On Being an Atheist: A Critical Analysis

Running head: PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY
Name of the Student :
Name of the University :
Author Note :

1
PHILOSOPHY
The article, “On Being an Atheist” by McCloskey addresses all the readers that their
beliefs in being a theist is reasonable and comfortable than the contemptuous beliefs of the
theists who worships a God that does not exist. He ardently puts his arguments forward both
theologically and cosmologically. McCloskey also presents his reason for the Problem of Evil
and why bad or evil cannot exist without the concept of a “perfect” God. He states that all their
“beings” and Demi Gods that exists just need a reason to exist. McCloskey claims that the very
idea of humans that a superior being has created this Universe is absurd and incorrect. He refutes
the theological and cosmological beliefs of the existence of an omnipotent being often referred to
as God (Berman). He put all his arguments forward stating why he thinks that a creator is a
misconceived notion of man and faith does not help when one is in grave crisis.
McCloskey places all his arguments very tactfully and rationally. He argues that the very
fact that Christian’s opinions for God is something that cannot be definitively established.
Hence, anything that cannot be definitively established should be rejected. What he tries to point
out is that Christians are only making vague arguments without backing up their arguments with
accurate proofs. Stephen Evans had mentioned that the Christians are not stating anything that is
their own, rather they are only believing in the probability of a God or higher, superhuman being
(Bullivant, Stephen, and Ruse). After McCloskey addresses the notions of various proofs he then
specifically targets the cosmological and theological arguments. In his attempt to cite the
“defects” of the cosmological arguments he states that the existence of the world holds no reason
to believe in the existence of a superior being. He further mentions that if we study the very
nature of every object on earth then we would notice that these objects do not exists necessarily.
There is not a single living thing that owes its existence to another living thing. Therefore,
McCloskey is of the opinion that the very fact that these contingent beings should have a

2
PHILOSOPHY
necessary being in order to love and exist considering a string of contingent beings only leads to
infinite retrogress with no logical explanation to a cause. To this, Stephen Evans says that the
very fact that a necessary being is the one and only being whose existence does not require
further explanations. He says that there requires an ultimatum for the existence of a contingent
being only if there is an necessary being. McCloskey writes, “This objection is one way of
putting Kant’s criticism that the cosmological proof involves the ontological proof.” The reader
feels that he is actually correct. The cosmological argument, as it stands, is not arguing for
particular attributes of the uncaused cause. There is no room in the premise of the argument for
such attributes. On the other hand McCloskey is trying to defeat the cosmological argument by
stating that the ontological proof must play a factor in the argument. Neither is this stipulation
evident nor is it necessary for the ontological to be involved in the cosmological. All the
cosmological argument is stating (as laid out above) is that an uncaused cause must be the
explanation for contingent beings. Therefore, McCloskey has travelled quite a bit further out
past the limits of his own assertion.
He then focuses on the theological argument and says that, “To get the proof going,
genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed. There are no such indisputable
examples, so the proof does not get going at all” (McCloskey). What he tries to say is simply
that since the proof is ‘indisputable’ it should be rejected completely. As has already been
pointed out, the teleological argument is not being used deductively but rather inferentially as the
best explanation available. Moreover, since it is inferential, it does not follow that a proof must
either be indisputably proved or rejected. All that is necessary for an inferential proof is that the
proof be probable. Evans states that, “The arguments can be rejected, but the person who rejects
them pays a price. For to deny a proposition is logically equivalent to asserting another