Mccloskey Article Analysis

Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.

Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence.

Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief. He is also not trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that God exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of God as it is an ‘a priori’ deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusion by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used.

Anselm and Descartes do not fully provide evidence to prove that they have this clear idea of God. It is very much possible that this is completely false and then both arguments would be incorrect from the start. However, despite this I still believe Descartes argument is more persuasive, and one reason is because Anselm’s argument is very vague. For instance, Anselm never explains what it means for one thing to be ‘greater’ than something else. This definition is necessary in order to agree with Anselm’s premise that there exists things in reality which are greater than things that only reside in the understanding.

Many philosophers have different opinions about how the two can coexist; some say under no circumstances at all, while others claim they can justify each other, and some claim faith is reason alone. Some philosophers claim that believing in God is an obvious choice by the claim that just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there like Blaise Pascal. Blasé Pascal and Clifford offer two completely different standpoints on the role of reason and faith. Blaise Pascal claims that having faith in God is an easy and obvious choice. Pascal claims that the reasoning to believe God is obvious, and claims that just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

The proof talks about goodness, truth, and nobility, which on there own are not proofs that God exists; they are morals. It forms a type of standard for morality, or for individuals to be aware of it, should they ever want to speak meaningfully about weather or not things or beings are good, bad, truthful, noble, or not. Modern science can explain many things. However, one of the things is yet to prove and will most likely never prove, is: why was everything was created? This is where God steps in.

McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument.

Peirce is concerned with what is practical, not the theoretical, because what is theoretical is not real to Peirce.” (Design) In conclusion, neither view on knowledge is improbable. Both philosophers believed that doubt and belief played a role in how we attain knowledge, the only difference being that whereas Descartes was looking for absolute certainty, Peirce saw it as is impossible, because there are only beliefs. We can never know absolutely what truth is, but we can believe something is true once we stop doubting it. I feel we see more of Peirce's ideas today because they do not need a foundation to be successful, whereas an atheist for example would have some problems with Descartes theories because they are based on the existence of God.

The development of such beliefs like the belief in the existence of God stems from various factors and reasons. One reason could be related back to idea of free will that every human possess allowing them to choose to believe if they do or do not have a majestic creator. Indeed, McCloskey in his arguments against the proofs is right that they do not prove the existence of God or religious beliefs. But, his agreement is inadmissible because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven given scientific reasoning. Just because there isn’t evidence for existence doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.

In conclusion, the modal ontological argument alone is not successful a proof of God’s existence. What it does, however, succeed in doing is greatly reduce the burden of proof on the behalf of the theist as they theist now merely has to prove that God is possible. This means that the other arguments for the existence of God now only have to show that God is possible in order to show he is actual. As such the Modal ontological argument is convincing at least when combined with other arguments for the existence of God.