Philosophy of Religion - Atheism - Essay Example

A Response to H.J. McCloskey’s On Being An Atheist A Response Paper There are different ways to approach an argument, such as using expert knowledge, making the arguments of the opponent hilarious or ridiculous, making an attempt to gain thorough and accurate knowledge of the opponents’ claims, citing facts to strengthen the argument, and citing statistics to substantiate the claim. The ‘proofs’ of God’s existence that theists uphold—cosmological and teleological-- and that McCloskey believes are illogical and should be relinquished, actually are arguments that have support from religious experts. Apparently, as everyone knows, these ‘proofs’ do not have support from the scientific community or have the ability to use statistics or numbers to prove their veracity. Theism’s ultimate proof of God’s existence is clearly explained in the Bible. The support for theistic arguments comes from millennia of religious experiences and the interpretations of religious authorities of the Bible as a written text of God’s existence. No one can subject theistic arguments to mathematical or scientific proofs because religion and science are very different fields, with very different beliefs and methods. What is obvious though is the weakness of how McCloskey presents his arguments against theism. Above all, in order for an argument to be strong one should start presenting an argument for and afterward demonstrating his/her knowledge of counterarguments. However, being an atheist himself, McCloskey’s arguments against theism become somewhat credible because of her personal experience as an atheist. Personal experience provides some strength and appeal to an argument. The problem with McCloskey’s attempt to debunk theism’s ‘proofs’ is that he focused and depended too much on the ‘problem of evil’ to reinforce his argument. He should have explored other lines of thought to defend his argument. Basically, his arguments can be viewed as too typical of an atheist. As stated by Evans and Manis, an important differentiation, in relation to supporting the cosmological argument, is the differentiation between the argument’s two components—the temporal and non-temporal components. The main claim of the non-temporal component of the cosmological argument is that “God is the reason why there is a universe at all, regardless of whether the universe is young, old or infinitely old” (Evans & Manis, 2009, 52). God is shown as the required cause that pushes the sequence. The non-temporal component claims that, in spite of the universe’s temporality, God is the indispensable prerequisite for the presence and survival of the universe. Thus God works not just the operator of the sequence but also the creator of the foundation, on which the sequence lies, basically. This sort of cosmological argument has three central elements: first, the idea of adequate reason; second, the idea of contingent entity; and, third, the idea of essential entity. The non-temporary component is rooted in these three central elements. These three central elements provide the non-temporal aspect of the cosmological argument a bonus that the temporal aspect McCloskey criticized does not have, that is, the non-temporal aspect is insusceptible to the claim of the composition fallacy. The non-temporal aspect promotes the definite principle that there are contingent entities. Indeed, only contingent entities have been found out in the universe. McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey, 1968, 51). The cosmological argument, as explained by Evans and Manis, is strengthened by special experiences of religion—Islam, Judaism, and Christianity— which introduce them to God (Evans & Manis, 2009, 77). Evans and Manis demonstrated that not merely does the sheer existence of the world but the whole cosmos, partly and wholly, require the specific presence of ‘necessary being’. Indeed, one instance of contingent being in one’s life is adequate to assume necessary being. McCloskey also argues that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968, 52). This argument is somewhat one-sided; it clearly does not consider the other perspective of the issue. ‘Indisputable’ implies faultlessness or perfection. There is nothing in this world that can be proven perfectly, even with scientific proofs or mathematical accuracy. ‘Faith’ cannot be subjected to the concept of ‘indisputably’. McCloskey claims that evidence of design and purpose has been completely eradicated by the evolutionary theory. But this argument is mistaken. Even Charles Darwin has revealed some flaws with his theory. These revelations hardly attest to the fact that the evolutionary theory is an indisputable evidence of the non-existence of God. Basically, the evolutionary theory, which McCloskey is using to support his argument against theism, unfortunately does not meet the criteria of indisputability that he himself established. The accurate, exact positioning of the components of the universe, the functioning of the human body, how the ecosystem works, all attest to a designer of the cosmos. The perfect rhythm of the world, how higher and lower forms of being live in harmony, how everything is ordered around us, especially in nature (e.g. climate, habitation) are all evidence of the existence of designer. Evans applies the metaphor of a watch to demonstrate valuable order that is needed for the watch to function (Evans & Manis, 2009, 144). However, if evolution is true, it does not necessarily mean that design and purpose is not. Evolution is credible evidence that a designer of the universe exists. Evolution is an ordered, structured, systematic process. McCloskey is somewhat contradicting himself when he argued that evolution has supplanted the importance of a designer. Evolution is made possible by the designer; it is not a process outside of such being. McCloskey also argues that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world” (McCloskey, 1968, 53). Evans and Manis argue that the teleological argument has boundaries to the extent of the aspects it tackles. Although it does not give an explanation of the ‘problem of evil’, it is not intended to be used independently or as a sole, comprehensive proof of God’s existence. It should be used or applied in connection to or alongside other arguments. Nevertheless, it is important to say that the sheer presence of evil actually has no relevance to the legitimacy of the principle of design and purpose. Theism argues that the presence of natural forces surrounding humanity was created with a design and purpose from God. McCloskey’s main objection to theism is the presence of evil in the world and he raises it several times: “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, 1968, 53). According to Evans and Manis, the atheist should be questioned on his/her idea that real, neutral evil is purposeful. McCloskey should be questioned in his allegation of occurrences, actions, or conditions as either good or evil. He should offer real, unquestionable proof of evil in the world, based on his own standards, and offer an impartial, general, and unconditional criterion by which to evaluate something as evil or good. Evans and Manis argue, “The charge of contradiction is a strong one, and the burden of proof is on them to show exactly what the contradiction is. Unless they can do so, there is no good reason to conclude that the existence of evil proves that there is no God” (Evans & Manis, 2008, 137). McCloskey’s weakness is that he himself failed to provide a real, undeniable case of evil. Furthermore, he particularly talks about free will, raising the question “might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely choose what is right?” (McCloskey, 1968, 53) The core of this argument is the assumption that it is rationally likely that God could form a world within which evil is absent and real human liberty is present. But Plantinga claims that specific rationally likely circumstances could achieve by, which the Supreme Being would be prohibited from the likelihood of forming a world of both independent evil and humanity (Evans & Manis, 2009, 49, 132). If God were to form this kind of inconsistency, He would cease to be a Supreme Being. Even though the causes of these problems are not totally understandable, they do not in any way invalidate God’s existence. In the evidence-based version of the ‘problem of evil’, McCloskey and other atheists will recognize that reality, but still claim that the proof is very concentrated against the possibility of God’s existence. Taking this into account, the problem turns into an issue of faith. If a person has valid explanations for believing in God’s existence, the problem of evil will stay a riddle or enigma, but it will not determine belief in a Supreme Being. McCloskey closes his article with the statement that atheism is more comforting than theism. William Lane Craig, in his article The Absurdity of Life without God, disproves that atheism is more comforting than a belief in God. He uses the example of death to prove his point. Knowing that after our life here on earth we will be nothing more but a decaying body is as discomforting and frightening as it can be. There is no purpose in life. We live only once, after this, we are nothing. Craig explains how belief in God and an immortal life gives us purpose and happiness. We have something to look forward to after our lives here on earth, and that idea is far more comforting than atheism’s argument that there is only void after our lives here. Craig believes that if we live consistently, we will not attain happiness. He explains this argument as follows (Craig, 2010, 44): The dilemma of modern man is thus truly terrible. The atheistic worldview is insufficient to maintain a happy and consistent life. Man cannot live consistently and happy as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving a lie to our worldview. This is what Rick Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life, is also trying to tell us. Purpose comes from the belief that we are made for something better, for something eternal. Our lives here do not end when we die; death means that we are finally going home. References Craig, W.L. (2010). On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook. Evans, C.S. & Manis, R.Z. (2009). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. McCloskey, H.L. (1968). On Being an Atheist. Question, 1, 51-54. Warren, R. (2007). Purpose Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? New York: Zondervan. Read More