man, there are accounts of men who established and upheld moral standards. Although McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” … as God I argue otherwise. Because the God under examination is a moral being, I want to examine the moral proclivity associated with man. Do not many people regard men as moral-based
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas
Instructor: C. Wayne Mayhall
Due – August 17, 2012
Liberty University
This paper seeks to clarify whether the claims and proofs presented by McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” provide sufficient ammunition to dissuade people from maintaining their belief in God. It was McCloskey’s intent to systematically discredit God and show that life without God is a better proposition. Through this essay evidence will be provided whether McCloskey had it right and atheism ought be embraced or “it is time to seek the Lord.” McCloskey begins his argument by implying that there is no definitive case established for God and therefore belief in such a God is worth abandoning. My response examines several points. The existence of God is the best explanation for what exists in the universe. Scientists believe that gravity explains certain effects; gravity is a consistent undeniable reality. Although scientists have never seen gravity, various physical “laws” define its effects on earth and on the moon. We have not seen God, but the imprint of His fingerprints continue to cause undeniable effects with men. These effects are the best explanation that God exists. Were we even to take the minimalistic approach, are not there evidences of an intelligent Creator reflected through such human characteristics such as personality, morality and intelligence. No other species minimal description compares with the God of the Bible. Yet, wherever trail of history has taken man, there are accounts of men who established and upheld moral standards. Although McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” … as God I argue otherwise. Because the God under examination is a moral being, I want to examine the moral proclivity associated with man. Do not many people regard men as moral-based