McCloskey Article Refutation
Lindsay Lefler
PHIL 201
Spring 2014
Lefler 1
Reading McCloskey’s article in light of reading several chapters by Evan and Manis
really allows for one to refute some of his arguments. One is not able to do this with just one
of the arguments that are used against McCloskey’s stance, but with several, as that is what
will give the strongest case. Although there are loopholes in some of the arguments, as a
whole they cover all grounds and give solid evidence for the claim that there is a designer
that created all.
McCloskey is a looking for an all-conclusive statement as to whether God does or doesn’t
exist. However, in support of the presentations provided, it’s safe to say that “proof” is not
the purpose of the Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments. To “prove” would mean
to be completely certain, and while these arguments do not prove the “certainty” of God’s
existence, there is much value to them. Alone, they answer few questions about specific
concepts of creation and morality, but cumulatively, make a strong case for God being the
“best explanation” for the existence of the universe and mankind. The “best explanation’s”
purpose is not to prove, but to enlighten, expounding on the evidence that the effects of
creation portray, that point towards a creator that is intelligent, morally perfect, and personal.
It would seem ignorant to completely disregard the validity of these arguments as a whole,
rather if one wanted to rebuttal them, it would be possible as they are considered defeasable.
These arguments are by no means “incorrigable,” meaning that it is possible for a defeator to
negate the validity, however there have not been any made that are qualified to do so. So in
reference to McCloskey’s statement that these arguments claim to “prove” the case of God’s
Lefler 2
Existence he would need to understand that that is not the purpose of these arguments as a
whole, and should therefore be considered for their true purpose.
Although there are some objections to the “non” temporal argument, overall there is evidence
that it is sound to an extent. In adopting this viewpoint of all things in creation being
“contingent,” meaning that their existence depends on the existence of something else, one
would have to come to a point of understanding that there has to be the existence of a necessary
being. “A necessary being is the only kind of being that requires no further explanation” (Evans,
69). There has to be a necessary being causing the existence of the universe, otherwise this
argument deals with the problem of “infinite series of causes,” which means that there is an
infinite continuum of the existence of things depending on the existence of other things and so on
and so forth. In supporting the viewpoint of Evans and Manis, one would have to realize that
though there are some inconsistencies in the different variations of their argument. However as a
whole, it gives evidence via the effects that we witness, that there is a greater cause by which all
of creation functions under. By the conclusion of this argument, Evan’s states that, “ the
evidence shows that the existence of a necessary being is the cause of the universe” (77).
Evan’s and Manis clearly state that there is a limitation to the conclusion of their argument.
Through their perspective, it seems states that if one decides to truly own this viewpoint, they
need to continue on to gain greater knowledge of the higher being that they place behind the
dependency of the universe. In the reading, it states that the conclusion supports some of the
many views of God. If there is an ultimate necessary being, than
Lefler 3
Would not He be postulated as being all-powerful, if creation depends upon it? It doesn’t
necessarily say that in turn that this alone is what supports one to claim that this cause is all-
powerful and all perfect, but when combined with the other arguments, it solidifies the notion
that this is so about the “uncaused cause.” Evans and Manis sum up the discussion by reiterating
the fact that this viewpoint takes into consideration the many views of God, and if this is so,
would include the characteristics of Him being all-powerful and all-perfect.
McCloskey completely rejects the concept that creation is the work of an intelligent, all-
perfect, all- powerful, planner or designer. Though Evans and Manis use the example of
inanimate objects as an example of this design, there are so many other examples that can be
used as evidence to support this argument. This argument incorporates three very important
components of something’s “ability to be.” These include complexity, order, and purpose. It
would be unreasonable to say that something that obviously exemplifies these three traits as
“indisputable.” Something that is “disputable” would fail to do so, thus proving McCloskey’s
case. It would seem that since there are so many things that exemplify these traits, that
McCloskey’s claim would be inconsistent with obvious evidence, and this unreasonable
Something that one could say has undeniably strong evidence of a designer is the concept of
reproduction. The design of the human body or an animal’s and its ability to “house/grow and
foster” another of it’s kind is indisputably intricate and undeniably exemplifies the necessity of
complexity, order and purpose. It is of this sort of example that Evan’s and Manis state as
evidence of an all-powerful and all perfect designer. With this
Lefler 4
example, one can use the “part-type” of argument, seeing as there are many functions within the
human body that are all equally complex that contribute to the body functioning
as a whole. To deny the significance of how intricately and perfect all the functions work
together would result in ignorance of how beautiful it truly is. Along with this, nature is also an
excellent example of intelligent design. Aquinas stresses both order and value in Evan’s book.
Value is described as, “the order in nature bringing out results that are good” (78). In Aquinas’
eyes, orders that bring about beneficial results are the evidence that point to a creator that is
greater than us, one that is intelligent and purposeful in His creations. Although it’s debatable yet
probable, according to Aquinas, “beneficial order does not occur by chance” (78).
McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. In response to
this claim, one could argue using a few different approaches. Some take the belief of “creation
science,” which claims to have a superior scientific explanation. It’s foundationally based on the
belief that divine creation ‘from scratch’ was the work of a designer (82). If McCloskey is
looking to understand creation and the way that it functions and adapts mechanistically, is it
insufficient to try to explain it in solely terms of natural selection or just by chance. Finally,
Evan’s and Manis make the statement that if the evolutionary process occurs to any extent, that it
“ simply increases our understanding of the complex and ingenious means whereby the designer
God realizes his purposes” (83). The way that animals and creation adapts as time goes on is
linked to this belief that God is constantly keeping an eye on the way that things function and
changes certain things in
Lefler 5
order to accommodate. If all of creation is contingent upon God and is “fine tuned” to the extent
that it would fail to exist without the influence of an outside force causing it to adapt.
The odds that life just “occurred” without a “starting point” and continue on independently
without any influence at all seems infinitely small.
In response to McCloskey’s question asking about God’s ability to have arranged a world
and a biased man driven to only choose what is right, Evans and Manis reply using the argument
between Mackie and Platinga. Mackie takes the stance of the critic, and questions the character
of God as being both wholly good and omnipotent. He states that God, if he truly was all
powerful and looking out for the good of mankind, could have eradicated all evil by creating
man to “freely choose” to do what is right. This belief is unsound, as this contradicts the concept
of free will and with that, the choice between morally right and wrong. Wouldn’t this take away
freedom as a whole, with man’s every decision being controlled? Platinga on the other hand,
believes that man’s choice is made outside the influence of God. The “middle ground” is the
belief that even if God had created man to make the morally right decisions, that somewhere
down the road, man would falter. Evans and Manis refer to the assumption that, “ a world with
both free creatures and evil is better than a world with neither, therefore God was justified in
creating free creatures, even though he knew full well that in doing so the result would be a
‘fallen’ world” (166). Using the evidential form of the problem concerning evil in the world,
Evans and Manis discuss the belief that God has a vast amount of knowledge about the
relationship between good and evil, far beyond what we are able to grasp. Just because there
appear to be
Lefler 6
pointless evils in the world does not justify in someone stating that there is no God. One cannot
come to terms with the evil in the world without coming to have an unwavering faith in that God
has good reasons for allowing evil.
To live a life of unbelief seems altogether way less comforting than to believe in a higher
being that is God. If there is no life after death, then there is no purpose in the daily lives that we
lead, seeing as they only lead us day by day closer to the grave. “ But more than that: even if it
did not end in death, without God life would still be without purpose. For men and the universe
would be simple accidents of chance, thrust into the universe “ (76). If there is no chance for
immortality, then the striving that people seek is really pointless, since the efforts to do right and
wrong and do not last or mean anything after death. “ In a world without a divine lawgiver, there
can be no objective right and wrong, only out culturally and personally relative, subjective
judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil” (75).
Therefore, for those that strive to do good, there is no ultimate reward, and for those who do evil,
there is no punishment. “The only way that most people who deny purpose in life live happy is
either by making up some purpose, or by not carrying their view to it’s logical conclusions” (82).
Since there is no purpose to life without God, this life becomes all about self –interest, and
development of their own “purposes,” which logically denies the act of self sacrifice if this is the
only life man gets and the days are numbered. With God, there is hope, a hope for a greater
ending than what meets the eye in this earthly life. Along with this, “Christianity provides the
two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life for man: God and
immortality. Because of this, we can live consistently and happy” (86). This is the area that
Lefler 7
atheism falters, the inconsistency within some of the beliefs. It would only seem logical to
believe that it Christianity that is more comforting, because ultimately, it leads to life rather than
death.
McCloskey attempts to defeat the belief in the existence of God. Although he presents
arguments with a direct approach, none of them are qualified as defeaters in relation to Evans
and Manis’ argument. The material used in the argument of Evans and Manis establishes a solid
foundation as to how the existence of God is not certain per say, but very probable when
considered from the “best explanation” standpoint. Through the culmination of the material
gathered from the cosmological and teleological arguments one finds that these also support this
claim, making it even more difficult for McCloskey to “defeat” this argument.
Work Cited
Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2009). Philosophy of Religion, Thinking about Faith. (2nd ed.).
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic Publishing.
