On Being an Atheist – H. J. McCloskey
Essay Preview: On Being an Atheist – H. J. McCloskey
Report this essay
In his article, “On Being an Atheist”, H. J. McCloskey attempts to dissolve the existence of God and theism as a whole. McCloskey argues against the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and blankets them with the problem of the existence of evil. His arguments fall short of being convincing. The stated purpose of his article was to remind other atheists why they believed that there is no God by stating what the theist believed, and to offer reasons why atheism is a more comfortable belief than theism. The author intends to show that the Christians belief in the existence of God is the most rational philosophical position.
Early in his article, McCloskey tries to detract from the theists case by referring to the arguments used as “proofs” and implying that since they cannot establish a case for God they should be abandoned. However, while the arguments that McCloskey selects to dissolve do not, by themselves, prove the existence of God; together they establish a strong case for His existence. The cosmological argument concludes the existence of a necessary being as the creator of the universe. The teleological argument concludes that because of the design of the universe this being must be intelligent. The moral argument, which is hidden in McCloskeys premise that atheism is a more comforting world view, concludes that this being must be morally perfect. The concurrence of these three arguments provide for an intelligent, personal, morally perfect creator of the universe.
In his dissolution of the cosmological argument which argues the cause of the universe, McCloskey states that there are many problems with this argument; but his main objection is against the argument of a first cause. Since requiring a cause for everything that exists would lead to an infinite regress of causes, McCloskey concedes that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot not exist. However, this concession is irrelevant. McCloskey apparently holds that the universe has always existed and always will exist since he postulates that the existence of the universe in no way constitutes an uncaused cause.
As we look at the world around us, we see things that exist but could just as easily not exist. Given the laws of nature, there is no apparent reason why these things exist rather than not existing. Even those things that we cannot see and consider to exist necessarily are actually things that exist but might not need to exist. Take the atom as an example, if the things that we see did not exist, the need for the existence of the atom is negated. A being which has a characteristic that its existence is dependent on another is called a contingent being. We see examples of this in nature. For example, the flowering trees in the spring, the falling leaves in autumn, the change of seasons, the birth of a child followed by death in old age, and so on. Things which did not exist but now exist are defined as phenomena. It is self-evident that phenomena cannot exist without a cause. Therefore, it is contingent.
The question is now whether or not the cause of the contingent being is dependent on other contingent beings, or if it has to be a necessary being. A necessary being can be defined as a being whose existence cannot be attributed to another being – an uncaused cause.
The argument could be made that both cases are possible. However if the answer is that the cause is another contingent being, the result is a linear or infinite series of causes. Contingent object 3 exists because of contingent object 2 which exists because of contingent being 1. Why does contingent being 1 exist? This argument is rendered incomplete.
The best explanation of the existence of a contingent being is the existence of a necessary being. We have determined:
Some contingent beings exist.
If any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist (because contingent beings require a necessary being as their ultimate cause).
Therefore, there exists a necessary being (which is the ultimate cause of the existence of contingent beings).
McCloskey is correct in arguing that this causal argument does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause. However, it is important to understand that the cosmological argument argues the existence of a necessary being that is the cause of the universe. While it includes some of the attributes designated to a theistic concept of God, it does leave some out; but the conclusion of the argument is in line with many differing views of God.
To dissolve the teleological argument McCloskey demands indisputable examples of design and purpose. The concept of “indisputability” is an unreasonable for two reasons. First, McCloskey is setting a standard for the defender that he himself cannot meet. Second, according to Evans, “indisputability” is so high, perhaps, that a proof of theism is in principle unattainable.
Nature provides many examples of apparent design. For instance,