Mccloskey Article Analysis

When discussing McCloskey’s position on God’s existence, he views the arguments for God’s existence as proofs. He goes on to explain further in his article that the proofs of God’s existence fail to do just that. He states that the proof fail to prove anything about God’s existence and none of them can absolutely provide a solid case. There are three different arguments that McCloskey discusses in his article are: the cosmological argument, the argument from design, and the teleological argument. All three of them are similar in some way, because they are all trying to arrive at the same conclusion: there is no God. However, others can takes those same three different arguments and come up with an entirely different conclusion: There is a God who does in fact exist.

In philosophical situations such as this, the most effective way to explain a standpoint on God’s existence is to use an argument, not a proof. The goal is not to prove the existence per say; but rather to argue it from a philosophical position. This is one error of McCloskey’s believing that everything needs proof in order to be true.

In some philosophical positions, such as the philosophy of religion in this case, it is not the intention to prove something, but to provide the best possible explanation. Not everything in life can be proved, but everything in life has the opportunity to have a best explanation of the situation, standpoint, or scenario. What McCloskey’s position lacks is a openness to the best possible explanation and the possibility that with that, some things require faith in order to examine the best possible explanation.

McCloskey goes on in his article to state his position not needing to have a reason to believe in God just because the wor...

... middle of paper ...

...ost likely unintentional, does have a degree of faith in something. His faith appears to be in humanity and people, or in science and the evolutionary theory. In a way, atheism could certainly appeal to people because there is no moral standards that are found in theism, and there is something tangible (other people, themselves, etc) to see and believe. However, it is also worth examining that sometimes not believing in anything (atheism) would take more faith than believing in God (theism). Because with theism there is documentation that backdates and you can historically research the works of a God and see part of his plan that has unfolded, however, in atheism there is no greater being to believe. The belief that humanity is just here or that they have evolved is a bigger leap than believing in an intelligent designer that created humanity for a greater purpose.