H.J. McCloskey, author of the article On Being An Atheist, seems very well versed in his arguments against theism and his reasons for not believing in the existence of a God or Supreme Being. But when a Christian audience is presented with his viewpoints, there are several areas that come into question and become debatable. He points out flaws he sees in many of the arguments posed by theists for the existence of God. He finds both the cosmological and the teleological arguments to be logically inconsistent, and claims that atheism is a more comforting belief system the theism. But the theistic cosmological and teleological arguments both defend their logical consistency and the comforting assurance that comes from faith in a loving God.
The first misleading area in McCloskey’s argument is the fact that he continuously refers to theistic arguments about God and His existence as being “proofs.” Unfortunately, McCloskey is looking at these theistic arguments from a perspective from which they were never meant to be viewed. Theistic arguments for the existence of God were never meant to “prove” or give absolute, mathematical, certainty for the existence of God. Rather they were meant to discuss the plausibility of God’s existence, and what areas of the universe God’s existence could be seen through if He were to exist. (Foreman, Approaching the Question of God’s Existence).
McCloskey implies that because these arguments do not prove the existence of God, that they should be dismissed. But the fact is that Atheists cannot “prove” with absolute certainty that God does not exist, and yet the believe this whole heartedly. If the atheistic arguments do not bring about absolute proof to the nonexistence of God, then theistic arguments should not be held to the standard of giving absolute proof either.
127 our experts are availableright now
McCloskey goes on to object to the cosmological theistic argument by saying that just because the universe exists is no reason to believe that God, or any necessary existing being exists (McCloskey, 63). The non-temporal version of the cosmological argument disagrees with him. Because God is a necessary being (one who was not created and will never fail to exist) the cosmological argument says that the universe and all that is within it is contingent on the existence of the necessary being. It does not matter how old the universe is, or even if it has always existed, the necessary being is the ultimate cause of the universe.
No matter how long the universe has existed, it is not a necessary being (because it has the capability to fail to exist) and therefore it is contingent on the necessary being as a cause for its existence (Evans & Manis, 69-77). For this reason theists who are proponents of the cosmological argument believe that the existence of the universe is indeed reason to believe in some necessary being or God. McCloskey goes on to say that the cosmological argument does not give theists a reason to believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-perfect God (McCloskey, 63).
The fact is, McCloskey is absolutely correct, but the cosmological argument is not arguing for a all-perfect, all- powerful God. Although many theistic religions believe in such a being, the cosmological argument is simply arguing for the existence of a necessary being, no matter what the characteristics of the being may be (Evans & Manis, 77)
McCloskey goes on to object to the theistic teleological argument saying that the argument requires indisputable evidence and examples of design, but that the argument provides none and therefore it is not a stable argument (McCloskey, 64). This is not reasonable criteria to expect from this argument because just like theistic arguments are not looking to “prove” with absolute certainty the existence of God, neither are they looking to find any indisputable evidence.
The teleological argument simply discusses the possibility that if God exists, one would be able to see Him express Himself through His creation, and conversely, that perhaps looking at the natural world is a way to find God. Once again, McCloskey has missed the point of the argument. There are many examples in nature that can be used to support the teleological argument. For example, nature itself seems to be working towards an ultimate purpose, and each member of nature seems to have its own purpose accordingly. This is why animals continue to reproduce, and why physical functions such as the digestive system continues to fulfill its purpose of digesting (Evans & Manis, 78)
What is this ultimate purpose that keeps the world turning? The teleological argument says that it is God. McCloskey would argue that this is a bad example because is not indisputable, but it was never intended to be so. McCloskey then goes on to argue that the theory of evolution has done away with the need for a Creator when explaining why the universe exists (McCloskey, 65). Even if evolution is truly how the world developed, it still only gives a mechanical reasoning for the order of objects in the universe, and does not give an explanation of why they ultimately exists or what purpose they serve (Evans & Manis, 83).
In other words, evolution may be a good explanation as to how the universe exists, but still leaves the question as to why the universe exists unanswered. The teleological argument answers both. McCloskey then claims that evil and imperfection in the universe dispute the argument of perfect design and purpose given to the world by God (McCloskey, 66). But the teleological argument never argued that the purpose of the universe was perfection.
Aquinas’ support for the teleological argument does include what is known as a “beneficial order” or a process that achieves a beneficial result for the universe (Evans & Manis, 78). But if Aquinas is correct, and God does exist, then He would set the standard for what is beneficial, and the imperfection and evil that exists in the world would be part of that design. Therefore, evil and imperfections in the universe do not undermine the points presented by the teleological argument.
McCloskey claims that because evil exists in the world, no perfect or benevolent being could have created it (McCloskey, 67). He presents argument in a logical form, claiming that the existence of a good God and the existence of evil must be logically inconsistent. The “free will” theodicy says that much of the evil in the world is the result of humans misusing the freedom God gave them when He gave them the gift of free choice. Many theists agree with the “greater good” principle, which says that God sometimes allows justified evil in the world to promote the greater good or avoid a worse evil (Evans & Manis, 160).
Therefore a good and perfect God may not eliminate all evil if allowing some evil preserved the greater good. Therefore the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically inconsistent. McCloskey addressed the idea of the free will theodicy and posed the argument that God could just have created people to always choose good over evil, and always freely choose right over wrong (McCloskey, 67). But this statement in itself is not logically consistent.
If God predisposed humans to choose always right over wrong, it would no longer be a free choice. If the God of the Bible truly exists, He created humanity with the freedom to choose to love and serve Him. If they are predisposed to do so, it is not longer a free choice and therefore no longer a genuine choice towards what is loving and right (Evans & Manis, 162). If God designed humans to always do the right thing, they would lose their free will to make decisions, including their decision to love and be in relationship with Him.
McCloskey makes the final claim that atheism is a more comforting believe than any time of theism (McCloskey, 68). William Craig, author of the article The Absurdity of Life Without God takes an opposite viewpoint, explaining exactly why a world without God is depressing and hopeless. He points out the fact that without a God, there is no promise of afterlife, and therefore the universe faces nothing in its future except death and ultimate destruction. He also points out that without a God life looses its ultimate meaning, purpose and value (William, 74-77).
For what purpose does the universe exist if there is no intelligent design behind it? There can be no meaning in life if there was no designer to bring meaning to existence. What value can there be in life if it all just ends in death and destruction? These are questions that McCloskey should consider before he solidifies his belief that atheism is a more comforting belief system. McCloskey gives an example of a stroke victim who became paralyzed and would be much happier knowing that there was no God whose will brought this plight on the victim. But would this stroke victim not be even happier knowing that there is a God who is using his illness for his greater good and that there is an ultimately good purpose, meaning, and value? Finding purpose in suffering is always a comfort to unhappy humans.
Overall, McCloskey raised some strong points for the argument of atheism, but theism has an answer to each idea he posed. Because these arguments remain unresolved, it is best for those with differing opinions to respect and show love towards each other. Discussions between individuals with differing opinions is what fuels progress, and therefore is always a positive activity to engage in. Although there is strength on both sides of these arguments, perhaps humanity will never have concrete answers until the day that death itself reveals the answers.
Work Cited
- Craig, William Lane. The Absurdity of Life Without God. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. (3, ed.). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Brooks, 2008, 71-90. Evans, C Stephen. & Manis, R Zachary. Philosophy of Religion. (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Print.
- Foreman, Mark. Approaching the Question of God’s Existence. Liberty University. 2017. McCloskey, H.J. On Being an Atheist. Question 1. 1968.
