In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey argues against the existence of God with objections popular even to non-atheists. Because he claims that most theists base their beliefs on proofs such as the cosmological argument and the teleological argument, McCloskey focuses on these. If he can point out their defects, he assumes that God‘s existence is not plausible. In addition to these arguments, he addresses the impossibility of evil and God existing together and also claims that religion is cold and comfortless. In my argument against the atheist, I will display that each of these claims can be logically shown to be faulty and illogical while God’s existence is factually logical.
The Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument is stated as: The universe had a beginning, Anything that had a beginning had to have a cause, Therefore, the universe had a cause or a Creator.
McCloskey believes in an uncaused cause, but does not think that the universe points to a being that has always necessarily existed. He claims that the universe only needs a cause that is equal to the effects and that it does not have to be an all powerful perfect being, since the imperfect creation does not correspond with it. The creator only has to be powerful enough to create the earth and imperfect enough to be equal with its imperfections. These imperfections consist of many evils done to innocent human beings, and therefore, the evil in the world must correspond to a “malevolent powerful being… 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 very disastrous consequences.”
First of all, the universe does point to a being that has always existed. All earthly beings can be defined as “possible beings” in which existing is an accidental to their nature instead of an essential essence. Humans do not have to exist, but must receive this possibility from something that has the essence of a “necessary being”. “And since a being cannot give existence to another when it is dependent for its own existence on another, there must be a Being whose existence, was not given to it by another, but who gives existence to all others.”
Secondly, this Necessary Being cannot be imperfect, as McCloskey claims it must be in order to correspond with the imperfect world. The universe does have imperfections, but these are impossible to comprehend without being aware of some perfect, ultimate standard with which to compare it. Also, the cause cannot be identical to the effects. The one who caused the finite is pure actuality and can then actualize a potential. Human existence is only a potential as explained above.# God is pure perfection and actualized the potential of imperfection by giving his creation, Adam and Eve, the freedom to choose good or evil. Because they chose to do evil, imperfections arose. Thus, the human race, not God, is responsible for the imperfections this world portrays.
Therefore, McCloskey’s arguments against the causer of the universe being a perfect, necessary being have been logically shown to be false. Consequently, the cosmological argument still stands as an adequate form of reasoning for the theist’s belief in God.
Teleological or Design Argument
The teleological argument or the argument from design assumes that due to the order and design in the universe, there must be an ultimate designer.
McCloskey insists that because of evolution there are no examples of design. Nevertheless, he states that, “Even if we uncritically accepted the examples of purpose and design pointed to by exponents of this argument, all we should be entitled to conclude was that there was a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer.”
First of all, McCloskey claims that if examples of design exist, they will not point to an all powerful God. He seems to imply that evolution can explain the “design” in the world such as the complexity of the human cell or the intelligence and rationality of humans. If considered thoroughly though, evolution and chance cannot explain such design logically. William Paley uses the analogy of watch and a watchmaker to illustrate this. No sensible person happening upon a watch with its intricate detail and complex function would think that it popped into existence without a maker or a purpose. Why then would a sensible person, seeing the design of the universe, believe that it came into existence without a designer or a purpose? Consequently, McCloskey is mistaken to say that examples of intelligence do not exist and that the theist’s examples do not point to a designer.
Therefore, McCloskey’s objections to the teleological argument have been shown to be inconsistent. Hence, the teleological argument still stands as reasonable for believing in God‘s existence.
The Problem of Evil
The problem of evil states that since evil exists, God cannot exist too.
Transitioning to evil, McCloskey states that the theist’s faith in the existence of a perfect being is an irrational, reckless risk considering the evil in the world. After describing evil as physical and moral, he claims that a perfect God would never create a world with avoidable suffering and evil acts that hurt innocent people. He states that, “It is because evil exists we do not believe God exists”. Claiming that the theistic explanation of evil is not adequate, McCloskey focuses on a few defects of this solution. He wonders why God could not guarantee that we abstain from evil when giving us free will, why God didn’t create us to be robots that always chose right, and why humans can’t have free will and avoid immoral acts like God does.
First, because theism adequately explains how evil exists logically with God, I do not think that a faith in a God with a purpose for evil is a reckless, irrational faith. Secondly, I will respond to each of his questions individually. 1) Could God have given us free will, but kept us from committing evil? No. Free will requires two choices, right or wrong. If God destroyed the option of choosing evil, he would be destroying free will. 2) Could God have created us to be robots that always chose to do right? No. Choosing to do right is identical with choosing God, who is actual goodness. If we always chose to do right, then we would always be choosing God. This is a forced love, sometimes called “divine rape”, and disagrees with God’s nature, and is therefore impossible. 3) If God has free will and does not commit immoral acts, why can’t we do the same? God does not have free will; he is actual freedom. Also, God is perfect and to commit immoral acts is to go against his very nature. Due to our free will, the ability to choose wrong is in our essence. God does not have that ability because he is all good. If something is all good, evil cannot be present. Therefore, assuming God’s freedom is identical with ours is illogical. Thirdly, he claims that because there is evil in the world, they [atheists] do not believe that God can exist. However, because he pointed out that evil exists, physically or morally, he acknowledges that something is wrong. In pointing out the wrongness of evil, McCloskey shows a standard of right and wrong. This standard, called the moral law, must have been set in place by some being not affected by this standard. The only one not affected by this moral law is God. Hence, by acknowledging the existence of evil, McCloskey acknowledges a law giver.
Consequently, due to the explanation of God, evil, and free will existing logically, McCloskey’s objections to evil and the theist’s “irrational, reckless” faith have been denied.
Purpose and Comfort without God
This argument states that belief in atheism is more comforting than the coldness of religion.
In McCloskey’s last argument against God‘s existence, he states that comfort is most needed when loved ones are “jotted by acts of God”. These acts consist of natural disasters, diseases, and physical deformities. Because he claims that theists describe evil as acts of God, the responsibility belongs to God, an imperfect being. By questioning if people really find comfort in one who plans such tragedies he says, “One must feel much happier in the knowledge that there is no God, that God had nothing to do with the blow one had suffered.” Since a comforting God fails to exist, the atheist can find comfort “where available” from friends and can attempt to reduce evils to avoid the need of comfort. He ends by saying that “Atheism, adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, leads to a spirit of self reliance, to a self respect which demands that we comfort and help those who need such support, and a to a furthering and supporting of all measures which will reduce or moderate the blows of fate.”
First of all, McCloskey has a false assumption that affects his whole theory. He believes that God plans evils and deliberately causes people to suffer. This is false because God did not create evil. “He created the possibility of evil and people actualized that probability” says Peter Kreeft#. After the fall of Adam and Eve, evil existed because of a lack of good in the world due to their sinful actions. Consequently, the blame falls on human beings, not on God.. Secondly, in my own opinion, I do not understand how anyone, atheists especially, find comfort without God. Comfort does not exist without God. There is no comfort in death, because atheists face non-existence at death. There is no morality in life because God the only is moral law giver. William Lane Craig says, “In a world without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective right and wrong… this means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist…” There is no goal or value in life because the ultimate end is the grave whereas in theism, the value extends into eternity. Thus, an atheist may try to find comfort in his friends, but will not find the ultimate comfort that God provides; an atheist may try to reduce evils in the world, but what point is there in doing so? A spirit of self reliance and self respect are impossible and pointless because the self is in need of God, the creator and giver of all values.
Therefore, the atheist’s argument for finding comfort and purpose without a God is lost because only God gives purpose and value.
In conclusion, McCloskey’s arguments for atheism and objections to theism fail to function logically compared to the theist’s sensible defense of God. In addition to the cosmological and teleological argument’s solid defense of the existence of God, the evil in the world and the need for purpose in life point directly to God’s existence. Therefore, as I have displayed, compared to atheism, theism provides a consistent worldview that logically explains the disputes that McCloskey presents.
No comments:
Post a Comment