In 1968, McCloskey a leading atheist and philosopher wrote an article dubbed “On being an Atheist” (the Article) for a journal named Question. This short journal has been extensively studied and responded to over the years. Indeed, the contemporary debate about atheism and the existence of God never seems complete until the subject of McCloskey and his article is debated. From the nature and wording of the article, it seems more of a response to the argument that there is a god or divinity than that there isn’t. In his article, McCloskey goes ahead to attack individuals who have sought to argue against the concept of atheism. In countering them, McCloskey seeks by extension to prove his thesis. It would, therefore, be correct to argue that “On being an Atheist” is not per se an argument for atheism, but one against the arguments that have risen against the concept of atheism.
Among the principle responses to the article was made by Dr. Foreman in his presentation ‘Approaching the Question of God’s existence.’ The main thrust of this response regards the contention that in the absence of absolute proof that God exists, it lead to the absolute conclusion that He does not (Foreman). Foreman approaches the issue with a definition of proof from the perspective of the existence of God. He contends that this proof does not have to reach the level of mathematical or scientific proof of Gods existence (Foreman). This is premised on the fact that the argument that God does not exist has not been proved on any basis to be false. This, therefore, negates a need for any absolute proof. However, there are other levels and aspects of proof that can still be advanced about the existence of God to satisfy a level of proof relevant to the issue at hand (Foreman).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first level is the best explanations approach, which engenders a careful perusal of the arguments about the existence of God as well as those against them. On a balance of probabilities, the best possible explanation on issues that exist in the world but cannot be explained by the best of available evidence points towards the existence of God. The second concept raised by foreman is the cumulative approach, which deals with the totality of arguments about the existence of God that although they are not scientifically definitive, they have not been rebutted (Foreman). Foreman argues that the combination of these arguments can amount to one solid definitive argument for the existence of God (Foreman). The upshot of the foregoing is that arguments against the existence of God cannot stand in the very least without an iota of evidence behind them. According to Foreman, there is already overwhelming evidence about the existence of God and an argument is not enough to counter them.
Another argument presented in the article regards the cosmology and the argument that since the world exists as it is today, definitely God must exist as its creator. For starters, the article argues that cosmology does not amount to any form of proof that God exists. This issue has been canvassed in depth in Evans and Manning (2009). Evans and Manning handle the issue from a philosophical perspective considering that McCloskey was himself a reputable philosopher. They, therefore, bring to beat the principle of sufficient reason which stipulates that everything must exist for a purpose, cause, or ground. On this premise, they argue that the fact that the world exists is per se evidence that there is a reason, cause, or ground for its existence (Evans & Manning, 2009). This reason, ground or cause has not yet been established by any logic, argument or scientific discovery hence, borrow from Foreman’s presentation in general and particularly the best explanation approach. The best explanation for the grounds of the world being in existence is that there is a God who both created it and knows the purpose for creating it.
The article further argues in the cosmological argument that the fact that there is a cause that is known to an all-powerful god does mean that we should postulate to him. It is important to note that in this contention, McCloskey seems to admit that God does exist but should not be worshipped. Further on the issue of postulating to God, it is clear from the argument of Evans and Manning (2009) that we as human beings neither understand the purpose of the world nor the purpose of mankind. However, from their argument, God under the best explanation approach clearly knows this purpose. We, therefore, have a choice between living without a reason and purpose or postulating before the God, who alone understands this reason so that He can direct us (Evans & Manning, 2009). It is on this basis that man should postulate before God.
The author of the article also bring out the teleological argument which refers to the existence of a perfect universe as perfectly operating organ hence proof that God exist. In this attack McCloskey indicated that indisputable examples of design are necessary. This indeed is absolutely unreasonable given that there is yet no evidence, even on a balance of probabilities that the world was not created for a purpose or cause. When a hypothesis is raised and established, it remains conclusive until credible doubts are raised regarding it. Only then would be reasonable to ask for solid proofs. Indeed in Evans and Manning (2009), the process of birth is given as an example of design. The fact that a single cell can transform itself into 100 trillion cells on the human body which differ from bone cells to neurons ought to be proof enough that a designer of the world exists.
Placing to rest the argument regarding the veracity of evolution for a moment would still not negate the concept of the existence of an intelligent designer of the world. Indeed, it would only solidify it. Evolution explains how beings transformed until the species of Homo sapiens came into being. However, according to Evans and Manis (2009), evolution still gets us back to the basic building stone of living tissue, which science calls the stem cell. Without the stem cell, there is no living tissue and the entire evolution theory crumbles. Indeed, it would be correct to say that evolution relies on the existence of God to remain a plausible theory. Further, there is also the issue of systematic order for evolution to happen. Both Neo-Darwinism and Darwin’s theory admit that without a form of orchestration and superintendence, evolution would not have happened (Evans & Manning, 2009). This orchestrator and superintendent is God, the designer.
The final contention against the teleological argument is the blanket contention that the existence of imperfection on the design results in a conclusion that there is no perfect designer. However, in the cosmological argument aforesaid, Evans and Manis argue that there is a purpose for everything and this purpose is only known to the intelligent creator (Evans & Manning, 2009). It is already admitted that there is a purpose to the good in the world that we do not know, but the designer does. Clearly, there is also a purpose for the defects and imperfections also known to the designer. Indeed, the existence of perfection and imperfection contemporaneously in a functional world only adds to the belief in the existence of a designer.
Alongside the issue of imperfection within creation, the Article also repeatedly canvasses the issue of evil within man. This is among the contentions by McCloskey that hold a lot of water especially in its accuracy. It is not in dispute that man in his very nature is very evil. Indeed, when primal nature is mentioned, it is euphemistically used to refer to an act of evil not of kindness with acts of kindness being referred to as resultant from good breeding, nurture or civilization. This leads to the contention in the Article that an immoral humanity could only have been created by an immoral God, thus disputing the existence of a perfect designer. This issue has also been canvassed in Evans and Manis (2009). It is worthy of notice that within the millions of species in existence, immorality is only evident in man. This cannot be a coincidence but by design. The design itself is defined by Evans and Manis as aforesaid as free will. God created man and specifically with an ability to design on destiny through a capacity to decide between right and wrong. It is the capacity and definition of right and wrong that philosophers call morality. With regard to McCloskey’s attack of the concept of free will being godly, the ability to make this distinction is not a flaw in man but part of the overall design by God. According to Evans and Manis, God does not want to force man to be perfect like Him. Instead He created in man free will so that man can elect to be like God. This argument makes existence of evil a confirmation of the existence of God and not the contrary.
Finally, with regard to the contention that atheism is comforting and considering the contrary opinion as engendered by Craig (2000), there is no comfort in the knowledge that man is an accident. Craig argues that if God did no create man, the man is simply a freak of nature, a happenchance that has no reasons for existence. Therefore, being alive or dead is relative and this would make man the saddest of beings (Craig, 2000). This countermands the contentions by McCloskey as atheism should actually result in discomfort, sadness, and desperation as per Craig (2000). Man only finds comfort in the understanding that there is a purpose to life and that purpose comes from the existence of God rather than the lack of it.
References
Craig, W. L. (2000). The absurdity of life without God. The Meaning of Life , 45 .
Evans, C. S. & Manis, R. Z. (2009). Philosophy of religion. 2 nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press.
Foreman, M. (No date). Approaching the question of God’s existence .
