Response Paper Mccloskey Article
Markanthony Rizzo
PHIL 201
March 7, 2017
Prof. Lockhart
RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE
Response Paper Mccloskey Article
The article “On Being an Athiest” was written by H. J. Mccloskey in 1968 for the journal
Question. Mccloskey is a well-known author of many works. Mccloskey is an outspoken critic of
the idea of the existence of Jesus Christ and God, and has focused his many articles on such a
topic. Not only does Mccloskey an opponent of the belief of such a religious topic, but he also
goes as far as to give other people reasons why they should not follow down the same path many
have.
It can be easy to see why H.J. Mccloskey argues that having no belief in any one
particular religion is better than Christianity. Mccloskey diverts from calling the existence of
God credible arguments, and instead uses the term poofs. One thing to understand about proofs is
that they lack evidence and are therefore unreliable and not credible. This is simply not true as
there is much evidence that points to the existence of Jesus through archeological finds, and
other such things. As stated in his article, Mccloskey discusses the teleological, cosmological,
and argument from design proofs. Mccloskey argues in such a way that shows he is looking for
more than to have an intellectual discussion, rather he pokes and prods at believers for believing
the Gospel. In order to get someone to listen to an argument and change their mind about a
belief, especially one that is close to the individual’s heart, one must have an approach that
appeals rather than attacks.
As for the cosmological argument, McCloskey believes that the “mere existence of the
world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e., a necessarily existing being].”
Considering McCloskey’s argument, the universe is deemed unnecessary. McCloskey truly
believes that because the world exists, there is no reason for believing in God. There is a problem
[1] Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
nd
InterVarsity Press, 2009. [2] Evans, C.S., and R.Z. Manis.pp. 70-71. [3] Evans and Manis, p. 77. [4]
Ibid., p. 80. [5] McCloskey. P. 67. [6] ., p. 65. [7] [8] McCloskey. P. 66. [9] Evans and Ibid Ibid.
Manis, p. 163.
2
RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE
through the cause and effect rationalization. Evans and Manis present strong evidence that offer
another way of thinking in opposition to McCloskey’s claims.
In response to such ideas, Evans and Manis offer an explanation that is deemed
worthwhile for an accusation made by the other party. What makes this evidence strong is that it
does not make any claim about how old the universe that we live in may be, which therefore
suggests that it always was, is, and will be [1]. This in return provides an arguable ground for
McCloskey. Furthermore, Evans and Manis strongly believe that God is not a contingent being,
meaning that where He came from, and how He exists is not worth thinking about because we do
not have an answer [2]
McCloskey continues to claim that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to
postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (p.63). Some may argue to the extent that
this is not true, but considering the argument, one must look closely at the statement. In regards,
there is no reason to conclude that we are entitled. However, the conclusion suggests a cause that
is like God. The words McCloskey utters does not shy away from the existence of such a being,
therefore not proving anything. Overall, God’s existence is not caused by anything and therefore
infinite.
While McCloskey raises the cosmological argument, it is also important not to shy away
from the teleological argument that is presented. His claim to such a topic are that to have actual
proof, one must have “…genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose…” [3]. In other
words, the evidence that is presented cannot be, under any circumstance argued or waver in
nature. McCloskey takes the side of the theory of evolution, but fails to see that it is just a theory
[1] Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
nd
InterVarsity Press, 2009. [2] Evans, C.S., and R.Z. Manis.pp. 70-71. [3] Evans and Manis, p. 77. [4]
Ibid., p. 80. [5] McCloskey. P. 67. [6] ., p. 65. [7] [8] McCloskey. P. 66. [9] Evans and Ibid Ibid.
Manis, p. 163.
3
RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE
and has no proof of any organism development throughout the idea. Because of this, many
questions arise such as how everything came to be, and when it all happened.
While it may not be deemed as necessarily indisputable, Evans and Manis raise strong
evidence for the designer of the universe. They take a different approach from what many might
resort to. Among much discussion, the authors state that “nature contains many instances of
design. Designed entities are the result of a designer” [4]. This may be one of the best stances to
take as it provides practical evidence for an individual who may be seeking. A great example
may be how a painter and a picture relate. The painter the creator of the beautiful masterpiece,
just like life is the masterpiece of the creator. All of this makes sense, as there must be a designer
for the design, and this is the argument Evans and Manis present.
McCloskey furthers his arguments with the accusation that because of evolution, there is
no need for a creator [5]. Evans and Manis argue that while McCloskey may hold this position,
evolution still needs something of some being to guide it. Nature needs guidance. Because of the
consistency within the laws of nature, and the back bone that is in place, there must be something
or someone who keeps this idea in check. Nature in return does not progress and function by
chance and meaningless happenings. One may argue that if this were true, nature would not be
consistent, because there would be nothing to keep it that way.
Within the presence of evil and imperfection, McCloskey argues against divine design
and purpose. This is an argument that many people would take McCloskey’s side on because
they do not understand how God works, and why certain things happen that may seem
devastating. To break this down, one must understand that good and evil is largely differentiated
within different social contexts around the globe. The teleological argument displays order and if
[1] Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
nd
InterVarsity Press, 2009. [2] Evans, C.S., and R.Z. Manis.pp. 70-71. [3] Evans and Manis, p. 77. [4]
Ibid., p. 80. [5] McCloskey. P. 67. [6] ., p. 65. [7] [8] McCloskey. P. 66. [9] Evans and Ibid Ibid.
Manis, p. 163.
4
RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE
anything, aside from that were to occur, evil would be present. In return, if creation were flawed
by evil, God would be imperfect. This would mean that the free will bestowed to mankind is
nothing more than evil as well.
McCloskey is a big proponent of the argument that because evil exists, any being who is
perfect and without flaw could not have created this earth. His exact statement is “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” [6]. Those who do not believe in God may
argue from the standpoint that in any circumstance, God should be there if He is. While they may
come to that conclusion, they are limiting themselves from the possibility that maybe some
things that are not meant for good, can bring what is necessary [7]. If one were to think about it,
how might good and what is moral be distinguished if there was not presence of evil? Knowing
these things, it is important to realize that we as humans will never be able to fully understand
God, or grasp why He does or allows what happens in life. Although, lacking this explanation
does not discredit or push away the fat of God’s existence.
As McCloskey furthers the argument, he also raises his point about free will and how it
correlates with our lives. His exact statement from this standpoint is “might not God have very
easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always chose what is right”
[8]? While this question may stir up controversy and irrational thinking, Evans and Manis raise
some valid points. One of those point 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” [9]. Basically, if God were
[1] Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
nd
InterVarsity Press, 2009. [2] Evans, C.S., and R.Z. Manis.pp. 70-71. [3] Evans and Manis, p. 77. [4]
Ibid., p. 80. [5] McCloskey. P. 67. [6] ., p. 65. [7] [8] McCloskey. P. 66. [9] Evans and Ibid Ibid.
Manis, p. 163.
5
RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE
to have made it that all men choose what is moral, the free will that mankind has is false and not
real. In the end, if free will is given by God, so long as the control is within man there is no
choice as to what happens with it.
Considering the past arguments and standpoints, McCloskey still clings to the idea that
atheism is more comforting than theism. It is important to remember that a life without constant
laws, effects, and consequences would be extremely uncomforting, which is what McCloskey
believes. What is in the hands of a higher being should bring the biggest sense of peace and ease
to any individual. On the other hand, McCloskey believes that not having that hope and trust in
God is far easier for Him to understand which may grant him peace. In the end, I know that I am
comforted by the fact that both good and evil; free will, and choice all rest within the hands of a
higher being who has taken the time to create everything that exists, rather than clinging to an
empty void that promises nothing but inconsistency and a lack of hope.
[1] Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
nd
InterVarsity Press, 2009. [2] Evans, C.S., and R.Z. Manis.pp. 70-71. [3] Evans and Manis, p. 77. [4]
Ibid., p. 80. [5] McCloskey. P. 67. [6] ., p. 65. [7] [8] McCloskey. P. 66. [9] Evans and Ibid Ibid.
Manis, p. 163.
6
RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE
References
McCloskey, H.J. (1968). On Being an Athiest. Retrieved from Blackboard:
www.learn.liberty.edu
Evans, C.S. & Manis, R.Z. (2009). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith [2 ed.].
nd
Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press.
[1] Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2 ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
nd
InterVarsity Press, 2009. [2] Evans, C.S., and R.Z. Manis.pp. 70-71. [3] Evans and Manis, p. 77. [4]
Ibid., p. 80. [5] McCloskey. P. 67. [6] ., p. 65. [7] [8] McCloskey. P. 66. [9] Evans and Ibid Ibid.
Manis, p. 163.
7
