Rodney Courson Phil 201 Response Paper to H.J.

McCloskeys On Being an Atheist

Australian author H.J. McClosky has written an article, entitled On Being an Atheist, that has received recognition for its argument on the existence of God. This paper is my response to McCloskys article and to defend my stance on being a firm believer in the existence of God and as a Christian theist. I believe to be only fair to defend my stance to an atheist by using other means than the Bible; considering that the atheist do not believe in the Bible as credible. There is one thing for certain that I have learned through the research that I have found for this paper, and that is, it has taken my thoughts and belief and pushed them to the testing of how firm of a foundation that I have in my faith and beliefs. It was Edmund Burke that said, Our antagonist is our helper.1 Though McClosky is a well known philosopher and an educated scholar that goes as being much respected in his field of study, I dont believe that his viewpoints are completely convincing that the atheistic belief is true, nor that God doesnt exist. McCloskys article doesnt tackle the ontological arguments, as a matter of fact, it seems to ignore. Using the ontological arguments, it would show that the idea of God adds evidence that He exists. The ontological arguments would not verify atheism, because just the fact of someone calling themselves an atheist is not enough to meet the criteria of being an atheist. McCloskeys claims for having the atheistic beliefs appear to contradict themselves and shows little proof that those claims are unsubstantiated.

Edmund Burke,Bartleby, http://www.bartleby.com/100/276.html

One case-in-point would be, McCloskey argues that presence of evil and the problems it causes is proof that the theistic view of God is wrong. The thought is that if there is an all powerful, all knowing, God who loves people, then why would He allow evil to exist in this world? In fact, McCloskey mentions that we should look at the world as it appears and the only conclusion that is legit is that there is a supreme malevolent designer, or a supreme, well-intentioned, bungling, or finite designer, who muddles along with the best of intentions and the most unhappy results.2 However, C. Stephen Evans mentions that Most philosophers today call this view the logical form of the problem of evil.3 I would argue that there are some valid arguments to defend why an all-knowing, all-powerful God would allow evil in this world. For example, if there was no evil in the world, would there be any recognition given to those who do what is right? If there was a man who saves another from certain death or an act of bravery if the face of evil, how would we notice the good without the evil? As a matter of fact, the Bible clearly teaches that one of the attributes of God is that He is patient, having no desire that people would perish in the evil but rather turn away from the evil ways and trust in Him.4 McCloskey, at one point, mentions that because evil exists is why he believes that God doesnt exist and that no being who claims to be perfect could have created a world that has avoidable suffering or a world in which His created beings could engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.5 What McCloskey doesnt see is that if God had the desire to create mankind as to not have free-will then He most certainly could. But God had a greater plan of free-will choice that would also give free-will worship. Meaning, man would also have the freedom to choose to worship God rather than God having a creation
2 3

McCloskey, pp. 51-52 Evans, p. 132 4 2 Peter 3:9, Holy Bible 5 McCloskey, p. 52

that would worship Him out of obligation. If one was to look real closely here, they could see a conflict in McCloskeys argument. Because, if there is no God, who represents good, then how could we know evil? Is it even possible for evil to exist without good being present? If there is nothing good, then how would we know what evil is or how could we define evil, and by what standard? Im sure that atheist would argue that McCloskeys argument is not a conflicting statement but it does leave a dilemma of trying to define an atheist from this viewpoint. If a person trusts that the rule of law as the standard of good and evil, then law becomes god. Cultural relativism teaches that the culture is the ultimate standard of good and evil therefore making the culture god. Situational ethics shows that the circumstances are the ultimate standard of good and evil, therefore making the situations god. Then, if a person believes that good and evil is something that he determines within himself, then humanism makes him god. Or, if the laws of nature determine the standards of good and evil, the nature is god. So, as the list goes on, there is no way there could be a true atheist as is defined as a person believing in no god, because as whatever it is that determines the standard of good and what is evil, it serves as the supreme basis and would worthy of worship and honor. Therefore, to have a true atheist, by their own definition, would be to believe that there is no absolute right or wrong, which is the belief of an anarchist. McCloskey continues with another conflicting argument stating that if someone knew nothing about evolution it would be easy to fall into error of seeing adaption to environment as evidence of design and purpose.6The problem with this statement is the simple fact of the convincing evidence to show evolution is not a valid explanation for the things we see in the
6

McCloskey, p. 51

world around or in the entire universe. There has been overwhelming arguments from respected experts in the field of science to discredit the evolution theory. Ironically enough, there are some experts that believe in the evolution theory that have even went as far to believe that God may have used evolution to bring the universe into existence.7 If thats the case, then the theory of evolution is not a valid argument for atheism. However, McCloskey continues his claim against intelligent design by stating that we must look at the world as it is8, but he fails to see that even the theory of evolution teaches that the world has evolved, leaving nothing in the universe to stay the same. So if evolution calls for a change, the McCloskey cannot presume that the problem with evil is because the world is simply functioning as it always has been. This again would show a flaw in McCloskeys argument. McCloskey uses the cosmological argument to point that the world as we now see would give that the cause is powerful enough and imperfect enough to have created the sort of world we know.9 This is McCloskeys way of basically stating that one problem leads to another and eventually creates a downward spiral of one god leading to make another creation to another creation, which now would leads us to the dysfunctional world we now live in, caused by a being that was dysfunctional bringing evil into the world. This would be a way of pointing a finger at God as being the inventor of evil. The only trouble with that is that there is nothing to point to a creation before us that would lead to a downward spiral, nor is there anything mentioning the fact that God created evil. Theists believe that God created the world in absolute perfect form. It

The Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/ McCloskey, p. 51 9 McCloskey, p. 51

8

was mankinds rebellion from the temptation of evil that caused evil to come into the world, thus giving us the world we see around us daily10. McCloskey continues his argument in not only trying to prove that God doesnt exist, but nearly mocks the belief of salvation and having faith in God. He goes on to mention that having faith in God is taking a risk.11 In speaking of risk taking, for a person to accept the theory of evolution as the final explanation for creation of the universe, takes more faith than I could imagine. For example, if I was to take a watch apart in its few pieces, placed in a bag, and began to shake it. What is the possibility that I could shake for a couple of thousand years, or millions of years, and reach into the bag and pull out a perfectly working watch? So to place my trust in the theory of evolution appears to be more of a risk than to believe that an intelligent design was made by God. It also appears that the only risk that a person who places their faith in God is that if they come to the end of their life and everything they believe in is true; then they have become an asset to the world we live in by living a morally good life and trying avoid evil, thus giving them an eternal reward in Heaven. However if there is no God and their faith was in vain, they still were an asset to society and they have simply ceased to exist anymore. But it does seem strange that so many atheists would become offensive of this belief. Now on the flip side of the coin, we look at the atheists views, as given by McCloskey. If an atheist lives his life disregarding God or a belief in Him, and continues living the way he believes within himself to be right, then if he dies he will just cease to exist. However, if there is a God, the atheist will stand before God in judgment, and find his eternal destiny to be a place that was created for the author of evil (Lucifer) and his followers. This appears to certainly be the

10 11

Answers in Genesis website, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ McCloskey, p. 52

greater risk and I find it somewhat shocking to see that McCloskey mentions that the atheistic belief gives him great comfort.12

In my conclusion I would love to offer an illustration that I heard from my minister long ago on the problem with evil and how it exists. He mentioned that if a person was to look into the book of Genesis we see that God created the light and separated the light form darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. Nothing is ever mentioned that God created the darkness, but rather the darkness exists because there is an absence of light. In the same manner, God didnt create evil, it is just the absence of good.

Bibliography H. J. McCloskey, On Being an Atheist, from Question 1, February 1968, pp. 51-54.

C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking of Faith, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1982.

The Institute for Creation Research website, http://www.icr.org/, accessed May 8, 2011.

Answers in Genesis website, http://www.answersingenesis.org/, accessed May 8, 2011.

Bartleby's Familiar Quotations website, Bartleby.com, Edmund Burke quotations, http://www.bartleby.com/100/276.html, accessed May 8, 2011.

12

McCloskey, pp. 53-54