1500 words paper

Response Paper McCloskey Article

The article on this paper comes from a well branded author by the name of McCloskey.

The date of the article is from 1968 and comes from a journal by the name of Question. The

formal title of this article is “On Being an Athiest”. McCloskey has written many articles in the

past from different perspectives and for different publishers. He has held a strong belief in the

concept that God and Jesus Christ do not exist. He has made this opinion relevant in many of the

articles he writes. As an opponent of the belief in Jesus Christ and God Himself, he tries to

convince people who do have a strong opinion on this topic why they should believe what he

believes. He is essentially trying to argue for the logical conclusion that God does not exist.

From McCloskey's arguments, the reader simply can see how having the Christian faith is

worse off than aligning with any other faith. He begins ignoring the good arguments for the

existence of God. In place of these arguments, he describes the definition of proofs. One issue

with proofs is that they do not support a credible argument do to their inconsistencies and

inability to give valid reasons. When investigating the findings of Jesus through archaeology

there is simply lots of support to suggest that his existence among other findings of his time are

true. From the article stated in this paper, it is clear that McCloskey gives arguments for the

design proofs. These include the cosmological, the teleological, and the problem of evil. His

arguments prove that he is trying to do more than simply have a debate; he seems to attack those

Christians for believing in the Bible. For the best interest of others, it is important to realize that

one must come from the mindset of having an open and caring attitude in discussions and

debates rather than having a vicious tone [1].

The first major argument that McCloskey promotes is the cosmological argument. In this

argument he thinks that “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such

a being [i.e., a necessarily existing being]” (1968, p. 63). From evaluating this statement, it is

thought that the universe is conceived as unnecessary. He thinks that believing in God is

useless since there is support of the world existing. This brings up an issue between the cause

and effect relationship. Evans and Manis’ discussion brings across other reasons to think of

another way that disproves the claims and statements from McCloskey.

Evans and Manis Give a good critique in response to these past statements. This comes

from McCloskey’s accusation in the previous paragraph. In support of this critique the age of the

universe is not considered which suggests that it will be in place for eternity past, present, and

future [2a]. In this sense this gives a reasonable argument for McCloskey. Furthermore, Evans

and Manis Do not believe and God is being a contingent being. In other words, origins and

presents is not relevant to the discussion since there is no solution to these findings [2b].

Further along in his discussion, McCloskey continues to say that the cosmological

argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (1968, p.

63). A few the people Might debate the truthfulness of the statement, however; scholars evaluate

but proposition closely. In context there's no validation in claiming that we are entitled. From the

statement of course it seems to discover a reason that is God like. The statements from these

findings do not necessarily disagree with the context of a being. Simply put this does not prove

anything. In summary, God's presence supersedes knowable cause, making Him an infinte being.

In retrospect of the cosmological argument raised earlier, it is also important to not forget

the teleological argument that is here to be discussed. McCloskey’s statement in this discussion

is that if one wants legitimate proof, a person would want “…genuine indisputable examples of

design and purpose…” [3a]. In more detail, the statement that is presented will not be lacking or

fail in real life. Hence, this lines up with evolution, but does not realize that evolution is just a

proposal. Therefore, evolution has no physical proof that animals, plants, and microorganisms

developed in this way. From this conclusion, many unanswered questions come into play from

the lack of solutions given by evolution. These include questions of origin and questions of the

time of origin.

While the context of this argument is not impossible to dispute, Evans and Manis give

great support for a universal designer. There take on this debate is quite different from what lots

of people might think. Along with much thought the writers say “nature contains many

instances of design. Designed entities are the result of a designer” (2009) [3b]. This approach

seems to be a good position since it is logical support for people who may be searching for it.

An ideal illustration might show how a picture and painter mix together, such as originated from

the minds of Evans and Manis. The painter is a designer of the picture similar to how life

illustrates the majesty of the designer. This illustration makes perfect sense since the creator

must be present for creation.

McCloskey deepens his opposing view of creation by saying that since there is evolution,

the creator can be eliminated [3c]. Evans and Manis argue that while McCloskey may uphold his

position, evolution needs a guiding force outside of its limitations of naturalism. Nature needs a

creator. Because of the orderly ways within nature, there must be a being who keeps these checks

and balances in nature in order. The world and the universe cannot progress and keep steady with

randomness and chance. People could say that if this was real, the universe would be all over the

place, since there is nothing to keep the stability of order and consistency.

Since there is evil and imperfection in the world, McCloskey argues that purpose and

design from another being does not exist. Many people seeking answers to this question would

take the most logical position on this topic, since they cannot figure out how God works, and

why events happen such as natural disasters or wars. To further understand this, people must see

that morality is different based on where a person is around the world. The teleological argument

shows organization, and proves that aside from location, evil is present. In this sense, if creation

was imperfect, God would not be perfect. This illustrates that the freedom given to man is

nothing more than evil if this situation is true.

McCloskey also basis a large part of his argument on the fact that since evil exists,

anything that is perfect could not have made the universe. His reasoning on this is that “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 to do so) engage in morally evil acts,

acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons” (1968) [3d]. People who do not

believe in God might debate that in all situations, God will be present if He is. People who come

to this resolution do not realize that they are avoiding discussing the fact that some things can

bring necessary results even if they are not meant for good [4a]. If people just sit down and

ponder on some things, how could good be possible if there is no such thing as evil? Knowing

this statement, it is important know humans will not be able to understand God fully, or get why

he does or does not allow events to happen in life. Even without this answer in mind, the answer

to God’s existence can still be solved without further questioning.

Even later in McCloskey’s argument, he also brings up the idea of free will and how it

connects to the lives of people. A quote from his point of view states “might not God have

very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always chose what is

right” (1968) [4b]? This quote seems to have the energy to gather lots of conflict and confusion.

However, Evans and Manis give some legitimate ideas. One of these ideas is that “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” (2009) [5]. In other words, if God gave mankind the ability to choose what is moral or

not, people would not have the free will given by God. This makes free will essentially false at

that point. In conclusion, if free will is a choice given by God to man, the choice as to what

happens with it is in each person’s own fate.

Throughout this past essay and discussion, McCloskey believes that a world without God

is more convincing than a world with God. Let’s just remember that he believes that life is better

without laws and consequences. To many people, this would seem highly concerning but not to

him. It only makes logical sense that if a higher being is in control of the universe, it would

create comfort to all people who believed in this being. In the opposite position, McCloskey

believes that not putting trust into a higher being is better even though it grants no peace and

security about life and the universe. In conclusion, I know that I am trusting that good and evil;

free will, and choice all fall into the hands of God. He has taken the time to create everything

that exists. For those who do not see this, they only have an uncertain future and nothing to fall

back on when things get tough in life.

References

Evans, C.S. & Manis, R.Z. (2009). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith [2nd ed.].

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

McCloskey, H.J. (1968). On Being an Athiest. Retrieved from Blackboard: