Free Essay

Theistic Response to H.J. Mccloskey

In: Religion Topics

Submitted By idc1008
Words 2514
Pages 11
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

A THEISTIC RESPONSE TO H.J. McCLOSKEY

PHIL 201-D10 FALL 2011
DR. EDWARD MARTIN
BY
IVAN DERRICK COOKE

Cooke 2
INTRODUCTION
In 1968, atheist philosopher H.J. McCloskey composed a strong argument on how being an atheist was far superior to the theistic lifestyle. This imperious article was published in the journal Question and reflects McCloskey’s view that “atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and why theists should be miserable just because they are theists.”1 In his article, McCloskey seeks to disprove many of the arguments that theists believe and often seemingly ridicules or persecutes those who believe in God. Among the arguments McCloskey attempts to minimalize, there are three common proofs that many, if not all, theists lean on for their belief in God. These proofs include the cosmological proof, the teleological proof, and the argument from design. Furthermore, McCloskey speaks on the problem of evil and how the existence of evil disproves the reality of a God. Near the end of McCloskey’s article, he also insists that atheism is comforting, claiming that it is more comforting than theism. This paper will debate the validity and truth of the three claims that McCloskey seeks to discount in his article and will further debate the problem of evil and disprove the idea that atheism is comforting.
PROOFS VS. ARGUMENTS
-------------------------------------------------
McCloskey often slights the theistic view as one of vagueness and ignorance. He states, when referring to those who believe in God, “they do not think far enough nor hard enough about the problem of an uncaused cause, who must be a necessarily existing being, to see that this argument is less conclusive than it seems at first sight.”2 Furthermore, his inference of the 1. H.J. McCloskey, “On Being an Atheist,” In Question Journal (vol. 1), 1968, p. 62. 2. Ibid., p. 63.
Cooke 3
-------------------------------------------------
theists’ ignorance is clearly seen in his article. McCloskey often belittles the idea of someone believing in a God who designed everything and has a purpose for all things. Later in his article, McCloskey insinuates “if one knows nothing about evolution it is easy to fall into the error of seeing adaptation to environment as evidence of design and purpose.”3 While McCloskey accuses those who believe in God as being naive, it is his own naivety and conscious effort to ignore important facts that is prevalent in his “proofs.” His beliefs regarding evolution is based only on what he can see and completely disregards those concepts of life that are not seen. There are many forces of nature, such as magnetic forces and wind currents, which cannot be seen with the human eye; however, can be proven by the Scientific Method. These forces are believed to be true not based on the ability to see them, but because they can be proven by other means beyond sight. Much is the same with many of the beliefs of the theists. Just as one looks at a building and believes that there must have been a builder, one can soundly believe that because there is creation, there must be a Creator.
-------------------------------------------------
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
-------------------------------------------------
In his argument against the cosmological argument, McCloskey claims many defects. One such defect he professes is that the cosmological argument asserts for the existence of an uncaused cause, a necessary being. He states in his article, “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being.”4 However, the existence of the world constitutes every reason to believe in the existence of a necessary being. The existence 3. Ibid., p. 63. 4. Ibid., p. 63. Cooke 4
-------------------------------------------------
of every contingent being relies on the existence of a necessary being. Therefore, ultimately the existence of everything in the world depends on the existence of a necessary being. McCloskey seems to ignore this fact. He would have the reader to believe that everything in the world that exists just exists for no reason at all. But why does it exist? “There seems to be no natural reason (that is, no reason given in terms of the laws of nature) why the objects of our universe exist or even why there should be a universe at all.”5 This is an extremely important philosophical question and certainly one not to be ignored. Everything in this universe, every being, exists and is contingent upon another being. Nothing just exists to just be. It came from something. This phenomena can be linked backed all the way back to the creation of the universe when one necessary being; God, created the universe. McCloskey does not accept the mere existence of the universe as an explanation for a necessary being and seeks a further explanation. However, “a necessary being is the only kind of being whose existence requires no further explanation.”6
-------------------------------------------------
With this said, it is important to note that, while the cosmological argument is strong in arguing the existence of a necessary being, it is somewhat limited in proving with complete certainty that this necessary being is God. In fact, McCloskey notes that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.”7 While his argument is credible, the cosmological argument does provide the critic enough evidence to, 5. C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (Contours of Christian Philosophy), 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 69. 6. Ibid., p. 69. 7. H.J. McCloskey, “On Being an Atheist,” In Question Journal (vol. 1), 1968, p. 63. Cooke 5
-------------------------------------------------
at least, constitute deeper research and study about God and who God is.
-------------------------------------------------
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
-------------------------------------------------
In his argument against the teleological argument and the argument from design, McCloskey superciliously calls for indisputable evidence of design and purpose. In his article, he claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed.”8 While this claim is haughty, it is even more asinine to require such an unattainable goal. As a respected philosopher, McCloskey would be expected to know that, in philosophy, there is very little, if anything, that is “indisputable.” There is always something to argue. When making a claim, quite often that claim only brings more arguments. Surely, as a proponent of the theory of evolution, which easily leaves a plethora of unanswered questions, McCloskey understands this truth in philosophical ideas. Nevertheless, the teleological argument is quite convincing in its assertion of the existence of intelligent design and beneficial order. “Most animals, for example, appear to be self-regulating mechanisms, designed to maintain their own existence and reproduce themselves.”9 Clearly, it is easy to concede that in nature, many creatures act for an end; an important characteristic of the teleological argument. In addition to that evidence, we see many objects in our society today that show complexity and order towards an end, as well. “Complex machines, like watches and cameras, show the same complex, beneficial order as do natural objects. We know that these machines are the result of intelligent design, and it is reasonable to conclude that objects in nature which are analogous to these 8. Ibid., p. 64. 9. C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (Contours of Christian Philosophy), 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 78. Cooke 6
-------------------------------------------------
machines are probably to be explained in an analogous manner.”10 Although maybe not indisputable, these evidences plainly explain how an intelligent designer must be the most logical explanation of creation and the universe.
-------------------------------------------------
At one point in McCloskey’s article, he seems to imply that evolution has shifted the need for a designer. He states, “so many things which were, before the theory of evolution, construed as evidence of design and purpose, are now seen to be nothing of the sort.”11 Assuming the theory of evolution was true, this theory states that there are variations that occur randomly in nature that are passed down through an organism’s genetic material to the next generation. Therefore, with this variation, the creature is more likely to survive and pass down their genetic makeup, which will evolve into a greater creature. However, Evans and Manis argue that “the evolutionary process, if it does indeed occur, occurs only because the laws of nature operate as they do. These laws are themselves a clear example of order whose ultimate outcome is beneficial order.”12 As a result, we only become more aware of what an incredibly intelligent designer God really is. The desperate need for a designer is not lost with the existence of Darwin’s theory of evolution; it is only exuded exponentially.
-------------------------------------------------
McCloskey also argues because there are imperfections and evil in the world, then there surely could not be a divine intelligent designer who created the world. In his article, he argues, “when formulating this argument they carry on as if the existence of evil in the world did 10. Ibid., p. 79. 11. H.J. McCloskey, “On Being an Atheist,” In Question Journal (vol. 1), 1968, p. 64. 12. C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (Contours of Christian Philosophy), 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 83.
Cooke 7
-------------------------------------------------
not seriously tell against the perfection of the diving design or divine purpose as revealed in the world.”13 Although his point is well-taken, it is clear McCloskey is venturing into an irrelevant area of the argument. Much like the cosmological argument, the teleological argument is simply arguing the cause of the universe. Neither the cosmological nor the teleological arguments are meant to give detailed knowledge of who God is or reveal His perfection or divineness.
-------------------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
-------------------------------------------------
One very important topic that McCloskey spends a significant amount of effort on in his article is that of the existence of evil. It is quite apparent that McCloskey struggles with the logical form of the problem. He questions the concept of a perfect, omnipotent God who would allow evil in the world. He writes, “no being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was avoidable suffering or in which his creations would (and who could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.”14 In addition to his inquiry regarding the logical form of the question, McCloskey also discusses the argument of free will. In his article, he asks, “Is it not the case that complete virtue is compatible with the possession of free will, might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased men to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?”15 McCloskey is on the right track in questioning how a perfect God could be the author of evil. What McCloskey does not recognize is that God could not create evil nor could He, in creating humanity, create anything else but a free-will human. Evil is due to the Fall of Man, not to God. 13. H.J. McCloskey, “On Being an Atheist,” In Question Journal (vol. 1), 1968, p. 64. 14. Ibid., p. 65. 15. Ibid., p. 66.
Cooke 8
-------------------------------------------------
God gives humans free will because He wants them to love and worship Him, not because they have to, but because they want to. Evans and Manis explain that “God allows humans to act freely because, without doing so, humans could not be morally responsible agents, capable of freely doing good by responding to and loving their neighbors and their Creator.”16 Humans are not “puppets on a string.” God wants them to make their own choices. However, with those freedoms, humans can choose to do evil. Clearly, this proves that the simultaneous existence of both God and evil are not logically contradictory.
-------------------------------------------------
ATHEISM AS COMFORTING
-------------------------------------------------
As McCloskey ends his article, he makes a very deluding point that atheism is more comforting than theism. He states in response to an example he earlier made in his article regarding sickness of a family member or yourself that “instead of cold comfort in religious belief, the atheist in such a situation would seek and receive strength and comfort from where it is available, from those able to give it, his friends and men of good will.”17 However, what McCloskey fails to see in this analogy is that eventually, this family member or he will die and for the atheist, there is nothing else to believe in. If there is no God, there is no heaven or hell and there is no eternal life. Craig says in reference to a life without God, “it means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose.”18 One must wonder why a 16. C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (Contours of Christian Philosophy), 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 83. 17. H.J. McCloskey, “On Being an Atheist,” in Question Journal (vol. 1), 1968, p. 68. 18. William Lane Craig, “The Absurdity of Life Without God,” in Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and
Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 72.

Cooke 9
-------------------------------------------------
person would choose to live without purpose. What do you have to gain? What happens after you die? The atheistic lifestyle could never be more comforting than that of a theistic lifestyle when thinking eternally.
-------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
-------------------------------------------------
Everything that McCloskey addresses in his article seeks to argue the past and present. As he ends his article, McCloskey seeks comfort those while living on earth. There is no mention of life after death, most likely because of his unbelief of such things. However, if his beliefs are untrue, McCloskey and those who follow his teachings will be eternally damned to a life in hell. The stakes are too high. Craig states, “It seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness.”19 There are many philosophical questions that will always exist concerning theism. The cosmological and teleological arguments are just a small part of the controversies that surround the existence of a Supreme Being. There will always be evil in the world. There will always be philosophical questions and there will always be those who question the existence of a God. Thankfully, there will also always be a God. It is our duty as Christian philosophers to argue our point with respect, but never giving in to the falsities of others’ teachings. It is our job, through our arguments to see that, as many as will, come to a saving knowledge of God’s existence and His love for all mankind. 19. Ibid., p. 86

Cooke 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Craig, William Lane. “The Absurdity of Life Without God.” In Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Evans, C. Stephen & Manis, R. Zachary. Philosophy of Religion, Second Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. McCloskey, H. J. "On Being an Atheist." In Question Journal, 1968.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Does God Exist

...Arvin D. Medlock Jr. PHIL 201-DO2 Professor R.D. Kuykendall 5 May 3, 2015 McCloskey Response Paper “On Being an Atheist” Does God Exist? That is the question we face! For many years Theists and Atheist have debated this question for many years along with their central views and beliefs that we as human being rely on as it relates to Life and God. The Point of views and debates center around the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological argument (argument from Design) and the most debated argument as it relates to this topic called the Problem with evil? When questioning wither or not God Exist these traditional arguments play significant roles in investigating and proving or discrediting someone’s view or stance on this specific Philosophical belief. As you read McCloskey article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the Theist stance who believe in the Existence of God from the perspective view of an Atheist. McCloskey in writing this Article is not trying to discredit their belief in the Existence of God, but to raise questions, doubts and uncertainties concerning their arguments on which they stand on to prove their belief by ultimately concluding that the Theist arguments are not valid and should be disregarded as evidence to prove their belief in the existence of God. The problem with McCloskey argument against the argument of Theistic View is the Theist argument is not to literally prove their belief concretely on the existence of God, but there view is design to give...

Words: 2421 - Pages: 10

Free Essay

Response Paper Phil 201

...A Response to the Article: "On Being An Atheist" by H. J. McCloskey Joshua Cottrell PHIL 201-D32 Professor Pensgard August 12, 2013 The belief in a Creator and a literal God has been a subject of many arguments down through the centuries. Despite a written record and a large contingency of believers, there has arose a strong group of people who believe there is no God and that man just happens to exist and that there is nothing beyond this life. In 1968 H.J. McCloskey published an article entitled "On Being an Atheist". He argued that theories such as the Cosmological or Teleological arguments did nothing to prove in his mind the presence of God. He strongly believed that evil further cemented the idea that a righteous God did not exist. With his writing he attempted to empower the atheist and once and for all prove that God did not exist. I. "Proofs" McCloskey indentified theistic arguments for God as "proofs", and in so doing opened himself up to much scrutiny. He quotes a colleague as saying "...most theists do not come to believe in God by reflecting on the proofs, but to come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors." I do not believe that his colleague was referring necessarily to Cosmological or Teleological arguments as "proofs", as McCloskey ends of doing. I believe his associate was merely stating that most people do not come to religion because they see the sky and think there must be a Creator. There are a number of factor...

Words: 2242 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

A Response to Hj Mccloskey’s “on Being an Atheist”

...in doing so? The question of God’s very existence has been discussed throughout time. H.J. McCloskey, an atheist, expounds on this matter in his article “On Being an Atheist.” Of course this article is from the atheist point of view. McCloskey alleges that atheism is a more agreeable explanation of the world than theism, and the very existence of God must be dismissed. He believes this because of the presence of evil in the world and states that without definitive “proofs” God therefore cannot exist. McCloskey refers to arguments for God’s existence as “proofs.” I believe that McCloskey stresses this word to much. The term “proof” comes from the field of mathematics and it implicates certainty. For example 5 + 2 = 7 and 2 + 5 = 7 is a math formula that can be proved. It is a formula that can be proven according to the addition property of mathematics. The reality of God is not that simple. One should not look to prove his existence, but one should look to present the ideal that God is the best explanation for the world and life itself. A theist could do this by overlapping multiple ideas and together there is enough strength to present an argument for God being the best explanation for the world. McCloskey presents the following on the cosmological argument: He claims that “the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” (McCloskey, H.J., 1968, pg. 51). C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis present a non-temporal form of...

Words: 1838 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Response Paper to Mccloskey

...Response Paper McCloskey Article Liberty University Philosophy 201 Fall 2013 H.J. McCloskey (1968) in his article on being an Atheist aimed to prove atheism a more viable belief than the Christian worldview. McCloskey disputed the three theistic proofs: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design. McCloskey called attention to the presence of evil in a world made by God. He went further saying that it was nonsensical to live by faith. McCloskey contended that proofs were not the reason that people have faith in God but rather people come to rely on religion because of other circumstances in life. In spite of this, the three arguments, show great validity in supporting the God of Christianity’s existence. Examining this from the cumulative case point, there is no for sure argument that supports the existence of God of Christianity but, placing all viewpoints together cumulatively, the case is quite formidable. The Cosmological argument contends that the creator of the universe, the cosmos, is God and God alone. The Teleological Argument expresses an intelligent creator and the argument of morality display how God is an interpersonal, morally flawless God. This supporting information gives some clarity of how the universe was created. According to McCloskey the Cosmological argument has many flaws because it is only based upon the world as we know it. From McCloskey’s perspective, just because the universe exists, doesn’t necessarily...

Words: 1458 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Response Paper Phil201

...Response Paper McCloskey Article Anthony Powers PHIL 201- C09 November 6, 2015 Response Paper McCloskey Article In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey attempted to prove how that holding an atheistic pattern of thought was much easier than holding a theistic worldview. McCloskey even referred to theism as a “comfortless spine-chilling doctrine.” Since McCloskey stated that proofs do not hold a vital role in the belief of God. I would question what would play a role in the belief of God for McCloskey. Since he believes that theists come to the belief of God based on other reasons and factors rather than just believing in God for a basis of our religious beliefs, then where does the Christian philosopher fit in? As a theist we are to move away from the point of proving Gods existence and rather explain why we hold to the theist view. Relating to Forman’s presentation, the best explanation approach is the best possible way to combat this view that the proofs should be abandoned. Although we may not be able to fully establish the case for the existence of God, we are able to give reasons to believe in the God of the Universe. The amount of proof that is necessary for McCloskey to form a belief of atheism, should be examined because like theism, it can not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The explanation of the beliefs of theism is most likely the best explanation as to why a God exists. Although there is many explanations as to Gods existence, the best way...

Words: 1687 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Response Paper

...Corey Rivera Dr. Matthew Arbo Phil 201-D20 December 7, 2013 Response Paper Does a belief in an all-knowing, all-good, all-perfect, and all-powerful God provide one with all the answers to life’s inexplicable questions? Conversely, does a belief in atheism offer any insight into life’s inexplicable questions? According to an article titled “On Being an Atheist,” written by the Australian philosopher H.J. McCloskey, atheism seems to do just that. In fact in his article, McCloskey not only bashes the classical arguments for God’s existence using the problem of evil, but also offers it as the reason why one should not hold to the belief in all-knowing, all-good, all-perfect, all-powerful God. However, as seen in the arguments against McCloskey’s beliefs in atheism, such a belief is not only a sin against God, but has devastating effects to all of mankind. McCloskey claims that arguments, named “proofs” in his article, offer no significant evidence to establish a case for an omnibenevolent God, and therefore should be disregarded.1 However, McCloskey is using the classical arguments the wrong way and in a manner they were not designed to be used. The problem with referring to the classical arguments for God’s existence as “proofs” implies a sense of certainty. These arguments were not meant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of God, as McCloskey believes. Rather these arguments take a best explanation approach for the existence of God. They simply argue the best...

Words: 2208 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

A Response to H.J. Mccloskey's "On Being an Atheist

...1 RESPONSE TO H.J. M CCLOSKEY’S “ON BEING AN ATHEIST” Tarnell Brown Student # L22657685 PHIL201_D44_200940 Sean Turchin Liberty University, December 14, 2009 Response_Paper_Tarnell_Brown.docx 2 It has long been the contention of the atheist that there are no good arguments for the existence of God. In his article “On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey seeks to nullify the classical arguments for God’s existence by contending that they are not rationally sound. He further holds that the existence of evil proves the impossibility of an omnipotent, all-good necessary being who has created the universe. This missive is an attempt to give refutation to Mr. McCloskey’s argument, also by means of reason and logic. It is the presupposition of the author that God does in fact exist, that He is a necessary being, and that the existence of evil in no way poses a problem to the logic of His existence. Mr. McCloskey essentially begins his argument by implying that the known arguments for the existence of a theistic God are made up of a series of proofs, none of which can be definitively proven. In fact, he is dismissive of such proofs, contending that “most theists do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors.”1 While this statement is most likely true, it is erroneous to dismiss the theist’s belief on the basis of its origins. In doing so, McCloskey commits the fallacy of genetics. At...

Words: 3927 - Pages: 16

Free Essay

Response Paper to Mccloskey Article

...Elder 1 Tonisha Elder Phil 201 Response to McCloskey article May 7, 2016 Elder 2 In McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey shares with us his arguments on why being an atheist is more comforting (if you will) than being a Christian. McCloskey believes that the three proofs (Cosmological, Teleological, and the argument from design) are not a basis for proving God’s existence. McCloskey discharges the proofs by saying in his article, “, theists do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors.” (McCloskey, 62). Although there are many ways that one could come to believe in Gods existence, thinking cosmologically, I can’t help but to look at Gods splendor around me or think of the universe, and doubt that God does in fact exist. In “Approaching the Question of God’s existence, Foreman says, “There are certain effects we see in the universe that show God exists.” (Foreman). Foreman touches on the fact that there is no one argument that proves one hundred percent that God exists. He goes on to share that these three arguments do have value, and when put altogether they all do prove to some degree that God does in fact exist. McCloskey attempts to break down each of the proofs to in a way persuade the reader on why these proofs are invalid. The first one he addresses is the cosmological argument. This proof or argument is the one that is most argued...

Words: 1827 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Respone Paper

...RESPONSE PAPER Catherine Cahill Philosophy 201: Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas August 8, 2012 Self-proclaimed atheist H.J. McClosky attempts to promote atheism as a superior belief to that of theism in his paper “On Being an Atheist”. McClosky begins his paper by referring to philosophical arguments for the existence of God as proofs. Right away there is a problem with this language and the usage of the word proof if one intends to argue with the majority of philosophers who present arguments for the existence of God or most standard arguments. The basic outline of a philosophical argument follows that an argument is either inductive or deductive. A deductive argument holds that the premise entails the conclusion and an inductive argument holds that a premise renders the conclusion likely to be true. Neither form claims to have empirical proof but only to convey validity and soundness of an argument to be accepted by one who is sane, rational and possesses...

Words: 2182 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Phil 201 Response Paper Mccloskey Article

...Response Paper Mccloskey Article Clark Hernanser PHIL 201 February 24, 2013 Ramon Graces Response Paper Mccloskey Article In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity.   McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, which are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design.   He pointed out the existence of evil in the world that God made.   He also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith. According to McCloskey, proofs do not necessarily play a vital role in the belief of God.  Page 62 of the article states that "most theists do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious belief, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors."  However, he feels that as far as proofs serve theists, the three most commonly accepted are the cosmological, the teleological, and the argument from design.  It is important to note that he considers these arguments as reasons to "move ordinary theists to their theism." (McCloskey 1968) This is not necessary the case and contradicts the former statement that most theists do not hold to these proofs.  As such, the attempt to dispute these arguments as a reason not to believe in God is almost not worth attempting.  If theists do not generally hold to these proofs as reasons for faith, then why bother trying to dispute...

Words: 2073 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Is the Existence of God Logically Consistent with the Existence of Evil?

...Is the existence of God logically consistent with the existence of evil? The existence of evil is a seemingly irrefutable fact of life, one which Davies considers to be “the most discussed topic in the philosophy of religion.”1 This presents the theist with a dilemma, forcing them to make attempts at reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and wholly good God with that of evil. Kreefy stresses the extent that this ‘problem of evil’ challenges theism, going so far as to claim that “more people have abandoned their faith because of this problem than for any other reason.”2 In the course of this essay, I intend to show that the existence of evil gives one sufficient cause to doubt traditional theism; and that one is rationally justified in doing so. In order to achieve this end, I shall identify the problem of evil, evaluating some of the major defences and theodicies proposed by theists and ultimately demonstrating that such attempts at accounting for the existence of evil are neither adequate nor convincing. The problem of evil is presented in two distinct modes; these being the logical argument from evil and its evidential counterpart. The logical problem of evil stems from the “contradiction involved in the fact of evil, on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other.”3 At first glance, this contradiction is merely implicit, being made explicit through the presupposition that if God were a wholly good being, then He would...

Words: 2152 - Pages: 9