“On Being an Atheist” by H.J. McCloskey: Response Paper

“On Being an Atheist” by H.J. McCloskey: Response Paper

Introduction

In order to justify his atheism, H.J. McCloskey presented a series of arguments in his article “On Being an Atheist”. The strategy he used in his article is to break down the claims made by the advocates of Christian God, in particular and Creator, in general. However, upon careful reading and analyzing his article, it becomes evident that he has used a little sleight of hand with his readers by over stating the case of Theist. He carried out this task by pointing out the proofs of God's existence and then pretends to be assumed by the point that they never prove the existence of God. People who are familiar with the philosophy of religion can grasp this trick of him. It is common that Christian Apologists do not make the case of God's existence by proving it but make it by “inference of the best explanation”. In this method examination of different explanations regarding given phenomenon is used. When it comes to the God's existence, origin of universe and the existence of moral values becomes the explanation for God's existence (Schaeffer, 1990).

Discussion

Cosmological Argument

The argument from existence is the first objection to the cosmological argument made by McCloskey. According to him, “the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being].” The choice of his words tells that he also believes the universe is there and will be there. However, this becomes problematic for McCloskey, especially when it is considered with the non-temporal form of the argument. The non-temporal form of argument places this case on the contingency of the universe rather than on its mere existence (Lewis, 1960). It can easily be observed that the universe if composed of dependent material or the matter that could not have existed alone. Sub-atomic particles, quarks, are its example. Universe possess infinite amount of quarks. It can easily be imagined that universe could have contained one less quark than it has now. Similarly, it can also be conceived that the universe might have possess two less quarks or three less quarks or might have contain only three quarks at all or no quarks at all? Through this thought experiment it becomes evident that quarks along with other sub-atomic particles are merely dependent or contingent unit which cannot be imagined as being compulsory in their existence. According to Evans and Manis (2009) as its name shows, cosmological arguments are the efforts to conclude the God's existence from the survival of universe or cosmos. Owing to this fact, the meaning of existence is shifted from natural to the supernatural by the apologists, along with from physical to metaphysical.

Just as a trail of falling dominoes necessitates a first domino falling, the existence of the universe necessitates, and is contingent upon, an uncaused cause. The ultimate question we ask ourselves is about the existence of anything that why does ...