Review of the Article “On Being an Atheist” by H. J. McCloskey Essay Example

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. " (p. 63)

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 them to theists? Continuing to do so seems as though he is motivated to prove a point few are not interested in disputing, and thus is purposely trying to set up theist belief as ridiculous; in other words, he is looking to pick to a fight. This is not an intellectual objective article. Bias necessarily forfeits intellectual objectivity.

On the Cosmological Argument: oMcCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i. e. a necessarily existing being]. ” Using Evans’ discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument (pp. 9-77) explain why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused). oMcCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not

entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.

McCloskey's criticisms of the cosmological argument The cause-effect rationalization understands a relation between things that are in existence, will come into existence, and pass out of existence.If God, or something else (a power, force, whatever) were part of the frame of causation already in motion, then it would belong to that which is caused by something else. The uncaused cause holds to that which is outside the framework of causation. Most philosophers hold that this first cause cannot be caused for the reason that it is outside causation.

Something would need to set forth in motion the ring of causality. If the premise stands, then such a first cause would have to exist necessarily, otherwise it would have been caused. This necessity is one of causal relation, as long as the premise is accepted.As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause. " (p. 63)

This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God.Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God. "

McCloskey's criticisms of the teleological argument The objections in this section are based on his want for "indisputable" proofs (p. 4) of

design in the same manner as there are supposedly indisputable proofs for evolution. The primary difficulty of evolution is that is has no proof of the actual existence of first organism development nor the actual pattern of this evolution. The whole theory is based on biological likeness between organisms. The weakness of this argument is many. First, the change from simple forms to such complex forms of diverse species.

The mere existence of evil in the world suggests that an all-perfect being is not perfect, otherwise creation would have no flaws. In effect, he is using the same argument from design and the teleological argument - that from the effects you can determine the cause. So if creation is flawed by these evils, and creation goes back to God, then God is flawed.McCloskey does not continue to prove or disprove any valid reason for accepting or denying God's existence. In effect, he is guilty of begging the question.

Is faith in a friend, based upon predetermined knowledge, really faith? The decision to trust a friend is based upon the rational of previous actions and the probability of this friend either repeating the actions or changing the actions. This is rational probability, not faith. Moreover, If we understood God and all his actions, then there would not be a need for