response to Being an Atheist
In his article “On Being an Atheist,” H. J. McCloskey makes an entertaining, but in the end inadequate, explanation as to why the arguments for God’s existence fail (limiting himself to the only two he cared to deal with), and why Atheism provides more comfort to the hurting person than Theism.
Unfortunately his article is riddled with straw men and fails to address the question of God’s existence at the level that the Theist presents it. Twice in the article he makes reference to the theist’s claim that “[God’s] got the whole world in his hands.” In his opening paragraph he makes reference to a Theist who claimed that “It’s harder if you don’t believe in God.” By selecting the least intellectual and most naïve claims made by a Christian Theist, McCloskey has conveniently set the bar low enough for him to jump over with minimal effort.
In fact McCloskey places the bar even lower by referring to the “proofs of” rather than “arguments for” God’s existence, thereby overstating the Theist’s claim. With respect to the “proofs” for God’s existence that McCloskey attempts to deal with, namely the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments, McCloskey offers trivial objections that are easily answered. With respect to arguments for God’s non-existence, McCloskey offers the logical form of the problem of evil which, while rich in rhetoric, does not contain enough logic to necessitate its title. McCloskey ends his article with a pragmatic justification of Atheist, stating that Atheism is more comforting that Theism; a point that is stark in its irrelevance.
In the first few paragraphs of his article, McCloskey does a little sleight of hand with his readers. He overstates the Theist’s case by referring to the proofs of God’s existence, and then feigns amazement at the fact that they actually don’t “prove” God’s existence. This sort of trick ought to be recognized by people familiar with philosophy of religion. The most common way Christian Apologists make the case for
Unfortunately his article is riddled with straw men and fails to address the question of God’s existence at the level that the Theist presents it. Twice in the article he makes reference to the theist’s claim that “[God’s] got the whole world in his hands.” In his opening paragraph he makes reference to a Theist who claimed that “It’s harder if you don’t believe in God.” By selecting the least intellectual and most naïve claims made by a Christian Theist, McCloskey has conveniently set the bar low enough for him to jump over with minimal effort.
In fact McCloskey places the bar even lower by referring to the “proofs of” rather than “arguments for” God’s existence, thereby overstating the Theist’s claim. With respect to the “proofs” for God’s existence that McCloskey attempts to deal with, namely the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments, McCloskey offers trivial objections that are easily answered. With respect to arguments for God’s non-existence, McCloskey offers the logical form of the problem of evil which, while rich in rhetoric, does not contain enough logic to necessitate its title. McCloskey ends his article with a pragmatic justification of Atheist, stating that Atheism is more comforting that Theism; a point that is stark in its irrelevance.
In the first few paragraphs of his article, McCloskey does a little sleight of hand with his readers. He overstates the Theist’s case by referring to the proofs of God’s existence, and then feigns amazement at the fact that they actually don’t “prove” God’s existence. This sort of trick ought to be recognized by people familiar with philosophy of religion. The most common way Christian Apologists make the case for