Running head: RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM
1
Response Paper on McCloskey’s Claim on Atheism
Sheryl A. Loftis
Liberty University
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM2
Response Paper on McCloskey’s Claim on Atheism
Does God really exist? This appears to be a simple question for some but perplexing for
others because it is a subject matter that atheists and theists have argued for many years. Often
when this question is asked, it will more than likely be accompanied with the question, “Can you
prove God exist”? The assigned article “On Being an Atheist” was written in February 1968 by
H. J. McCloskey. In this article he shares his personal objectives as to why he does not believe
in God as well as makes assessments of the cosmological and teleological arguments. His aim is
to convey that atheism is McCloskey’s focus is on the dreadful situations that are taking place in
the world presumably invoked by a compassionate and all-powerful God.
To address the question if God exist or not, it is essential to make mention of Mr.
McCloskey’s proclivity of alluding to arguments as proof that God does not exist. In his article
he abruptly disregarded the arguments that were given in support of God’s existence because
they did not conform to the level of “one hundred percent proof” (Foreman, 2012, pg. 2). We
must be reminded that having proof and an assurance is not necessarily a probability. Foreman
stated in the presentation that his “senses are reliable”, and they “tell him things about the world”
yet he still can’t prove that a lot of things are still true (Foreman, 2012, pg. 2). Instead of trying
to prove God exist, a person must attempt to give the best explanation of happenings in this
world. Let’s consider the universe; it has a system that works, and it is evident that the sun and
moon rises and sets at it designated time. The sea waves are ever perpetual, the days still turn
into nights and the nights turn into days, and seasons are constantly changing therefore all of this
must come be controlled by someone or something? In this world everything happens by divine
order because God is a God of order. Yet, the question is still being asked, “does God exist?”
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM3
Mr. McCloskey utilized theistic proof to argue the existence of God but from the atheist
standpoint. The first argument he used was the cosmological argument. The cosmological
argument expresses an assertion for God with the belief that someone had to create this world.
The teleological argument is the instance for intelligence and the argument for design. Although
these arguments do not give proof that God exist, when joined together to assist one another they
both corroborate to become a resilient argument.
The cosmological argument is the theory that all things exists because something
provoked it to come into being, significantly stating there is a God who created this world.
McCloskey’s focal purpose for attesting the universe does not need a higher power to exist was
to eradicate a person’s need for God. The cosmological argument “does not entitle us to
postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey, pg. 51). McCloskey is
saying that this argument does not accredit to a belief in God. His stance on this is not rational
because anything that is brought into existence should have ties to the one responsible for its
existence. Although the cosmological reasoning does not give proof that God exist it can be
convincing leading one to believe that God does not exist. In our assigned textbook Evans &
Manis debate this claim by identifying that although the cosmological defense is not a evidence
that things exist require a reason eventually reverts back to the necessity of something that
suffices as the main cause of which all things exist (2008). The cosmological debate does not
intend to allocate a complete description of the character or attributes of God.
The teleological argument is the debate for intelligence and proclaims that because the
world “has a complicated design, it is indication that there is a designer” (Evans & Manis, 2009).
McCloskey said “genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” for this
argument to have any credibility (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 64). Nonetheless, this is not a
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM4
practicable or required quality for the teleological argument to maintain any authenticity. The
teleological argument does not intend to suffice as indisputable proof. Concluding from the
looks of the natural world, it is illogical to say with assurance that all things were created by an
intelligent designer and that no intelligent designers exist because of the lack of indisputable
examples of designs (McCloskey, 1968). I agree with McCloskey’s statement, “the teleological
argument cannot provide indisputable examples of intelligent design” (1968, pg. 64). however,
theists, do not see it this way. Even though McCloskey states there is no indisputable examples
of design available this is not a proved statement. The world is full of combined intelligent
designs. For example, living organisms, animals, and human bodies, and we see these every day.
They are all intelligently designed to perform and work together to fulfill its purpose of basic
living daily. When taking into consideration the argument at hand, these examples prove that an
intelligent designer does exist because the complicated performance had to come from someone
and somewhere (Evans & Manis, 2009).
Most of Mr. McCloskey’s article conveyed the problem of evil. It was one of the greatest
arguments he used against the theist’s belief in God. His focal point is that if God does exist, and
He is good and perfect, all-powerful and loving, why would He create a world that is full of
suffering and evil. Atheist can implement this as the basis they use to argue their point that God
does not exist. Who would design a world such as this one and create evil, let alone a perfect
and all-powerful God? Evil in the world being misunderstood could taint the character and very
nature of God. There are justifications for how the loving, existent God can allow evil in the
world, but we must dismiss the proposition that a good, loving and perfect God can or will not
allow evil to take place in the world. There are times when evil will be allowed for the common
good of the person and/or situation. We should also consider that sometimes the actuality of evil
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM5
empowers to a degree for what is morally good and just to exist. I believe, if this world did not
encounter any evil or suffering, we would probably have no guidelines by which morals could be
expected or acknowledged. What if it was God’s intentions that this world did not experience
evil or suffering? Would we have a need for God? Would we even take the time to get to know
who this God is? These are questions that I believe we should often ponder when we are
experiencing discomfort by way of evil and suffering in our lives. Even though we may be the
ones encountering what we call evil and suffering, I know that God is yet being glorified because
it causes man to run back to God for comfort. We will never be able to fully comprehend the
mind of God and why He allows us to encounter evil circumstances and situations but we must
come to a conclusion that if He allows us to go through it, He will definitely bring us out of it.
Things happens for so many different reasons but God is concerned about every detail of our
lives, the good and the bad, the happy and the sad and He is yet in control even when we have to
stare evil and suffering in the face. I have personally adopted the principle that if God allows it
there must be purpose in it. God in his great wisdom permits evil to exist that the good can be
practiced and upheld in this world and in our lives.
In his article McCloskey addressed free will in relation to the problem of evil (1968, pg.
66). “Free will theodicy is a theistic defense in relation to the problem of evil” (Evans & Manis,
2009). Free will theodicy supports that evil exists because God has extended to mankind their
own free will. It further claims that evil is existent because of man’s dissipation of the free will
given by God (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 165). However, McCloskey argues this point by
asking the question, “Might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man
to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?” (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 66). The issue with
this is, if God made mankind whereas he chose to always do what is right, it would contradict the
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM6
fact that he acquired his own free will. This action taken will eliminate free will from the debate.
God could have created us to always do what we know to do is right but it would diminish the
good that would be made manifest in our potential to act in our own free will. Free will is not a
bad thing as looked upon like McCloskey, otherwise God would not have allowed it. There will
be many times mankind will choose what they know to be evil because of the evil fleshly nature
that resides in us but there will also be times he will choose to do what is right in the sight of
God. It is at those times that will make him feel good about the choices that he made. It will be
paradoxical for mankind to have free will yet being coerced to do what is deemed right and
necessary all the time, it would be of no benefit when it comes to free will (Evans & Manis,
2009). Although, God gives us the freedom to make our own choices, He does not give us the
freedom to choose the consequences from the choices we make whether good or bad, it’s just
something we have to live with.
McCloskey made a major point as to why one should refuse to accept and maintain a
belief in God. The focal point of his argument was to prove why atheism was more comforting
than theism. The argument he presented in the article was that it would be disheartening for one
to put their faith, hope and trust in what seems to be an intelligent creator yet He allows evil
things to take place in the world in which we live. If one is watching a loved one slip away in
death his argument is they will not find comfort in their belief in God especially since He is the
one that permitted the suffering (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 67-68). Even though, McCloskey came
to this place of judgement that atheism is more comforting than theism it cannot be acquired.
This recommendation should be analyzed from a more comprehensive perception. In the article
“The Absurdity of Life Without God,” William Craig clarified how there is ultimately no reason
and importance to life without the very existence of God (Craig, 2008, pg. 72-73). He indicated
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM7
that becoming an atheist would produce an even worse dilemma because the person would not be
able to consider for their worth and purpose of living (Craig, 2008, pg. 78-79). Certainly “if God
does not exist, then all we are left with is despair” (Craig, 2008, pg. 77). Although this is at
variance with a naturalistic worldview, if one is to live a happy life, the atheist is required to
rationale that purpose and meaning in life does exist (Craig, 2008, pg. 86-87). Even though
McCloskey makes the point that atheism is more comforting than theism, Craig makes a point
that atheist can find no such comfort, for “if there is no God, then …the life we have is without
ultimate significance, value, or purpose” (Craig, 2008, pg. 72). Jesus told us that we will
experience trouble and tribulation but not to worry because He overcame so will we (John 16:33,
KJV). Therefore, we must put our faith, hope and trust in God, and He will comfort us as we
experience the discomforts of life.
In conclusion, McCloskey’s beliefs served a purpose for us during this assignment and it
served a purpose when it was written in February 1968. Just like God gave us free will, he too
was given free will to make the choices he made to not believe in God. The assignment
challenged me to dive deeper into the Word of God that I may continue to spread the Word
wherever He sends me. I realize that everyone will not share the same beliefs, but we have to
learn to respect and prayer for those that don’t believe with hope that one day they will come to
believe in the one and only true and living God. I am certain that this debate is something that
will continue for a lifetime, but we must stand firm on what and who we believe.
Word count: 2144
RESPONSE PAPER ON MCCLOSKEY’S CLAIM ON ATHEISM8
References
Craig, Williams Lane (2008). Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics. Excerpt Pg.
71-90. 3rd Ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books
Evans, C. Stephens & Manis, Zachary R. (2009). Philosophy of religion: Thinking about faith
(2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Foreman, Mark. “Arguments for God’s Existence.” Liberty University. Video Lecture
McCloskey, H. J. “On Being an Atheist.” Question One. Feb 1968. Pg. 64-68
