Analysis Of On Being An Atheist By H. J. Mccloskey

In today’s culture, the idea of there is perfect and divine designer that made the earth and everything that entails with it, really pushes people away. Not only has this idea been conflicted about in today’s culture. It has been especially trivial in past decades, an example of this is seen by H.J. McCloskey. McCloskey wrote an article about it called “On Being an Atheist”, which attempts to defeat the notion that there is a God. McCloskey first addresses the reader of the article and says these arguments he is about to address are only “proofs”, which should not be trusted by any theist. He then goes and unpacks the two arguments that he believes can actually be addressed, the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey also addresses the problem of evil, free will, and why atheism is more comforting than theism.
In the article “On being an Atheist”, by H.J. McCloskey, the author first says that these arguments for theism are only “proofs” and cannot be truly proven. However, there are certain things that cannot be explained and therefore an individual can use “the best explanation approach”. This approach suggests that since there are certain situations that cannot be explained, that situation can be said that it could possibly be caused by God. These things that cannot be explained such as the emergence of language in civilizations or the idea of an atom that we cannot neither see nor touch. McCloskey also addresses in his article the cosmological argument and how it can be disproven.
In the article “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey talks about why there does not need to be a cause to the universe and how it began. But, according to the book “Philosophy of Religion”, by Evans and Manis, both authors suggest the idea of ...

... middle of paper ...

... who then are we as humans accountable to morally?
In conclusion, McCloskey attempted to defeat the cosmological and teleological argument and tried to persuade the readers to embrace the view of atheism. That there is no God and that this life is the only one a person can have. He tried influencing people by asking why a perfect God make an imperfect world. Or why did God not make humans to choose the right decision automatically, so that they can avoid suffering? However, in the end, although his arguments are sound and he made very reasonable points. The facts remain that there must be something out there that made the universe and that has created us complex beings. This same being must have be able to give man the choice to make his own decision, even if it were the wrong one. There is only one possible being that could do that and that is none other than God.