A Response to the Article:
"On Being An Atheist" by H. J. McCloskey

Joshua Cottrell

PHIL 201-D32
Professor Pensgard
August 12, 2013

The belief in a Creator and a literal God has been a subject of many arguments down through the centuries. Despite a written record and a large contingency of believers, there has arose a strong group of people who believe there is no God and that man just happens to exist and that there is nothing beyond this life. In 1968 H.J. McCloskey published an article entitled "On Being an Atheist". He argued that theories such as the Cosmological or Teleological arguments did nothing to prove in his mind the presence of God. He strongly believed that evil further cemented the idea that a righteous God did not exist. With his writing he attempted to empower the atheist and once and for all prove that God did not exist.
I. "Proofs" McCloskey indentified theistic arguments for God as "proofs", and in so doing opened himself up to much scrutiny. He quotes a colleague as saying "...most theists do not come to believe in God by reflecting on the proofs, but to come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors." I do not believe that his colleague was referring necessarily to Cosmological or Teleological arguments as "proofs", as McCloskey ends of doing. I believe his associate was merely stating that most people do not come to religion because they see the sky and think there must be a Creator. There are a number of factor that bring people to the community of religious faith. It may be that someone was raised in a home that required them to go to church. Another may have had a grandmother that exposed them to Biblical virtues. McCloskey misunderstands the basis for the arguments he refers to as "proofs". Obviously an argument can be contradicted based on the rationale of the person making the argument or based on the belief system of the opposing side. In his attempt to get the reader to believe his argument, he makes the mistake of mislabeling the theistic defense as "proofs". The Cosmological, Teleological arguments are not necessarily "proofs" but they use logical reasoning to help understand the theistic point of view. Much like we believe there is wind, but do not see it, we still believe it exists because of the effects in produces on our environment. If they were labeled as "proofs" I might find McCloskey's abandonment ideas relevant but since these are arguments I see no reason not to use these theories in arguing for my belief system. We will never prove God existence because faith must figure into the equation.
II. Cosmological Argument The first argument that McCloskey chose to attack is the Cosmological argument. McCloskey states "The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" , when referring to God. Conversely, while agreeing with the idea that there is a uncaused cause, Evans and Manis, maintain that this is not problematic but necessary to the foundation of the argument. They argue that the things that exist are contingent on the idea that something created those things. Evans and Manis argue that: "Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culminates in the casual activity of a necessary being- a being that cannot fail to exist, a being that is because of the existence of all contingent beings. A necessary being is the only kind of being whose existence requires no further explanation." To restate a different way, a building stands on the side of the road. In order for it to exist it had to come from a builder or designer. It did not simply appear, it had to originate a some specific time. What is different with Evans and Manis definition is that the originator always existed and will continue to exist, He is eternal. They further state, "the question about God is not merely a question about another entity but rather a question about the character of the universe as a whole." Evans and Manis comply with the notion that by using the Cosmological argument, people may come to their own conclusions about God. With this in mind, they stress the importance of acquiring more knowledge about God. McCloskey may have a point in his argument that we cannot "postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." As I believe the arguments he brings up fit with and work with one another, so I believe we must look at other avenues in which to defend are beliefs in God's omnipotence and supreme perfection.
III. Teleological Argument When dealing with the teleological argument, McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed." Based on his same argument one would have to see "indisputable" evidence of his unbelief. There is no indisputable evidence on either side, this is why it is an argument rather than a proof. It is highly unreasonable for an argument to indisputable, because if it was indisputable, it would be fact and no logic or reasoning would be able to deny it. Evans and Manis give a reasonable argument for an intelligent designer with the following reasoning: "1.Nature contains many instances of design. 2.Designed entities are the result of a designer. 3.Therefore, nature is probably the work of a designer.” While they themselves agree that this is not a perfect argument, and that you could argue whether or not design is just in the eye of the beholder. Taking that into account, even Darwin observed there was a seeming order and design to the universe. McCloskey also believes that the theory of evolution replaces the idea of a Creator. He fails to realize that if evolution is the correct theory as to the design and order, it would still need a designer. Much like a machine that is built to build shoes needs someone to put the parts together in order for it to succeed, so does a universe that has order and laws. As it would be irrational to assume that the shoe just appeared, it would likewise be that the universe just appeared out of nowhere. Evans and Manis say that the Teleological argument and theory of evolution can coexist because evolution could be "the means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes." McCloskey raises a question about imperfection and evil in the world, and argues that a perfect Creator could not create such imperfection. Why he brings this up seems to muddle his argument, because no argument is given in the Teleological or Cosmological ideas, that the Creator must be a perfect being. As a Christian I would point McCloskey to Genesis where sin enters into the creation because of man's free will. The creation was perfect and man messed up the completeness. Neither argument will suffice a rationale response to his question.
IV. On the Problem with Evil McCloskey continues to raise the question about evil. He states "No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” McCloskey is obsessed with the idea that a perfect God could not exist because there is evil in the world. I find it fascinating that someone who does not believe in God, continues to understand His attributes. How would McCloskey know that anything was evil, were it not for a moral code? I would argue that without a perfect God, we could not know what is wrong or right, everything would simply just be, without any real reason as to explain our actions. We cannot possibly all know the reasons why a loving God would allow suffering. Evans & Manis argue that evil in the world and a perfect, holy God are not necessarily at odds for the belief that God exists. One possible scenario for the existence of evil is the belief in the free will of man. McCloskey himself brings up free will, but not in a positive light. McCloskey says, "might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?” God could have created a world in which man always chose to good, but in so doing He would have removed "love" from the equation. He would have simply created "robots" from which no true love could exist. Free will allows man to choose for himself who he serves and in so doing, where his love and loyalty lie. When good is accomplished, man has chosen the good over the evil, and God's holiness has prevailed. Pointing out that for good to succeed there must be evil will not necessarily, win the argument for the theist. The unbeliever will then change course and argue that in much of the evil that exists, no good ever arises While believers too are outraged at the evil that occurs in the world this does not make them doubt that God exists. They also understand, that is they allow God to work, they can accomplish a greater good. Evil gives the believer a chance to show the mercy and goodness of God. Still we may not know every reason why evil exists, because it does still seem that evil exists only to cause heartache and misery. Evans and Manis put it this way: "If the theist has good reason for believing in God, then he also has good reasons for believing that God is justified in permitting evil. In that case, the occurrence of evil is seen as a test of one's faith in God."

The argument goes back to faith, and one must have faith to believe any argument. For the theist, this argument does not rest in the faith of arguer's mind but it rest in faith in an almighty God.
V. On Atheism as Comforting McCloskey makes an argument that atheism is more comforting that believing in God. He says, "Atheism adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, leads to a spirit of self-reliance, with a self-respect with demands that we comfort and help those who need such support, and to a furthering and supporting of all measures which will reduce or moderate the blows of fate."

While yes a sort of comfort can come from others who see your need and decide to help, I believe the comfort they are willing to share to be due to the love of God, shown from them. He believes abortion to be a way to reduce the blows of fate, by murdering a child expected to have some abnormality. He also believes that because of this and other modern science there is less comfort needed. Yet we have more heartache and more evil in this world because of a lack of moral code. Never in modern history have people hurt each other more than in today's society. Craig in refuting the atheistic claim that it is more comforting than believing in God says the only way they can live happily is "is by either making up some purpose---which amounts to self-delusion.....or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusion." Comfort that is totally apart from God is made up and has no purpose. How sad it would to believe that there was no God that did not care about you or your well being.
V. Conclusion With all the arguments and all the beliefs explored in McCloskey's article and the response from Craig, Evans and Manis, it all comes down to faith. Where do you place your faith? Is it placed in dealing with all the pain and suffering in this life and believing that nothing exists apart from it? Or is it placed, in a God who created your very existence and longs to have a relationship with you? The unmistakable truth of faith in your beliefs, return to free will. We have the ability to choose what path we take. Mr. McCloskey chooses not to believe in a holy Creator. I however choose to believe in a God, who created me and wants to comfort me.

Bibliography
Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Evans, C. Stephen and Manis, R. Zachary. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009
McCloskey, H.J., "On Being an Atheist," Question 1, pg. 51-54, February , 1968

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. H. J. McCloskey, "On Being an Atheist," Question 1, pg. 51-54, February , 1968
[ 2 ]. Ibid, 62
[ 3 ]. Ibid
[ 4 ]. Ibid, 63
[ 5 ]. C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. p. 69.
[ 6 ]. Ibid, 76
[ 7 ]. McCloskey, 63
[ 8 ]. Ibid, 64
[ 9 ]. Evans & Manis, 80
[ 10 ]. McCloskey,.64
[ 11 ]. Evans & Manis, 83
[ 12 ]. McCloskey, 65
[ 13 ]. Evans & Manis, 167
[ 14 ]. Ibid
[ 15 ]. McCloskey, 66
[ 16 ]. Evans & Manis, 163
[ 17 ]. Ibid
[ 18 ]. Ibid, 168
[ 19 ]. Evans & Manis, 169
[ 20 ]. Ibid, 172
[ 21 ]. McCloskey, 69
[ 22 ]. Ibid, 69
[ 23 ]. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. p. 82