Philosophy 201 Response Paper

...

There is no discriminate amongst atheists and theists so this is not reason, evil does not discriminate amongst atheists and theists. If so atheist would look to live more comfortably. All the Suffering, evil, and imperfections in the universe is with every human beings and every living thing. So I would say a theists major problems to confront is the problem of evil. In order to acknowledge the existence of evil, McCloskey also acknowledges the opposite existence, as well. McCloskey argument on his opinion about the world being evil, and a perfect being could not create a world with imperfections. McCloskey claims, “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.” (56). McCloskey argument presumes that for God to exist and be omniscient and omnipotent there might be no evil because god has the power to destroy 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,” (160). Destroying evil would also be destroying the human race since human out of free will commits evil. Good is the opposite of evil, they both need to exist to uphold the true meaning of evil and good.

All human being got Free will, which speaks their actions and the choice to believe god exist or not exist. McCloskey asks, “Might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely choose what is right?” (66). this is false seeing that for a right to exist a wrong have to exist to. Therefore, what this mean is that wrong and right are only two options in life. This is false because, the question where the morality arrives. For there to be morality; a guiding principal has to be in existence that makes people realize immorality. Otherwise, nothing could be moral or immoral.

McCloskey says at the end of his article that atheism is more comforting than theism. He claims if there was a god pain would be eliminated for everyone because pain is evil. This is similar to living just for the sake of our lives. Craig argues if god did not exist life would have no purpose or meaning. He says that, ““If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint,” (6). This mean when we die that the end of our life so life on earth have no meaning. Then, if there no reason to live a good life why would the atheists want to live a moral life a life without evil and pain. If Being and atheist do not stop pain and suffering what, then is the need of living without God.

It makes no logic saying that being an atheist makes life better and comfortable. Saying god do not exist because of evil is not a reason to say an atheist is better. To sum things up I believe everything and everyone has a purpose and I also believe there is a god. Each person is free to their own beliefs and understanding. Therefore, McCloskey arguments stand up as a hold not individually to make a claim for god. It looks like to me McCloskey thoughts hinder from the fact that he simply does not want god to exits.

References

Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2009).Philosophy of religion: Thinking about faith (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN: 9780830838769.

H.J. McCloskey, “On Being An Atheist”, from Question 1, February 1968