Response to McCloskey's on Being an Atheist Essay

Introduction

Today, there exists various religions that offer different views regarding God and the existence of the Supreme Being. Many arguments give opinions on how the world came to be, and who they believe is its creator. Atheists and Christians offer conflicting ideas regarding this issue. This disparity manifests through the Christian belief in the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe and the atheism cosmological and teleological critique regarding their viewpoint. H.J. McCloskey, the author of an article titled On Being an Atheist, employs these rudiments to criticize the stance of Christians concerning the existence of God. In his argument, he asserts that God does not exist and that theism is a comfortless belief to hold. He continues to argue that there is no proof of God since it is not possible for God to create the world and allow it to be infected by "pointless" evil. That said, this essay will attempt to respond to McCloskey's argument regarding the existence of God

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

On the Proofs

McCloskey adds that most theists associate their beliefs to proofs (McCloskey, 1968). They explore things in the universe that will prove that God exists. He states that the followers of Christianity mostly base their belief in the actuality with God on proofs. McCloskey states that these shreds of evidence cannot bring one closer to God and that Christians should abandon them. Nevertheless, there exists some evidence that proves that God is present. For instance, there must be a natural order for the world to move around. In a presentation by Dr. Mark Foreman on Approaching the Question of God, he supports the idea of theists abandoning the use of proofs to justify the existence of God. By considering proofs, there will be complete certainty about the omnipresence of God. We still lack that degree of confidence. By disregarding the proofs, we can apply the best explanation approach as put forward by Dr. Foreman. That is, "the existence of God is the best explanation for the effects we see in the universe" (Foreman, 2012).

Hence, theists should employ this line of attack to uphold their belief since it is not possible to prove with certainty that God exists. In as much as there are opinions against Christian values, the believers still have evidence to reinforce their faith. The manifestation of these proofs is evident through the anomalies of the universe. Therefore, this cumulative approach can help Christians to affirm the presence of God. In affirming this approach, Forman highlights that there is no single argument that gets us closer to God. Thus, we should build a stronger case by incorporating various cases for God's omnipresence. A stronger case will help to steer believers closer to knowing that He is real. Even though no human is completely certain that God exists, there are reasons to believe in His existence.

On the Cosmological Argument

To begin, the cosmological argument primarily entails how the world came into existence. Whether through the works of a creator or by a loud bang causing the disintegration and integration of atoms. McCloskey states that those who are not conversant with the theory of evolution are easily brainwashed into believing that the world and every creation of the universe is a work of a creator and a designer. He further adds that the mere existence of the universe does not justify the assertion that God exists. However, even with extensive knowledge of evolution, there is so much evidence to support the claim. The world had to start with something and every creation must have an origin.

The universe itself is incidental, implying that it needs an indispensable being. Even though atheists are not critical of God directly, they do not recognize the authority of a supernatural being over humans. According to McCloskey, the planetary dispute ensures not permit us to recommend an omnipotent, omnipresent, uncaused source. Nonetheless, if one decides to accept this standpoint, he or she should show a desire to learn more about God. However, if they do not, then the argument remains null and void since that means there is no answer to the question about God's existence, but instead there would be various causes to the assumption.

On the Teleological Argument

That said, Evans and Manis stipulate that the universe shows signs of order and natural law that seems to be the work of a smart designer (Evans, & Manis, 2010). This statement forms the teleological argument regarding the existence of God. This approach highlights the structure of the heavens and how it came to be that way. According to McCloskey, there are no indisputable examples of design and purpose. In that, the fundamental things necessary to affirm the presence of an intelligent designer are not there. Conversely, I believe there are many examples that confirm the work of an intelligent designer. For instance, the structure of the human body should confirm the existence an intelligent designer. The design of the body is sophisticated to prevent self-destruction. For example, the blood cells are structured to fight off infections, whereas the kidneys help to get rid of harmful wastes from the body. The same applies to the animals. Hence, this proves that the cosmos adheres to a certain universal order and natural law to support its contents.

McCloskey, as a nonbeliever, suggests that there is no necessity of a creator for the world to sustain itself and everything within it. However, there exist some phenomena in the universe that evolution and natural selection cannot explain, and hence require justification by intelligent design. Even so, evolution is a procedural process. Thus, affirming the argument that everything works in order and that an intelligent designer controls its occurrence. However, McCloskey emphasizes that there is so much evil in the world that no perfect being could have had a hand in its formation. McCloskey blames the evil in the world including corruption, pain, and suffering to the creator. To refute this, in conformity with the cosmological argument, evil in the world does not relate to the nature of the creator or his undertakings, just that there is one; a necessary being.

On the Problem of Evil

Nevertheless, one argument that transforms believers into atheists is the problem of evil. In retrospect, McCloskey argues that it is not possible for a flawless creature to make a flora and fauna filled with pain and suffering, especially if such occurrences are preventable. On the other hand, McCloskey fails to understand that God gives everyone a free will to choose between wrong and right. The evil in the world today emanates from His creation indulging in evil deeds and that being in possession of evil materials may transpire as a consequence. There are many reasons why God could not have created a world in which his creations would not engage in immoral acts. For instance, Evans and Manis state that a perfect being always eradicates evil so long as it is possible devoid of the forfeiture of a bigger virtuous or tolerating an eviler act. Besides, evilness is necessary for the manifestation of goodness. Also, in as much as God is all-powerful, He cannot undertake what is logically impossible. It is stereotypical to believe that God can do virtually everything.

God cannot contradict Himself and go against the natural rules and order. Just because He does not have the power to perform certain things ensures not unpleasant that God prepares not be existent. McCloskey wonders why a perfect being like God did not create humans to choose freely to choose morality over wickedness. In responding to that, Evans and Manis say, "If God had created a world in which it was guaranteed that no one would ever do anything wrong, then the "freedom" of his creatures would not have been real, it would have been some kind of pseudo-freedom." By awarding us free will, God expects us to make our own decisions including doing what is good or evil. Otherwise, it would not be a free will. Therefore, by having the liberty to do what we want, evil is destined to enter the world.

Atheism deliberates that God would not permit pointless evil to prevail. If He were a perfect being, there would be no such thing as pointless evil. But, being that God works in enigmatic ways, people do not understand His plans and actions. This statement implies that what seems to be pointless to an individual may mean something to another person. God permits sin although humans do not understand his reasons for doing that. It is faith that strengthens our belief in God. Therefore, it is this belief that convinces theists that a perfect God would not allow pointless evil to exist without a purpose. In that sense, Christians rely on Him through faith by having an assurance that He is doing what is best for them.

On Atheism as Comforting

That said, McCloskey argues that atheism is the most comforting whereas theism is a comfortless, spine-chilling dogma. In the article Absurdity of Life without God, William Lane Craig states that "If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or a saint. Since one's destiny is ultimately unrelated to one's behavior, you may as well live as you please" (Craig, 2000). This quote implies that there is no good without a perfect being and that there is no limit in which to live one's life. A person cannot find satisfaction by chasing after our heart's yearnings. That only leads to self-destruction. God has given human beings the ability to decide on what is good and evil. Consequently, to say that atheism is more comforting than theism is absurd. As a consequence, there is no purpose in life without the deity or morality.

Conclusion

McCloskey is justified in his opinion as an atheist. He highlights some valid points on why one should disregard the idea that God exists. At one point in life, both atheists and theists have struggled with believing in His existence while immorality riddles the world now and then. Still, as illustrated earlier, just because evil exists, does not imply that there is no God. The supernatural being permits evil to happen for the greater good.

References

Craig, W. L. (2000). The absurdity of life without God. The meaning of life, 45.

Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2010). Philosophy of religion: thinking about faith. InterVarsity Press.

Foreman, M. (2012). "Approaching the Question of God's Existence." Liberty University.

McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being an Atheist. Question One (February 1968), 62-69.