Analysis Of The Article ' On Being An Atheist '

To reply to McCloskey’s claim that there could not be a God due to the amount of evil there is I would first acknowledge this claim. At first I too agreed with this claim that how could someone so great and loving let so much evil and pain into the lives of people who do not deserve it. Simply because I did not understand how God could be so great and let evil into this world. Since then certain truths about theology have been explained to me so I can understand the good of God verses the evil found in this world.

In 1968, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian Philosopher wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which is an attempt for his personal reasons to reject the belief in God. In the article McCloskey criticizes against the theistic proofs, which are cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Majority of the article is focused on the evil issues and catastrophic events to innocent people in a world that is supposedly designed by an omnipotent and loving God, which McCloskey believes is a valid case in his arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments as well as his assertions that evil is proof against God’s existence. But, it still remains that the most reasonable explanation for the creator of the universe

As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God."

HJ McCloskey is a proclaimed atheist. He presents lots of arguments including the belief of why there is no God. He also says that atheism is a more comfortable belief. He states that it is impossible for a higher power to create an imperfect world. McCloskey thinks that even if there was a maker than how can people be comforted by Him instead of blaming him for creating an imperfect world with evil and imperfections.

Based on the article, McCloskey's view of faith is based on Tillich's definition of faith as "being ultimately concerned, as claiming truth for its concern, and as involving commitment, courage, and the taking of risk." (P. 65)  In response, McCloskey holds that this 'risk' is reckless and irrational due to the problematic nature of evil.  The mere existence of evil in the world suggests that an all-perfect being is not perfect, otherwise creation would have no flaws.   In effect, he is using the same argument from design and the teleological argument - that from the effects you can determine the cause.  So if creation is flawed by these evils, and creation goes back to God, then God is flawed.  McCloskey does not continue to prove or disprove any valid reason for accepting or denying God's existence.  In effect, he is guilty of

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

Weaknesses of the argument One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. This is contradictory. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

David Eagleman, during an interview with National Public Radio in February of 2009, coined the term “Possibilianism”. An exploratory middle ground position between atheism and theism. In this essay I argue that possibilianism as a new standpoint in the debate on the existence of God is irrelevant, as it holds the same ideological stance as agnosticism.

The word “proof” is frequently used in the article to reference the arguments (such as ontological and teleological) which McCloskey believes are insufficient to establish the existence of God as a Creator. McCloskey argues that these proofs should be dismissed because they lack evidence. The dismissal of these proofs however are incorrect. It is impossible to assume that God’s existence can be definitively be proven by any one argument. It is the basic idea that the creator of the universe surpasses our humanistic ways of thinking. Which is to say that we cannot stand to reason his existence. According to McCloskey the argument of design along with the cosmological and teleological arguments are used by the Theists as proof to support their

In the article McClosky refers to the cosmological, theological and the argument from design as “proofs” and states many times that there is no definitive case that God actually exists. By stating he establishes

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is as follows: The world could not exist by itself so there must be a first cause that brought him into existence. The universe can not have an infinite past, he must have had a beginning, or to the extent that anything that starts with a cause, there must be a first cause. The fact that the universe has a beginning implies that it has a cause. But this cause is it necessarily God? William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument in (1979), says he can prove it. The creative cause of the universe created something that did not

McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” (1968, p. 51) however the cause of the universe must be an uncaused necessary being. This can be disproved with the non-temporal form of the cosmological argument which states that the universe had no beginning in time, thus it is infinitely old. Nevertheless, the world around us is made up of contingent beings which rely on a cause for their existence. This is seen that a son requires the cause of a father and the father requires the cause of a father and so on. Therefore, it is essential that the contingent beings must have a first cause that is created by a necessary being: a being that does is uncaused and thus does not need further explanation as do contingent beings. (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. Loc: 672)

No matter if an individual is a theist or atheist, he or she has at some time asked why God would permit or generate evil. The reply is as intricate as responding to the question of reality. If McCloskey anticipates getting proof of why God permits evil of any kind, there is little proof that is obtainable. There are just some objects that cannot be solved until one perishes and witnesses life after death. There is just no complete way to exactly prove whether there is life after death and definitively whether God exists.

When looking for strengths in this argument one must look at the simplicity of the argument. In the simplest form you have a God who created everything. The universe at some point in time began to exist. This argument states that the cause of the Universe was God. This also confirms the Bible's description of creation (Holt, 2008).

McCloskey makes the claim that he is reminding fellow atheist why they believe there is no God. He claims that the traditional proofs have no merit. I believe the sheer magnitude and complexity of the world we live in is strong evidence of an intelligent designer and creator. Only an intelligent creator could form a world where the air that we breathe is part of such a complex system. We also live in a world that has morals, which points to a morally perfect Being that we model our lives and society by. The Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments create a cumulative case for why God exist. God’s