Analysis Of Mccloskey s On Being An Atheist - 1919 Words

In McCloskey’s (1968) article â€Å"On Being an Atheist†, the arguments for the existence of God are rebutted and some compelling reasons are given in order to enlighten some other atheists who might be struggling to defend their beliefs. Firstly, McCloskey (1968) opens his discussion by asserting that the three main proofs (teleological, cosmological, and argument from design) of God’s existence are not the basic nor the right proofs with which to arrive at a â€Å"vague† (p.51) conclusion that states the existence of a necessary being. These proofs have not been considered by the serious theologians, but instead, they have been the excuse of the parson (McCloskey, 1968). However, McCloskey misses the point made by such arguments by assuming that such defenses are a definite proof of the existence of God. To regard something as a proof, one must know that the argument being made is certain and incorrigible, but the arguments made by the theist are said to be defeasible, not incorrigible or certain (Foreman, 2012). This mean that the arguments can be regarded as true unless a defeater, which if it were true, would defeat the argument (Foreman, 2012). Then, if the classical arguments used by the theist to advocate for God’s existence are defeasible and not â€Å"proofs† as McCloskey claims, and no defeater has been shown to be true, there is no need to abandon such arguments. Secondly, McCloskey discusses the cosmological argument and states that there is no reason for believing that the