lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Response Paper Submission
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Jorge David Tovar
Castro Phil 201-B16
Module/Week 7
Response Paper
The origins topic has been a very common source of debate in the world. There are
multiple ways in which to approach this debated topic. One of the most common thus far is the
theistic approach. This current of thought is based on the mindset that there is an all-powerful
God, who made the world and has a purpose for everything on earth he has created. Religion has
played an important part in this, since it is through popular opinion that a mindset spreads in
society and makes its way up to a recurrent worldview of those in a specific area of the world.
The theistic approach has the clear objective of answering important existentialist questions such
as the purpose of humanity, what it means to be human, what comes after death and most often,
where do humans come from? H.J. McCloskey has postulated several arguments that favor an
atheistic view of the world. In his essay titled “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey argues in
opposition to the existence of God and presents several of what he thinks of as false arguments
for believing in God.
Before approaching McCloskey’s counterarguments to the existence of God, it must first
be discussed why and how to approach the question of God’s existence. In the class presentation
titled “Approaching the Question of God’s existence”, the professor mentions one of the most
common ways to approach this question, which is referred to as the best explanations approach.
This argument takes an approach that uses God merely as a tool to explain certain unexplained
phenomena in the world, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the professor further
explains that the idea is not to use God as an explanation tool, but as a connecting point for many
events and things in the world. The professor speaks about God and states that through him,
nature, morality and the question of origins can be answered.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
On the other hand, McCloskey’s essay begins by stating that most if not all of the
arguments in favor of the existence of God are flawed and, specifically mentions a few of the
most used. For instance, the cosmological and teleological arguments and also reports that the
argument for design should be considered separate from the teleological argument. McCloskey
also mentions that because of the fact that these arguments cannot be proven to be true, the case
for God should be abandoned and there should be no debate on whether this argument can be
logically argued for. Relatedly, McCloskey uses the problem of evil as a discussion point to
argue against the existence of God. The author of the essay also performs an emotional appeal to
his readers, stating at the end of the essay that atheism is comforting and easier to live with than
theism.
The first argument that is touched on by McCloskey is the cosmological. He states that
this argument does not have a clear objective to justify God’s existence, but rather, is an
explanation of the world as it is now. He also reports that the world does not reveal God to
people, as theists think it does. He notes that just because a place like the earth exists, does not
qualify for a reason to believe that an omnipotent God exists. McCloskey continues to argue
against the cosmological argument by stating that the evil in the world directly points to a creator
who is evil itself. This idea is opposite to what most theists think, given the fact that God is
usually thought of as being the benefactor, loving and benevolent God that adores humanity. He
states that according to the suffering of humans and animals alike, the existence of a benevolent
God is unlikely and therefore, should be dismissed. However, theists claim that God and evil or
suffering can exist at the same time, these two must not be mutually exclusive.
The second argument debated by McCloskey is the teleological argument, which states
that the existence of God can be demonstrated by observing the order and design in nature.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
McCloskey argues that there are not any examples of actual design, however, he does not
articulate further on why this argument specifically should be discarded. He emphasizes that
there are no indisputable examples that are able to demonstrate the existence of a designer God
or purposeful existence. His standard of disputability is vague, since he does not specify why, or
which examples do not fit the definition of purposeful design. The teleological argument is not
necessarily used to justify God’s existence completely, is used as a clue for what could be, due
to the degree of functionally perfect organisms observed in nature. An example of this would be
the similar working in the nervous system in both animals and humans. It is now known that the
brain is in charge of sending signals that will eventually lead to behavior and automated
responses when certain stimuli are present. In fact, Thomas Aquinas referred to this as
“beneficial order”. McCloskey also implies that evolution displaces the need for a designer God,
however, these two must not necessarily be taken as mutually exclusive. Evolution could have
happened after God created certain types of animals, but one does not necessarily rule out the
other. Another important point countering the teleological argument is made by McCloskey,
when he refers to the imperfection and apparent disorder seen in the world. He notes that a good
designer, referring to God, would not create an imperfect world. The fact that a person notes
there is imperfect design in the world, does not make this argument true. If there is a God, it is
difficult to completely understand the purpose or function of certain things. For instance,
sometimes what a person can determine to be imperfect, others can find perfection and purpose
in the same thing.
A third argument presented by McCloskey is the problem of evil. He reports that the
presence of evil in the world cannot be ignored and notes that it is a persistent problem, once
again he states that a benevolent designer, would not allow for the existence of evil and
suffering.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
McCloskey states that it would be more possible to argue for the existence of a supreme
malevolent designer. He states that the presence of pain, privations of goods and moral evil, are
a demonstration that God does not exist. McCloskey notes that if God was a perfect being, as
reported by theists, he would not allow for a world with suffering to exist. The author of the
essay also mentions that if pain and suffering are a result of sin, according to what theists say.
McCloskey states that evil is therefore a direct attack to the possibility of God’s existence. It
would not be logical for a perfect being to allow pain and suffering to reach his creation.
However, the claim that good and evil are, but two sides of a coin, points to the purpose of evil.
This means that without evil, the good in life would not be seen and appreciated as what it is.
There would be no point of comparison and life would have no apparent meaning, and humans
would not really have free will.
A last argument in the article written by McCloskey, is the argument that atheism is
comforting, and theism is not. For him, it is easier to believe that there is no God that would
allow for suffering and bad things to happen, rather than to believe that God would allow evil
and suffering in the world. This is an emotional appeal to people, to instigate a disbelief in God.
However, a similar argument could be made regarding the purpose of life. Theists sometimes
take a similar approach by saying that the purpose of human life is to worship God for his
goodness with the world. For an atheist however, this statement has no purpose because God
does not exist for them. Regardless, if an emotional appeal is to be made, it would be more
appropriate to question whether living a purposeless life is conceivable. The meaning of human
life and the purpose for its existence has always been a very important topic in civilizations. This
theme is further observed in the creation of myths and legends that attempt to explain the
origins, meaning and purpose of human life on earth. Overall, the arguments exposed by
McCloskey are
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
well stated. However, he did not do a good job of exposing in detail his opposition to the
teleological argument. Intelligent design is an argument that has been gaining credibility due to
the irreducible complexity observed in certain biological mechanisms, such as the bacterial
flagellum. This is not to say, that the existence of God must be then validated. There needs to be
further research and debate about whether certain biological mechanisms qualify as evidence for
the existence of God, because science progresses at an incredible speed. In the end, both atheism
and theism are based on faith. It seems ironic, but not believing there is a creator requires a
certain degree of faith in randomness. It is just a matter of what humans want to assign value to.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
References
1. McCloskey, H. J., On Being an Atheist, (Questions, 1968)
2. Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics,
(2008, Wheaton, Crossway Books) pgs. 71-90
3. Evan, C. Stephen, Manis, R. Zachary, Philosophy of Religion, (2009,
Madison, Intervarsity Press)
4. Foreman, Mark, Point Cast Presentations, Philosophy 201, Weeks 6&7,
Liberty University
