Running head: ON BEING AN ATHEIST 1

A Response to H. J. McCloskey’s “On Being an Atheist”

PHIL 201: Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas

Summer D 2012

VARAH SIEDLECKI 24408181

Liberty University
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 2

Abstract

H. J. McCloskey’s article,” On Being an Atheist,” is a critical argument of the classical question

for God’s existence and the problem of evil. This paper will provide an opposing, brief response

to McCloskey’s atheistic argument from the perspective of a theist.

ON BEING AN ATHEIST 3

A Response to H. J. McCloskey’s “On Being an Atheist”

An article written by H. J. McCloskey, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was published in

1968 for the journal Question. McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who poses various

arguments against theism, in favor of atheism. At the start of his article, he postulates that the

grounds, or “proofs” upon which theists base their belief in God are inadequate. This paper will

provide an opposing, brief response to McCloskey’s atheistic argument from the perspective of a

theist.

McCloskey implies that theists are unable to definitively establish a case for God,

because “the grounds upon which theists base their belief in God” is inadequate. He supports this

premise with his argument that the theist’s “proof carry no weight” (McCloskey, 1968). In

response to McCloskey, a definitive case for the existence of God is intelligently established

using the “Best Explanations Approach” (Forman, 2012). Although the theist may lack empirical

evidence to definitively prove God’s existence, using the scientific method of observation the

theist has definitive grounds adequate to carry the weight of proof that God exists. It is not

necessary to provide empirical “proofs” using the scientific method of observation; we can

establish God’s existence based on cause and effect. “The existence of God is the best

explanation for the effects we observe in the universe” (Forman, 2012).

Considering that no one has yet established “proof” that theism is either self-

contradictory or cognitively meaningless, we have sufficiently adequate reasons to support our

belief in God (Evans, 2009). Therefore, since theism is logically consistent and its assertions are

meaningful, the burden of ‘proof’ falls to the atheist to adequately prove that God does not exist.

For McCloskey to be successful in this argument, he must be rationally convincing, and he must

render a probable conclusion. To propose there is no God is comparable to saying “…man’s life
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 4

becomes absurd” (Craig, 2008), such a conclusion is neither rational nor probable and in fact is

most controversial. His argument may be valid, but cannot be deemed sound, for he lacks the

“proof” to know his conclusion is true. McCloskey’s argument fails to be successful, much less

convincing since “it employs premises that are just as controversial as (or more controversial

than) its conclusion (Evans, p 60).

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for

believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being]”. The premise of McCloskey’s

argument is not so much an argument against the existence of “a necessarily existing being,”

inasmuch as it is a question pertaining to the character of the Universe.

We can establish that McCloskey’s claim is not logical based in part on the contingent

qualities of the universe. In observing the collective natural Universe around us there seems to be

“no natural reason (that is, no reason given in terms of the laws of nature) why the objects of our

universe exist or even why there should be a universe at all” (Evans, p 69).

Nothing that we observe in the natural universe is necessary; all things that exist are

contingent and require a cause. “Any contingent universe would be incomplete unless it

culminates in the causal activity of a necessary being – a being that cannot fail to exist, a being

that is the cause of the existence” (Evans, p 69). As such the logical conclusion is that the “mere

existence of the world constitutes” a formally valid reason for believing in “a necessarily existing

being.” Not only is believing in such a being logical, it is supported by a true, valid and sound

argument by virtue of the way things in fact are; not by logical necessity alone, but by the

contingent fact that men are living creatures.

ON BEING AN ATHEIST 5

Although limited, the cosmological argument does provide “an entering wedge into the

knowledge of God” (Evans, p 77), which in and of itself, could lead one to postulate the theistic

conceptions of an “all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” Ultimately, the “mere existence of

the world” hinges on a “necessarily existing being” based on the contingent character of the

Universe as a whole. McCloskey’s claim is denying the principle of sufficient reason, which in

this case states that “if any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist, because a

contingent being requires as its ultimate cause a necessary being” (Evans, p 73).

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

McCloskey argues the claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples

of design and purpose are needed.” Perhaps in principle the argument from design does not meet

the high standards of indisputable proof; however it conclusively presents the character of the

cosmos as an orderly universe, one that exhibits purpose and design inferring “its cause must

therefore be an intelligent designer” (Evans, p 77). In observing the beneficial order found in the

natural world, it is reasonable, by way of inference to indisputably and conclusively state that

“the failure to prove God’s existence surely is no point in favor of atheism” (Evans, p 87).

However, “to get the proof going,” consider the infinitesimally narrow range of

conditions that must be present for life to exist: “if certain values had been even minutely

different, the emergence of life would have been impossible” (Evans, p 84). The remarkable fact

is that the fundamental constants are precisely fine-tuned to sustain life, as we know it.

Consider deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a self-replicating material present in nearly all-

living organisms. Not only does the DNA molecule carry the genetic code, it contains a genetic
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 6

language that is independent of its carrier. This language is composed of 3 billion genetic letters,

in the form of a four-character digital code, which not only stores detailed information but also

provides instructions for assembling proteins (Brown, 2003). The amount of information in the

human DNA is roughly equivalent to 384 volumes of The Encyclopedia Britannica, which would

fill 48 feet of library shelves. This highly sophisticated genetic language contains an alphabet,

syntax, grammar and semantics; it is a precisely organized, marvelously complex and efficient

information system, which can only be found to originate from an intelligent source. While not

necessarily “indisputable”, the complexity of the form and function of the DNA molecule

provides strong evidence for a designer of the universe.

McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer; however, for the

sake of argument, assuming evolution is true, in no way does it refute the beneficial order of the

universe, nor does it lessen the teleological argument for design. “Rather, evolution simply

increases our understanding of the complex and ingenious means whereby the designer God

realizes his purposes” (Evans, p83). Whether considering the complexities of DNA, or the

constancy and precision of the fundamental laws of physics, evidence against evolution

continues to wax stronger as the terms of creation continue to provide “very conclusive

objections” supporting the evidence of intelligent design.

McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against

“the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” “By itself the cosmological

argument only seems to show the existence of a necessary being that is the cause of the universe”

(Evans, p 77). It leaves out quite a few important elements revealing the character of God, His

nature, and His plan and purpose in the world. One important key element includes “the
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 7

perfection of the divine design or divine purpose” evil has in the world. God’s divine design and

divine purpose for the presence of evil will be discussed in the next section.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

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’s main objection to theism asserts the deductive argument that God and evil

are logically incompatible. Platinga’s free will defense provides for the possibility that God must

have faced this scenario (Evans, p 166), and in His omniscience, God ordained the existence of

evil. In the finite minds of men, it is difficult to grasp the logic for the existence of evil; this is

the conflict McCloskey faces. Isaiah the Prophet records: “As the heavens are higher than the

earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts,

declares the Lord” (NIV, Isa 55:9). Although man struggles with resolving the problem of evil,

evil logically exists to necessitate the good - thus God and evil are logically compatible.

Imperfection and evil were born into this world (Genesis 3) and serve a divine purpose to

reconcile all creation to perfection until the time when God puts an end to evil, pain and

suffering (Revelation 21:1). Rejecting the cosmological argument abolishes any responsibility

assigned to God as the cause of imperfection and evil in the world, but it also rejects the

redemption plan that will one day put an end to evil, eliminating man’s pain and suffering for all

eternity.

For the atheist a proposition is needed to prove the existence of God and evil are logically
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 8

contradictory; specifically, McCloskey “needs some proposition that is necessarily true and that,

combined with the fact that evil exists, entails that God does not exist” (Evans, p 167). Although

the atheist’s argument bears weight, the burden of proof has not been lifted; the charge of

contradiction has not been defined sufficiently and “unless they can do so, there is no good

reason to conclude that the existence of evil proves that there is no God” (Evans, p 168).

“On the assumption that a world with both free creatures and evil is better than a world

with neither, God was justified in creating free creatures, even though he knew full well that in

doing so the result would be (eventually) a “fallen” world” (Evans, p 166). Keeping the

characteristics of God in mind, recognizing his omniscience and omnipotence (Isaiah 55), we can

logically argue in favor of creating man virtuously biased to always choose the good. Indeed

such a world would eliminate pain and suffering, but would do so at the cost of freedom.

Had God created a world void of choice, with man being biased to only choose virtue, we

would be nothing less than virtuous, virtual automatons. Mackie suggests that he prefers such a

reality; a reality in which “the obviously better possibility” consisted of “beings who would act

freely but always go right” (Evans, p 164). Arguably, indeed God could have logically created

such a state of affairs, however, if man is created to always go right, then free will is in actuality

an ersatz freedom. Plantinga’s argument based on the libertarian view of freedom punctiliously

implies “that if a person has a genuinely free choice, what the person will do in that situation is

solely up to the person and not up to God” (Evans, p 164).

Free will affords conditions in which man must be allowed the freedom of choice, so

when faced with the problem of evil, man is afforded the significance of being to choose

between right and wrong, good and evil. God in his power and wisdom created all things, and

when He looked upon all that He created, (which includes evil) He said: “It is good!”
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 9

ATHEISM AS COMFORTING

In the final pages of McCloskey’s article, he claims that atheism is more comforting than

theism. It is of particular interest, and somewhat perplexing that an atheist would find comfort in

life, when “there is no objective purpose to human life” (Craig, p 83). From where does the

consolation (comfort) render itself? If our pursuits lack significance, despite the subjective

value, we place upon the mundane rituals of daily affairs, or the moments of jubilation a fleeting

life may afford, we still face the miserable reality that life will come to the definitive tragic end.

McCloskey states “theists should be miserable just because they are theists” (McCloskey, 1968).

Such an evaluation seems grossly contradictory; perhaps McCloskey failed to carry this

evaluation to its logical conclusion. Perhaps the comfort McCloskey is referring to is in knowing

he has the consolation of the grave to end the misery, which a life void of meaning renders.

McCloskey contends atheism “is a much more comfortable belief than theism” and

purports the reasons and virtues of atheistic beliefs provide a superior source of strength. A

fundamental problem one faces with this perspective rests in the necessary postulation that for a

person to hold to any virtue, makes it necessary to postulate God’s existence. For in a world void

of God, one does not find virtues, there is no right and wrong, there is no high moral standard. In

a world void of God, there are no ethical absolutes, or divinely pre-established values. In a world

void of God, there is “no design, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference” (Craig, p

80). A world void of God is a world in which the cruelty of man has no boundary or restraint –

how does one find comfort in such a harsh, cruel reality? By what perverted definition of reason

does one justify the presence of virtue if God does not exist? “The requirements of reason

demand that we live in a moral universe, and since the idea that we live in a moral universe
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 10

makes sense only if God exists, we have rational reasons – ‘rational’ in that they emerge from

the requirements of reason – for belief in God” (Evans, p 88).

CONCLUSION

McCloskey’s defense and justification of atheism lacks substantial or valid reasons for

adopting an atheistic worldview in lieu of theism. His arguments evince shallow convictions, and

do little more than reveal the inevitable futility atheism endorses. Atheism is nothing more than

a means to “deceive ourselves by means of some ‘Noble Lie’…thinking we and the universe still

have value” (Rue, 1991) apart from divine purpose. In reality atheism does nothing more than

elevate life “above the level of farce to the level of tragedy” (Craig, p 83).

It is no wonder McCloskey asserts “God must be held ultimately responsible” for “those

blows of fate, which render us in need of comfort” - who could live with the consequential

burden and realization such a tragedy imposes on our conscience - feigning comfort and shifting

the responsibility on God is the only way to sear our minds, will and emotions of living a life of

self-deception.
ON BEING AN ATHEIST 11

References

Brown, J., Researcher: complexity of DNA demands 'intelligent designer' in the process,

AgapePress, ‹http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/32003e.asp›, 3 March 2003.

Craig, William Lane. “The Absurdity of Life without God.” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth

and Apologetics, 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008, 71-90.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, Thirtieth Anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2006.

Evans, C. Stephen and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith, 2nd ed.

Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Loyal D. Rue, “The Saving Grace of Noble Lies,” address to the American Academy for the

Advancement of Science, February 1991.

McCloskey, H. J. “On Being an Atheist.” Question One (February 1968): 62–69.