On Being an Atheist: Arguments for and Against Atheism in H. J. Mccloskey's Article

In his thought-provoking article, H. J. McCloskey presents a compelling case for atheism, arguing that it offers a more comfortable belief system than theism. His exploration of the problem of evil serves as a critical foundation for his arguments against the existence of God. By analyzing various philosophical arguments such as the cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments, and the theory of design, McCloskey attempts to dismantle theistic claims. However, this paper will counter McCloskey’s assertions by demonstrating that the arguments he references do not constitute definitive proofs against theism. Furthermore, it will expose flaws in McCloskey's reasoning within each argument and reference William Lane Craig’s insights in "The Absurdity of Life Without God" to illustrate why atheism may not be as comforting as McCloskey suggests.

Analyzing McCloskey's Arguments

McCloskey categorizes the cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments, and the theory of design as proofs against the existence of God. However, his classification of these arguments as proofs reveals a misunderstanding of their intent. A proof should provide an irrefutable conclusion, yet these arguments offer merely plausible explanations regarding the existence of God. They do not serve as definitive evidence against God's existence; instead, they provide frameworks through which one can consider the possibility of a divine creator, particularly in light of the problem of evil.

It is essential to recognize that the absence of a complete explanation does not render these arguments invalid. Instead, they highlight the complexity of the universe and suggest that a higher power could exist despite the presence of evil. McCloskey's rejection of these arguments ultimately limits his exploration of the possibility of God, as he mistakenly assumes they must function as proofs rather than as potential pathways to understanding.

The Cosmological Argument: A Foundation for Understanding

The first argument McCloskey scrutinizes is the cosmological argument, which posits that everything that exists has a cause. He argues that the mere existence of the universe does not necessitate a divine creator. Yet, this perspective overlooks the contingency of the universe. As Evans and Manis articulate, “if we look around us at the universe, each object we see… appears to be the kind of thing which does exist but might easily have not existed” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 69). This contingency implies that the existence of contingent beings relies on a necessary being—God.

Thus, the cosmological argument does not claim to prove God's existence outright but rather provides a logical foundation for believing in a necessary being. By dismissing this argument, McCloskey fails to acknowledge the philosophical implications of contingency and necessity, which support the existence of God.

The Teleological Argument: Complexity and Design

McCloskey also critiques the teleological argument, which asserts that the complexity and order within the universe indicate a designer. He contends that no unassailable examples exist to support this argument. However, this assertion mischaracterizes the nature of teleological arguments. They are not intended to serve as indisputable proofs but rather as suggestive frameworks that indicate the possibility of an intelligent designer.

To illustrate the teleological argument, consider the analogy of a watch found on a beach. The intricate design of the watch implies a watchmaker; similarly, the complexity of the universe suggests the existence of a divine creator. McCloskey's insistence on requiring irrefutable evidence for teleological arguments is unfair, especially when atheists rely on the problem of evil as their sole argument against theism.

Moreover, examples of complexity in nature, such as the self-sustaining abilities of animals, further support the teleological argument. As Evans and Manis note, “animals can preserve and sustain their own life and being” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 78-79). This complexity, along with human cognitive abilities, points to the likelihood of an intelligent designer orchestrating the universe.

Evolution and the Existence of God

McCloskey's dismissal of the teleological argument is also rooted in his acceptance of the theory of evolution. He argues that evolution undermines the need for a divine creator. However, the theory of evolution does not necessarily negate the existence of God. One can accept evolution as a process through which God created and organized life. As Evans and Manis state, “the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply the means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 83).

Furthermore, there are numerous phenomena that science has yet to explain, such as human consciousness, emotions, and moral reasoning. These unexplainable aspects of existence suggest that there are dimensions of reality that exceed human comprehension, pointing toward the possibility of a divine creator.

The Problem of Evil: A Theistic Perspective

One of the most significant challenges to theism that McCloskey presents is the problem of evil. He argues that the existence of evil contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God. However, this perspective overlooks the importance of free will. The freedom to choose between good and evil is a fundamental aspect of human existence, and it allows for the possibility of genuine moral actions.

Without the existence of evil, many virtues, such as courage and compassion, would be impossible. As Evans and Manis point out, second-order goods arise from situations that require moral action. For instance, acts of bravery during crises, such as firefighters responding to disasters, exemplify how evil can bring about good. This complexity in human experience suggests that the existence of evil may serve a greater purpose within a divine framework.

Conclusion: The Comfort of Theism

In his concluding remarks, McCloskey asserts that atheism is a more comfortable belief than theism. However, this claim lacks soundness. The freedom of will allows individuals to take proactive measures in the face of suffering, such as seeking medical help for a loved one. Moreover, William Lane Craig argues that life without God ultimately leads to absurdity and meaninglessness. Living in a universe devoid of a higher purpose can be far less comforting than embracing the possibility of a divine creator.

In conclusion, McCloskey’s arguments against theism, while thought-provoking, fail to provide definitive disproof of God's existence. The cosmological and teleological arguments present reasonable grounds for belief in a divine creator, while the problem of evil can be reconciled within a framework that values free will and moral growth. As such, the claim that atheism offers a more comfortable belief system remains unsubstantiated.

References:

• Evans, C. S., & Manis, M. (2009). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
• McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being an Atheist.
• Craig, W. L. (2013). The Absurdity of Life Without God.