H. J Mccloskey Essay
INTRODUCTION
Australian Philosopher and atheist, H.J. McCloskey published an article titled “On Being an Atheist” in 1968. In this article he offers arguments and what he refers to as “proofs” that a theists’ beliefs in an omnipotent, omniscient God should be disregarded. McCloskey bases his article on the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, on the problem of evil and ends his writing discussing why he claims that being an atheist offers more comfort than a theist has from a belief in God. This response will argue the truth and validity of the claims that McCloskey attempts to disprove in his article and will offer an argument to disprove that atheism is comforting.
PROOFS AND THE BEST EXPLANATION APPROACH In McCloskey’s article he uses arguments that …show more content…
a theist would use to defend their belief as what he calls proofs. He is using the arguments in the wrong way and in a way that they were not designed to be used. Accepting a proof as a certainty is not what was intended. It is intended to be used in a Best Explanation Approach. The best explanation approach does not rely on one argument or proof but combines several and used together builds a cumulative case approach. “The arguments only wasn’t to argue for the minimal qualities it takes for one to be called God such as God created the universe, he is intelligent, is morally perfect, and is personal.” This does not mean that other arguments cannot be introduced to defeat the initial argument but it is very unlikely.
McCloskey quotes a colleague in his article as saying, “…most theists do not come to God by reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other factors.” It is doubtful that his colleague was referring to the Cosmological and or Teleological proofs that McCloskey in the end does. His friend and colleague was simply trying to state that people do not look outside and see a tree therefore they believe it must grow there because of God or a creator. McCloskey refers to theists’ belief in God as naïve and says “if one knows nothing about evolution it is easy to fall into the error of seeing adaptation to environment as evidence of design and purpose”. While there are many forces of nature and reality that cannot be seen McCloskey is basing his belief in evolution on things that he can see. No one can see the air in wind yet, we know it there because we can feel and breathe it.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT While referring to the cosmological argument McCloskey claims that there are many things wrong with it. He tries to defeat it by saying, “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being,” he is referring to God as the being. He is saying in simple terms that the argument itself argues for an existence of an uncaused cause, or a necessary being. In order to have any contingent being one must have a necessary being that caused or created the contingent being. McCloskey wants the reader to believe that everything just exists, for no reason and with no cause. If we are to believe in evolution as he suggests, we have to expect a cause or creator of “The Big Bang Theory” and he does not have one. In the book by C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith they say “Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culminates in the causal activity of a necessary being-a being cannot fail to exist, a being that is because of the existence of all contingent beings. A necessary being is the only being whose existence requires no further explanation.” To state this in a simpler way, if you go to a fruit stand, it did not just appear with fruit. Someone caused the stand to be there, they built or created it, picked the fruit that is in it and placed it there for you to purchase. It was caused, not an uncaused cause as McCloskey wants to argue.
Although Evans and Manis can agree with McCloskey, that the cosmological argument does leave out some key elements in a theistic conception of God. They go on to say “…the cosmological argument hardly constitutes more than an entering wedge into the knowledge of God. If someone accepts the conclusion, the proper attitude for him to adopt is surely a desire to learn more about God’. They do warn however, that the person needs to be alert to how they seek the knowledge about God.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT The teleological argument is simply saying that where there is design, there is one who designed it. McCloskey argues in his article that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed.” As a philosopher, McCloskey should be aware more than others, that nothing is indisputable. Everything can be argued and should be argued. There is never a case of indisputable evidence. If something cannot be disputed, it becomes fact and no matter how hard you try neither logic nor reasoning would be able to dispute it. While making a claim for any argument, often other arguments and ideas arise. As a believer in the theory of evolution he should have experienced this. There are a multitude of questions still to be argued and defended on the theory evolution. Its very name suggest that it cannot be proven it is only a theory. The teleological argument is convincing in its presentation of intelligent design and beneficial order. “Most animals, for example, appear to be self-regulating mechanisms, designed to maintain their own existence and reproduce themselves.” This is easy to observe in nature, many animals act for an end which is an important characteristic of the argument. McCloskey argues in his article that “so many things which were, before the theory of evolution, construed as evidence of design and purpose, are now seen as nothing of the sort”. He is assuming that the theory of evolution is true and that random variations occur in nature that are passed down from one generation of species to another. With this passing down of genetic make-up the species would evolve into a stronger and greater variant of the original specie. However, Evan and Manis say “the evolutionary process, if it does indeed occur, occurs only because of the laws of nature operate as they do. These laws are themselves a clear example of order whose ultimate outcome is beneficial order.” While the teleological argument does not prove that God does exist, it certainly does not prove that a God does not exist. Evolution actually leads one to see a creator of intelligent design. McCloskey claims that the world is imperfect and evil by saying, “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose as revealed in the world” to argue against a divine creator. He is trying to use limitations of the cosmological and teleological arguments to support his claim. The problem with this is a limitation only sets limits, they are not designed to be used as proof that God does in fact exist they are only arguing that there is a creator of the universe. Although his claim is well made and understandable, he is using this argument to only muddy the waters and gain a sympathetic audience to help him support his claim. What McCloskey is actually arguing for at this point in his article is the logical problem with evil. He is saying that a perfect creator could not nor would not design the evil and imperfections that exist.
THE PROBLEM WITH EVIL McCloskey is overcome with the idea that God could not exist because of the evils in the world. He says, “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” McCloskey has assigned a moral attribute to God, one that is perfect and morally correct. He, however does not believe and in fact is arguing against a creator but seems very knowledgeable about the moral code designed by God. If a moral code did not exist what would McCloskey know about evil? If not for a God evil would just be an act and one would not be any wiser that it is in fact evil, it would be just an act, something that takes place in the world. Evans and Manis say that worldly evil and a perfect, all loving God are not necessarily at odds against one another. McCloskey uses the problem of evil as his strongest defense in his argument against theism, two theodicies are offered by Evans and Manis to defend theists. The first of these is the soul-making theodicy which says that God allows some evil for the greater good. The other is the free will theodicy which simply states that evil is caused by man’s sin .By itself the soul making theodicy does not seem to account for some evils and because of that Evans and Manis write “…most theists who advocate a soul making theodicy incorporate into their view another kind of theodicy as well: the free will theodicy.” God allows man free will so that they can freely choose to love and worship him. Giving them the choice to freely and not because they have to. “God allows humans to act freely because, without doing so, humans could not be morally responsible agents, capable of freely doing good by responding to and loving their neighbors and their Creator.” It is very doubtful that a finite human being could make a reasonable claim to understand or know why the evil exists in the world. If one knows God, through whatever means he came to know him, he might believe that God has a reason to allow evil. For an atheist, evil is strong evidence to argue that God does not exist. From a theistic point of view to an atheist “If he does not know God and God’s goodness, he needs to come to know God-through experience or perhaps through special revelation-or he needs to come to know God in a fuller way. If he already knows God and God’s goodness, then he needs pastoral encouragement that will help him preserve his faith.”
ATHEISM AND COMFORTING In the final paragraphs of McCloskey’s article he states that being an atheist is more comforting than being a theist.
For him and other atheists like him it may be. Comfort is a feeling or emotion and he may be comfortable living freely and not having to abide by a moral code. McCloskey 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.” However, in his comfort that he seeks from friends and family members there can be not eternity, no promise of a life after death. Refuting an atheistic claim that atheists live more comfortably and happier William Craig says the only way, “is by either making up some purpose---which amounts to self-delusion...or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusion.” Although one may seek and find comfort from friends and family in a time of sadness it is up to the ones that are sought after to offer to provide that comfort. The same with God. You must first seek him and believe in him in order to accept the comfort that he
offers.
CONCLUSION
The philosophical questions of whether or not God exists have been debated since the beginning of time. McCloskey offers several arguments in his article that he terms proofs that there is no God. None of these can be proven. If anything the argument he gives as to a belief in evolution is actually is based on a Supreme Being or creator at minimum. In the end it comes down to free will and faith. To have the free will to choose eternal life with God, for the believers or eternal life without God for those who don’t. That is a big gamble that should not be taken lightly based on proofs that cannot be proven. “It seems positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness and happiness.”
Bibliography
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, 1984.
Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009.
Foreman, Mark. "Approaching the Question of God 's Existence." n.d. Accessed September 27, 2014. http://bb7.liberty.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&.
McCloskey, H.J. "On Being an Atheist." Question 1 (1968): 62-69. Accessed September 30, 2014.
Australian Philosopher and atheist, H.J. McCloskey published an article titled “On Being an Atheist” in 1968. In this article he offers arguments and what he refers to as “proofs” that a theists’ beliefs in an omnipotent, omniscient God should be disregarded. McCloskey bases his article on the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, on the problem of evil and ends his writing discussing why he claims that being an atheist offers more comfort than a theist has from a belief in God. This response will argue the truth and validity of the claims that McCloskey attempts to disprove in his article and will offer an argument to disprove that atheism is comforting.
PROOFS AND THE BEST EXPLANATION APPROACH In McCloskey’s article he uses arguments that …show more content…
a theist would use to defend their belief as what he calls proofs. He is using the arguments in the wrong way and in a way that they were not designed to be used. Accepting a proof as a certainty is not what was intended. It is intended to be used in a Best Explanation Approach. The best explanation approach does not rely on one argument or proof but combines several and used together builds a cumulative case approach. “The arguments only wasn’t to argue for the minimal qualities it takes for one to be called God such as God created the universe, he is intelligent, is morally perfect, and is personal.” This does not mean that other arguments cannot be introduced to defeat the initial argument but it is very unlikely.
McCloskey quotes a colleague in his article as saying, “…most theists do not come to God by reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other factors.” It is doubtful that his colleague was referring to the Cosmological and or Teleological proofs that McCloskey in the end does. His friend and colleague was simply trying to state that people do not look outside and see a tree therefore they believe it must grow there because of God or a creator. McCloskey refers to theists’ belief in God as naïve and says “if one knows nothing about evolution it is easy to fall into the error of seeing adaptation to environment as evidence of design and purpose”. While there are many forces of nature and reality that cannot be seen McCloskey is basing his belief in evolution on things that he can see. No one can see the air in wind yet, we know it there because we can feel and breathe it.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT While referring to the cosmological argument McCloskey claims that there are many things wrong with it. He tries to defeat it by saying, “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being,” he is referring to God as the being. He is saying in simple terms that the argument itself argues for an existence of an uncaused cause, or a necessary being. In order to have any contingent being one must have a necessary being that caused or created the contingent being. McCloskey wants the reader to believe that everything just exists, for no reason and with no cause. If we are to believe in evolution as he suggests, we have to expect a cause or creator of “The Big Bang Theory” and he does not have one. In the book by C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith they say “Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culminates in the causal activity of a necessary being-a being cannot fail to exist, a being that is because of the existence of all contingent beings. A necessary being is the only being whose existence requires no further explanation.” To state this in a simpler way, if you go to a fruit stand, it did not just appear with fruit. Someone caused the stand to be there, they built or created it, picked the fruit that is in it and placed it there for you to purchase. It was caused, not an uncaused cause as McCloskey wants to argue.
Although Evans and Manis can agree with McCloskey, that the cosmological argument does leave out some key elements in a theistic conception of God. They go on to say “…the cosmological argument hardly constitutes more than an entering wedge into the knowledge of God. If someone accepts the conclusion, the proper attitude for him to adopt is surely a desire to learn more about God’. They do warn however, that the person needs to be alert to how they seek the knowledge about God.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT The teleological argument is simply saying that where there is design, there is one who designed it. McCloskey argues in his article that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed.” As a philosopher, McCloskey should be aware more than others, that nothing is indisputable. Everything can be argued and should be argued. There is never a case of indisputable evidence. If something cannot be disputed, it becomes fact and no matter how hard you try neither logic nor reasoning would be able to dispute it. While making a claim for any argument, often other arguments and ideas arise. As a believer in the theory of evolution he should have experienced this. There are a multitude of questions still to be argued and defended on the theory evolution. Its very name suggest that it cannot be proven it is only a theory. The teleological argument is convincing in its presentation of intelligent design and beneficial order. “Most animals, for example, appear to be self-regulating mechanisms, designed to maintain their own existence and reproduce themselves.” This is easy to observe in nature, many animals act for an end which is an important characteristic of the argument. McCloskey argues in his article that “so many things which were, before the theory of evolution, construed as evidence of design and purpose, are now seen as nothing of the sort”. He is assuming that the theory of evolution is true and that random variations occur in nature that are passed down from one generation of species to another. With this passing down of genetic make-up the species would evolve into a stronger and greater variant of the original specie. However, Evan and Manis say “the evolutionary process, if it does indeed occur, occurs only because of the laws of nature operate as they do. These laws are themselves a clear example of order whose ultimate outcome is beneficial order.” While the teleological argument does not prove that God does exist, it certainly does not prove that a God does not exist. Evolution actually leads one to see a creator of intelligent design. McCloskey claims that the world is imperfect and evil by saying, “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose as revealed in the world” to argue against a divine creator. He is trying to use limitations of the cosmological and teleological arguments to support his claim. The problem with this is a limitation only sets limits, they are not designed to be used as proof that God does in fact exist they are only arguing that there is a creator of the universe. Although his claim is well made and understandable, he is using this argument to only muddy the waters and gain a sympathetic audience to help him support his claim. What McCloskey is actually arguing for at this point in his article is the logical problem with evil. He is saying that a perfect creator could not nor would not design the evil and imperfections that exist.
THE PROBLEM WITH EVIL McCloskey is overcome with the idea that God could not exist because of the evils in the world. He says, “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” McCloskey has assigned a moral attribute to God, one that is perfect and morally correct. He, however does not believe and in fact is arguing against a creator but seems very knowledgeable about the moral code designed by God. If a moral code did not exist what would McCloskey know about evil? If not for a God evil would just be an act and one would not be any wiser that it is in fact evil, it would be just an act, something that takes place in the world. Evans and Manis say that worldly evil and a perfect, all loving God are not necessarily at odds against one another. McCloskey uses the problem of evil as his strongest defense in his argument against theism, two theodicies are offered by Evans and Manis to defend theists. The first of these is the soul-making theodicy which says that God allows some evil for the greater good. The other is the free will theodicy which simply states that evil is caused by man’s sin .By itself the soul making theodicy does not seem to account for some evils and because of that Evans and Manis write “…most theists who advocate a soul making theodicy incorporate into their view another kind of theodicy as well: the free will theodicy.” God allows man free will so that they can freely choose to love and worship him. Giving them the choice to freely and not because they have to. “God allows humans to act freely because, without doing so, humans could not be morally responsible agents, capable of freely doing good by responding to and loving their neighbors and their Creator.” It is very doubtful that a finite human being could make a reasonable claim to understand or know why the evil exists in the world. If one knows God, through whatever means he came to know him, he might believe that God has a reason to allow evil. For an atheist, evil is strong evidence to argue that God does not exist. From a theistic point of view to an atheist “If he does not know God and God’s goodness, he needs to come to know God-through experience or perhaps through special revelation-or he needs to come to know God in a fuller way. If he already knows God and God’s goodness, then he needs pastoral encouragement that will help him preserve his faith.”
ATHEISM AND COMFORTING In the final paragraphs of McCloskey’s article he states that being an atheist is more comforting than being a theist.
For him and other atheists like him it may be. Comfort is a feeling or emotion and he may be comfortable living freely and not having to abide by a moral code. McCloskey 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.” However, in his comfort that he seeks from friends and family members there can be not eternity, no promise of a life after death. Refuting an atheistic claim that atheists live more comfortably and happier William Craig says the only way, “is by either making up some purpose---which amounts to self-delusion...or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusion.” Although one may seek and find comfort from friends and family in a time of sadness it is up to the ones that are sought after to offer to provide that comfort. The same with God. You must first seek him and believe in him in order to accept the comfort that he
offers.
CONCLUSION
The philosophical questions of whether or not God exists have been debated since the beginning of time. McCloskey offers several arguments in his article that he terms proofs that there is no God. None of these can be proven. If anything the argument he gives as to a belief in evolution is actually is based on a Supreme Being or creator at minimum. In the end it comes down to free will and faith. To have the free will to choose eternal life with God, for the believers or eternal life without God for those who don’t. That is a big gamble that should not be taken lightly based on proofs that cannot be proven. “It seems positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness and happiness.”
Bibliography
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. Wheaton, ILL.: Crossway Books, 1984.
Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009.
Foreman, Mark. "Approaching the Question of God 's Existence." n.d. Accessed September 27, 2014. http://bb7.liberty.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&.
McCloskey, H.J. "On Being an Atheist." Question 1 (1968): 62-69. Accessed September 30, 2014.