Whether God exists or not has likely been a topic of discussion for many generations. The cosmological argument and the teleological argument give the main justifications for God's existence. However, H. J. McCloskey aims to reaffirm his atheism and provide refutations to prevalent theistic viewpoints in "On Being an Atheist" (McCloskey, 1968). The arguments for God's existence, according to McCloskey, are fundamentally flawed. He continues by saying that without concrete evidence, humans should reject the notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity. He contends that the existence of evil in the world serves as a strong indicator of God's nonexistence. In this paper, the author will attempt to counter the arguments presented in “On Being an Atheist,” providing responses to the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the problem of evil, and on atheism as comforting, with the support of works from other theist scholars, with the aim of maintaining that God indeed exists.
According to H. J McCloskey, the notion that God exists should be dismissed, simply because it has not been proven (McCloskey, 1968). However, it is fundamentally impossible to prove that God exists, considering His nature. God transcends human capacities and understanding. The scientific method, which J McCloskey quips should have proven the existence of God, is a human construct. Therefore, any attempts to understand or unravel God, from a human perspective, will fail. Although McCloskey makes a case by arguing that the ‘proofs’ do not completely prove the existence of God, it does not mean that common arguments for the existence of God should be dismissed. Scientists have been attempting to find cures for certain terminal illnesses. The fact that the cures have not been found does not mean that they will never be found, or better yet, that they do not exist.
On the Cosmological Argument
According to McCloskey, the mere existence of the world is no evidence for the existence of God (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis present a non-temporal form of the argument in three parts. They argue that there are some contingent beings in existence. Since there are some contingent beings, there must be a necessary being, which causes the existence of contingent beings. Although atheists may point out that the universe has always been in existence, Evans and Manis respond that they make no claims regarding the age of the universe (Evans & Manis, 2009). Atheists might also point out that if everything requires a cause, then God must also require a cause. However, God is not a contingent being, so that it is unnecessary to explain His origin. In addition, if we could explain or trace God’s origin, he would cease to be God (Evans & Manis, 2009).
Evans and Manis apply the principle of sufficient reason in defense of the cosmological theory. There has to be a final reason for the existence of a contingent being, including the associated series. While naturalism holds that there is no cause for an object’s existence, and that the object will come and go based on natural laws, the naturalists are unable to give reasons for the existence of finite beings. Consequently, God is the cause of the universe. In addition, God is infinite and has no cause (Evans & Manis, 2009).
McCloskey adds that the cosmological argument does not offer grounds for an ‘all powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.’ However, according to Evans and Manis, the cosmological argument is simply a theological theory to facilitate further study. It offers a place to start in any discussions on God as well as the origins of the universe (Evans & Manis, 2009). Although, there is evidence to facilitate argument for God’s existence, such can neither be proved nor disproved. McCloskey’s attempt to altogether dismiss the cosmological theory is misguided in its quest for definitive proof of the source of the universe.
On the Teleological Argument
With regard to the teleological argument, McCloskey posits that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968). Indisputable examples imply evidence and reasons that may not be contested. This does not seem reasonable, simply because God cannot be defined, especially not in the simple way that McCloskey and other atheists might demand.
Evans and Manis offer an argument that presents strong evidence for the existence of a designer in the universe. Nature presents numerous cases of design. Additionally, designed systems can only be due to the action of a designer. Consequently, nature is potentially the product of a designer (Evans & Manis, 2009). Evidence for the above counter-argument can be observed in the course of daily life. There are certain laws of nature that have remained consistent since man began to observe and record activities within biological and physical entities. In addition, functions in organisms seem to follow a set of rules, without which there would be chaos and disorganization. Therefore, the systems of classification developed by man are only possible due to the inherent organization within biological and physical systems.
McCloskey suggests that evolution effectively does away with the need for a Creator (McCloskey, 1968). Although the evolution account might be accurate based on existing evidence, it does not in any way dismiss the possibility of God acting as its guide. In addition, evolution does not go against the laws of nature (Evans & Manis, 2009). Consequently, evolution could be a tool for God to actualize His designs and fulfill His purposes. Evolution too would still need guidance (Evans & Manis, 2009). Some would argue that nature guides evolution, which would beg the question: who guides nature? While the laws of nature are complex, they have remained consistent, implying that there are certain pre-defined rules. Any argument that proposes that nature could guide itself could effectively suggest that we are under the whims of on omnipotent being. In addition, any suggestion that natural laws are a product of chance is potentially incorrect. If that was the case, the numerous disciplines that have emerged would be non-existent, since the principles that define them would change frequently, rendering studies untenable.
On the Problem of Evil
A major factor that McCloskey highlights in defense of theism in the presence of evil in the world. “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was avoidable 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, 1968). According to McCloskey, evil is tantamount to imperfection, and it goes against the perfection associated with divine design or divine purpose (McCloskey, 1968). In order to achieve some level of good, it might be prudent to permit certain levels of evil. If evil were not present, we would have no comprehension of good, and in turn no perception of the concept of morality (Evans & Manis, 2009). The above theories offer opportunities for further study. It is critical to acknowledge that the human mind cannot fully grasp God, including His thought process. Again, such incapacity does not imply that He does not exist.
The problem of evil usually presents a new argument regarding the concept of free will in the presence of a God. McCloskey presents the question as follows. “Might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right” (McCloskey, 1968)? However, if God had created a world in which he willed his creatures, particularly man, to always do right or good, then man would not have free will (Evans & Manis, 2009).
Some of the evil in the world appears pointless (McCloskey, 1968). Especially if it is meted out on the ‘innocent’ or it appears as senseless. Atheists would argue that if indeed God existed, he would not permit such evil. Consequently, he does not exist. It is critical to point out that since some form of evil seems pointless in the eyes of an individual, it does not mean that it is pointless (Evans & Manis, 2009). God exists, and even evil, no matter how senseless, potentially has a purpose. In fact, God, by his nature, will not permit pointless evil (Evans & Manis, 2009).
On Atheism as Comforting
McCloskey comes to the conclusion that atheism is a much more comforting stance than theism, giving the example that one would be happier to rest with the idea that God had nothing to do with the setback they just suffered. He adds that it would be more practical for men to seek comfort and strength from friends and ‘men of good will,’ who are able to give it, as opposed to from religious belief (McCloskey, 1968). However, concepts such as morality exist because of God, and not in spite of Him (Craig, 2008). Without God, murder would be no different from childbirth, just as a human being’s life would not be distinct from that of a dog. Murder and childbirth, held on the same plane, would be a hardly comforting scenario. Although different cultures have widely varied perspectives regarding morality, not all persons or communities have accepted God’s revelation. In addition, God’s definition of morality would not change based on other people’s reluctance to accept it.
Life without God would be devoid of purpose, as it would be equivalent to that of any creature walking the earth (Craig, 2008). God, therefore, created man so that man could glorify Him, with man occupying a special place in his creation. If man was not created by God, then every act or though pursued is meaningless, and will be wiped off the face of the earth, without achieving any purpose.
Conclusion
God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved. However, His existence can be argued for or against. Belief in God is a product of faith, similar to virtually everything we pursue in the course of our lives. McCloskey presents typical atheist arguments. Nevertheless, the concerns he raises are legitimate and ring true for most, including believers. However, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. In fact, it could in fact be an argument for His existence. It is also critical to point out that cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God are not comprehensive. Although H.J. McCloskey’s arguments against God’s existence are probably incorrect, it remains that God can neither be proved nor disproved. We can only debate on the matter within the limits of human understanding.
