McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
“Religious Language is meaningless” Analyse and evaluate this claim with reference to the verification and falsification debates. (35 marks) Religious Language is language used to talk about God and other religious beliefs. Religious language is known to be cognitive as it can make a positive statement be proved true or false. However on the other hand, Religious language could be seen as non-cognitive as some statements could be misinterpreted, for example, majority rather than a minority in some cases could act out religious and cultural beliefs within society. The verification principle had originated from philosophers in a group called ‘The Vienna Circle” where they believed that dome statements were meaningful and some simply were not, they distinguished these statements by coming up with a theory called, The verification principle.
Therefore, Wiles comes to the conclusion that God's goodness and the concept of miracles are two incompatible ideas. When discussing God's omnibenevolemce, Wiles introduces the nature of God and its impact on miracles. However, this also anthropomorphises him. As humans, with a limited knowledge of what the word 'good' means, Maimonedes states that it would be disrespectful to attribute this equivocal concept to an unlimited God. We cannot judge God, nor his actions because he is a non cognitive being.
Response to Article: On Being an Atheist Cassandra Craig PHIL 201 Liberty University Reading the article ‘On Being an Atheist’ by H. J. McCloskey, was an invaluable experience in considering the views of an atheist concerning his beliefs about God, the universe, evil and suffering. This is the kind of article that may assist people in avoiding what Socrates spoke of in earlier lessons in philosophy as an unexamined life. Even if a person doesn’t agree with McCloskey’s views, you are prompted to think about many issues, what you are doing, what you believe and why, also investing time reflecting on what life is all about. Considering that McCloskey most likely gave a lot of thought to the above issues, he was overall very narrow minded in the way he talked about theism, he implies that proofs for theism should be abandoned, and says the evil that is in the world is one of the main reasons; “It is because evil exists that we believe God does not exist” (McCloskey, 1968, p. 52). In view of the PointeCast presentation, theistic arguments determine the best explanation for and not proof of, God’s existence, while considering the complexity and cause of the universe; and morality.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
The second argument, Socrates has is that piety and impiety are opposites, and that the gods are always in a state of discord. Some of the gods think one thing just, the others think another, and therefore the same thing would be pious and impious. Different gods will make different evaluations, and these differences blur the distinction between piety and impiety. Lastly, the third refute Socrates has with Euthyphro’s definitions is that, Socrates points out that love is not a necessary characteristic of holiness, love is an action. Euthyphro is now at a loss of how to proceed with his definition of piety, and he seems to get very
“The Enemies of Reason” “There are two ways of looking at the world, through faith and superstition, or through the rigors of logic, observation, and evidence through reason.” I believe this statement is true since there are those who believe things such as superstition and psychics can help you through life and there are those who base life off of hard evidence and facts. Richard Dawkins does not completely understand why people put faith in mediation and astrology. They are ways of having hope and a way to just relax because we are constantly stressed. People don’t have all the answers to life, so they turn to superstition and parapsychology to make decisions. We have done studies, such as the Wiseman study in Chapter 2, stating that psychics and everyday students have nearly the same results at predicting statements, yet people still pay to have their “minds read” or “predict the future.” It is fine to choose to believe in the irrational, but accepting money is another story.
Harding says this to himself mocking the voice of a god who finds joy in the pain and sorrow of others. This also says a lot about his view of religion, Harding sees gods as malevolent beings that will “profit” off of his loss. He has little respect for whatever god he is addressing because the word “god isn’t capitalized anywhere in the poem. Harding blames his problems on the malevolence of the gods by saying “Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,/Steeled any the sense of ire unmerited;/ Half-erased in that a Powerfuller than I/Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.” (Hardy ll. 5-9).