Gauldin 1
Madison Gauldin
PHIL 201-D42 LUO
Lily Chang
Gauldin 2
Response Paper
How did we all get here? Was there a collision of atoms known as the big bang theory
which spun the earth in motion or is there a greater power, a divine being who deliberately
created the universe? That question that has been debated by theists and atheists for thousands of
years. In the article entitled, “On Being an Atheist”, H. J. McCloskey attempts to discredit the
existence of God based on his own interpretations of theist beliefs. Throughout his article, “On
Being an Atheist,” H. J. McCloskey takes the beliefs of theists and uses his own explanations of
them to dispute the existence of God. McCloskey analyzes the arguments and viewpoints from
the theist perspective. He goes so far to say that because of evil’s presence in the world, God’s
existence is disproven. In his attempt to discredit the theists’ beliefs that God does exist,
McCloskey uses faulty arguments because he does not approach their arguments through proper
perspective. He is unsuccessful in his attempt to undermine God’s existence because he distorts
arguments of the theists through his opinions of cosmological proof, teleological proof, and the
argument from design (McCloskey).
Many theists fall into the trap that in order to believe certain things including the
existence of God, there must be definite proof. McCloskey argues that Christians rely too much
on certainties for their belief in God (McCloskey). While there are many things that we can view
in the world daily which indicate God’s existence, there are many philosophies that theists hold
true that just cannot be proven. McCloskey indicates that these proofs should not relied upon for
belief in a true God. Truth is, we do not have one hundred percent proof that God exists. In the
presentation by Dr. Mark Foreman about approaching the question of God. He feels we should
do away with the idea of proving God’s existence. To combat proofs, Forman suggests the
explanation approach. “The existence of God is the best explanation to the effects we see in the
Gauldin 3
universe” (Foreman). This methodology can be used to verify things that we cannot see or know
with certainty. Our arguments that God exists fall short because we cannot physically prove it.
Instead of proving that God exists, theists can have faith in His existence because of evidence in
creation.
In general, the cosmological argument indicates that the existence of the universe is
confirmation that there is a divine being who created it. McCloskey claims that the “mere
existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (i.e. a necessarily
existing being)” (McCloskey). Evans and Manis present the non-temporal form of this argument,
disproving the non-existence of God based on the existence of the world. God is necessary. A
contingent being exists only if a necessary being exists (Evans and Manis). According to this, the
uncaused caused world is contingent, and is therefore caused by God, the necessary being.
Everything created has to have a beginning. Creation itself must have a cause.
Atheism is certain that there is no higher being in which all things are created.
McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-
powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey). Accepting this conclusion indicates one’s
desire to learn more about God. Without this desire to learn, the argument in nullified. If the
argument is invalid, then there would be many causes for the conclusion, not one answer of an
all-powerful, all-perfect uncaused cause.
According to the teleological argument, the intelligent design of the world is proof that a
higher being, an all-powerful God exists, and He intentionally created the universe. McCloskey
feels that in order for this proof to be true, there must be examples in the world to demonstrate
this as he states, “To get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose
are needed” (McCloskey). He feels the indisputable things necessary to show that an intelligent
Gauldin 4
designer exists are simply not there. This is an unreasonable statement. One doesn’t have to look
far to see genuine examples of an intentional designer of the universe. Science even lends proof
to an intelligent, higher power. There are many illustrations which signify God’s existence and
his creating of the universe. For instance, the human body is a prime example. The way all of the
organ systems work together for the body to function is simply amazing. The creation and birth
of a baby is phenomenal in itself. As you peek into the intricacies of those systems on the
cellular level, it is difficult to dispute that they were not put together in a complex and artful
way. The same holds true with plants, flowers, and trees and the way they grow, and how they
are needed for pollination. Everything in creation is dependent upon other created beings. The
universe shows definite evidence of order and design. The only reasonable explanation its
existence and function is because of an all-powerful, all-perfect planner.
Evans and Manis deliberate on the topic of evolution. In their discussion, they state that
while nature may drive evolution, the laws of nature must be driven by something or someone in
order to remain constant. McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a
designer. Evolution takes place over a long period of time. Simply stated, there are things that
evolution and natural selection cannot explain. Intelligent design is the only explanation (Evans
and Manis). The theory of evolution seems to point us more in the direction of an intentional
designer of the universe because there is order and dependency in creation.
McCloskey argues that because of the excessive imperfection and evil in the work, there
is no divine design. He states that if we credit the creation of the world to a designer, “We must
conclude that he is either a malevolent powerful being or that he is a well-intentioned muddler,
that the creator and ruler of the universe is either not a god but an evil spirit or a well-intentioned
finite being whose limitations result in a very disastrous consequences” (McCloskey). In his
Gauldin 5
statements, it appears he is sarcastically blaming suffering and corruption on God Himself. He
attempts to connect the cosmological argument with the teleological argument. In agreement
with the cosmological argument, it simply states that there is one Creator. There’s no bearing on
who He is or what He allows to occur.
Evil in the world is a very difficult thing to understand, and it is reasonable to question
the existence of a good and perfect God. For McCloskey and others, it is impossible to think that
a perfect creator would design a world where there is pain and suffering which could be
avoided. Evil in the world today is typically generated from people choosing immoral acts
which result in consequences that may include pain, suffering, sadness, etc. Some feel that if
God created the universe and is so powerful, why he didn’t design things so that evil didn’t
exist, thereby preventing harm, injury, and suffering. God allows his creation to have free will.
We have a choice to do good or bad. Unfortunately, choices have consequences, and such
consequences come in the form of sorrow, misery, grief, death, etc. While God is omnipotent,
He doesn’t control our every thought or every action because He chooses not to. McCloskey
questions why a perfect, divine creator would not create people to freely act on what is right and
good. This doesn’t make sense because that is not the definition of free will. Evan and Manis
state, “If God created a world in which it was guaranteed that no one would ever do anything
wrong, then “freedom” of his creatures would not have been real; it would have been some kind
of pseudo- freedom” (Evans and Manis pp. 163). Because of this free will that our Creator
allows us, evil is inevitable simply because no human is capable of making perfect choices in all
aspects.
McCloskey concludes his article by discussing his viewpoint that atheism in more
comforting than theism. He goes so far to state that theism is a “comfortless, spine-chilling
doctrine” (McCloskey pp. 63). However, in William Lane Craig’s article, “The Absurdity of
Gauldin 6
Life
Gauldin 7
without God,” there is an understanding regarding purpose. Theists believe everyone has a
purpose in life. Each person is given talents, abilities, and gifts that, when uses appropriately,
allow the person to achieve their purpose. Atheist do not have a purpose or they make up one.
They wander around in life doing whatever they wish because they have no standard. Craig
discusses that without God, there is no morality. He states, “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 pp. 74).
Living your life to please yourself often leads to destruction. It is ridiculous to indicate that
atheism is more comforting than theism. Without a moral standard and direction, there is no real
purpose in life. Christians have a purpose to live their life to glorify God; whereas, atheists have
no purpose. I see no value or comfort in the atheistic belief.
In summary, McCloskey attempts to persuade people that there is no God. He makes this
claim by attempting to invalidate the cosmological and teleological arguments, as well as the
presence of evil in the world. In doing so, he uses faulty arguments that borderline on sarcasm
and disrespect of the theists’ beliefs. His distortion of the theistic viewpoints fails to disprove the
existence of a divine Creator who intentionally designed the universe and all of His creation.
Gauldin 8
Works Cited
Craig, William Lane. “The Absurdity of Life without God.” 3rd. Ed., Wheaton IL: Crossway
Brooks, 2008, 71-90.
Evans & Manis. (2009). Philosophy of Religion Thinking About Faith. Inter Varsity Pr.
Forman, Mark. “Approaching the Questions of God’s Existence.” Liberty University.
McCloskey, H. J. “On Being an Atheist.” From Question 1, February, 1968.
