Response to McCloskeys Article On Being an Atheist - Essay Example

?Response to McCloskey’s Article “On Being an Atheist” Introduction The philosophy of existence is arguably one of the most difficult, challenging and most widely contested branches of philosophy. No deep understanding of existence seems to provide absolute proof to all philosophers. One philosopher, theorist, or thinker comes up with an argument only to be contested by other lines of thought. McCloskey is perhaps one of the philosophers who have given the issue of existence of God a deep thought. His arguments on the article “On Being an Atheist” present a wide dimension of thought, discussion, and critique. In this paper, a response is given to McCloskey by basin g the arguments to what has been covered in the philosophy of religion unit.  McCloskey, in his article “On being an Atheist” presents a very strong counter argument against theist arguments about existence of a supreme perfect being referred to as God. According to him, theists hold on to arguments about existence of God as the fundamental proofs of his existence. The arguments do not certainly infer to proof of God’s existence nor do they provide a proof of why we exist. He actually claims that theists are sucked into the realms of religion not because of the basic proofs that exist but due to mere arguments. According to McCloskey’s line of argument, it is possible to argue that God certainly does not exist. The world is so imperfect to be the engineering work of a perfect being. In fact, we can only conclude that God, if he ever exists, is an evil God since there is more pain and suffering in the world than joy and happiness. Where is God when all the evil happens? Where was he not to control Hitler? Arguably, God may not exist if we take this line of thought. I have always observed the unjustified pain and suffering that happen to the per se “wrong people.” Young babies who are flawless in the eyes of Supreme Being “God” should certainly not suffer at least because they are innocent. Why can’t God bring us closer to him by good deeds and not through pain and suffering as claimed by theists? Things would seem more rational. On the other hand, existence would cease to make any meaning if God did not exist. What if God made the universe the way it is with an ultimate purpose? To me it seems more logical than to claim his nonexistence McCloskey presents a very strong yet questionable argument about cosmology. According to him, it is possible to have a cause without cause. He infers that it is possible to have the world, as we know it without a causative agent. The mere existence of the universe is not a justified reason enough to posit that there exists a cause behind creation. I quite agree with his argument since the existence of the universe is not a foolproof evidence of existence of a supreme being. However, I tend to agree more with the theists, not because there is foolproof evidence but because both atheists like McCloskey and the scientific giants have not yet provided exact proof of cause. I would rather live believing that there was God and die to find there was none, than to live as if he never existed and died to find that he actually existed. According to Evans line of thought about “cause for cause,” existence of the universe would be both irrational and absurd if there were no cause for the entire perfectly tuned universe as it represents itself to humankind. Craig also shares the same arguments on his article “The Absurdity of Life without God” (Craig, 2008). All religious beliefs experience an appreciable form of connection with a supreme being. Surprisingly, virtually all religious ideologies about supremacy of the creator share the same basics. Christians experience faith, miracles, healing, pain, and suffering among other connective experiences with God. McCloskey may have a point in his argument but his argument is somewhat one sided. I might ask McCloskey one simple yet fundamental question what determines the discourse on the universe? Is it a collective contribution of every human being and his relationship with the universe? Is it an all-perfect coincidence? Certainly, it is only logical to presume that there exist a cause that determines the discourse on the universe. That cause can only be the supreme God according to me. Teleological arguments are arguably the closest to truth or evidence about existence of cause. It is possible to make a deductive reasoning about the maker of a car, house, boat or anything manmade by investigating and evaluating the visible or present object. Likewise, it is very much possible to make inferences about God, or his existence therein by looking at the universe. McCloskey claims, “To get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (Rationalist Press Association, 1968). Whilst his claim holds some elements of fact in them, a counter argument about his position can be presented. There is too much coincidence in the universe to possibly claim that all happened by coincidence. What genuine undisputable proofs of design and purpose does he possibly want? His supportive argument leans on the fact that the world has so many imperfections to be termed as a creation or design of a perfect God. What McCloskey fails to reckon is that God, in his perfectness, could have deemed it perfect to make the world imperfectly. We have no any justification to question his design. Anyone can design his creation, innovation, or idea the way he deems appropriate. For instance, we sometimes lie to children to protect them or at least wait until it is the right time to tell them the truth. Suppose the world was perfect, what would McCloskey possibly argue? Would that be a definite proof of God’s existence? McCloskey should see the imperfectness in the world as a perfect design by God. Dwelling too much on the evil, pain and suffering in the world is not justified. The many good and pleasurable things in the world bring about God’s purpose and design. For instance, writing this response article to McCloskey is tasking and challenging but the joy, gratitude and happiness that follows good grades are great. If the world were perfect, such gratification, and happiness from accomplishment would not be possible. To me, that would be an imperfect world. The present design is perfect if we look at it from the other dimension. Undeniably, McCloskey bases most of his argument on the presence of evil in the world to support his atheist argument about lack of God’s existence. He claims that “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons” (McCloskey). Arguably, the imperfectness in the world may be assumed a reason for God’s nonexistence but not absolute proof. According to Evans argument, we can posit that the imperfections seen by McCloskey are actually the design of God. The virtue of freewill therefore makes meaning in the amidst of the imperfection of the universe. Evan argues that the universe is meticulously designed with the imperfections with an ultimate purpose that man may find meaning and purpose of existence. It is true that, pain and suffering does exist in the universe but on the other hand, freewill gives humankind an appreciable degree over those pains and sufferings. If humankind used the freewill endowment for the right cause, then much pain and suffering in the world would cease to exist (Evans, 1985). Therefore, McCloskey should not look at the pain and suffering as imperfectness of God but his design to let man exercise freewill and therefore determine his destiny the way he deems appropriate. By bringing the thoughts of McCloskey and Craig together on the table, some conclusions can be made. McCloskey claims, atheism is comforting, which I think makes no meaning at all. It seems rather difficult if not impossible to rest assured that life has no meaning at all. It is difficult to believe that everything falls into place by coincidence and without any meaning. I would rather lean on Craig’s thought. I find it hard to believe in the nonexistence of God since that in itself is absurd. There would be no ultimate purpose in life without God’s existence. Life would be meaningless and there would be no any justification for doing good. However, if we believe in the existence and supremacy of God and appreciate his design, then life makes meaning. If we follow the line of command as dictated by God, then everything gets meaning and we can then get busy making a reasonable discourse to our lives. Conclusion McCloskey presents a very strong atheist argument and argues about the nonexistence of God. However, a critical review of his article using different ideological measures from other thinkers such as Craig and Evans proves that his arguments are indeed weak. I wish Craig and McCloskey would debate on national television. McCloskey would certainly lose. I believe in God’s existence and I find it comforting. Additionally, it eliminates absurdity of meaningless life. Therefore, we should appreciate God’s existence and his universe design. This line of thought would make neonatal nurses like me make a positive contribution to the world. References Craig, W. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL. Crossway Books. Rationalist Press Association, Ltd. (1968). Question, Issue 1. Pemberton: Pemberton Pub. Co. Evans, C. (1985). Philosophy of religion: thinking about faith. London: InterVarsity Press. Read More