Response paper-On being an Atheist

The Presence of God and His Place in the Universe

The presence of God and His place in the universe are topics on which many people and religions hold varying views. Both theists and atheists hold opposing views regarding God, each supported by their own arguments. McCloskey supports atheism and claims that theism is essentially a way of life whose adherents lack a solid foundation to which they can adjust in his piece, On Being an Atheist. He contends that Christians’ faith would be without foundation if there were no evidence for God’s existence. In reference to Dr. Mark Foreman’s presentation about approaching the Question of God, it is clear that many Christians rely on proofs to believe in existence of God. Dr. Mark points out that Christians should avoid such a lifestyle. From my point of view, I feel that theism is bigger than just proof. It should be strong faith in a superior being even without seeing or hearing evidence of their existence. As Dr. Mark points out, we cannot provide enough evidence that God exists even if we wished to. Therefore, personally I hold on to the fact that proofs alone should not be the basis for theists’ faith. I totally agree that they are solid reasons (for example the orderliness of the world) why Christians’ faith and relationship with God grows stronger each day, but this should not be the sole reason.

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument depicts how the world came into being. McCloskey argues that if an individual lacks knowledge about evolution, it would very easy for them to buy the fact that the orderly state is a result of a superior being’s design and resolve. He therefore refutes the fact that God was behind the creation of the universe. He further argues that everything in the world was created with a purpose behind it but this does not point to God specifically. Therefore according to atheism, as per McCloskey, the cosmological argument doesn’t necessarily relate to a higher power (McCloskey). The question I would however ask is; how would it be possible to have such a perfect, orderly universe comprised of well-designed organisms just out of evolution or some big bang theory? If anything, I feel that scientists, being well versed about how complex living and non-living systems are, but still they interact perfectly, need be at the forefront to uphold the existence of a supernatural creator. I would second Evans and Maris in their belief that, the universe is the creation of an intelligent designer. I therefore refute McCloskey’s belief in evolution to the universe we have today. If at all the current universe is a result of evolution, why did evolution stop. Why are there no systems evolving currently?

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument explains how the universe came to be so orderly. From theists’ point of view, this argument is directly linked to the cosmological argument, which points to a supernatural creator. It indicates that the orderly nature of the universe is proof of design and purpose, and no one other than this supernatural being could be linked to such excellent work. McCloskey objects to these arguments claiming that if at all this universe was work of design, then continued unquestionable evidence need to be observable. He goes ahead to claim that none of such evidence exists. He believes that the universe has a natural way of sustaining itself, that evolution occurred at a slow rate to achieve the perfect order there is. I personally find his argument quite unreasonable. I mean, look at the everyday discoveries made about both living and non-living systems, among them; enhanced ability of the body to fight diseases, the capacity of the human brain, use of nuclear material to generate cures for several diseases and the increased application of plant and material to solve problems. Each day opens us to amazing evidence of perfect design and order. There is no way that this organized state of the universe, leave alone our own bodies, could just happen. As Evans and Manis claim, there exist things that neither evolution nor natural selection can explain, there must be a witty creator.

The Human Body as Evidence of Design

The very nature of our bodies is a perfect example that offers quite a reasonable evidence of design. Its ability to resist and fight disease, the integration of the various systems, the amazing nature of the human brain, how it stores, converts and utilizes energy, how it differentiates between harmful and harmless stuff and get rid of toxins, to name but a few. Any reasonable mind would for sure know that none of this just came into being. The human body is more of self- contained machinery, an invention of a super genius being.

Critical Analysis of Evolution

Critically speaking, let’s take that evolution displaced the need for a designer and that the current state of the universe is a result of continuous evolution. If this is the case, what would be the origin of the first organism from which evolution emerged? The argument about evolution is quite disputable. Apart from origin of the initial organism, the argument has other several loopholes. For instance, the cause of evolution of earlier species is not clear. Living organisms aside, where did physical features of the universe like water bodies, mountains, escarpments come from. If evolution actually occurred to achieve the current day organisms, what proof, for example in the genetic material, would prove this relationship? Lastly, what changed such that the current organisms cannot evolve to better, more complex and self-sufficient states? All these unanswered questions generate more reason to prove that evolution is just an illusion.

The Problem of Evil

By blaming the evil in the world to the creator, I find McCloskey quite close minded. I would compare this kind of reasoning to those individuals who blame parents solely for the mistakes of their kids. Just as a parent gives their children liberty to make choices, so does God. It is not the intention of God for His people to commit evil, but since human is to err, it happens. This does not mean that God is not perfect; neither does it imply that the fact that the universe is not His creation since it’s contrary to His nature. According to Evan and Manis, evil is necessary for good to come through but this was not God’s intention. If God created the universe and imposed perfection on it, then man would be denied the liberty to make choices. Presence of evil emphasizes on importance of doing good and in my opinion, just like Evans and Manis, all evil is not pointless, instead it helps live a more liberal and reasonable life.

The Impact of Evil in the World

McCloskey’s references to morally evil acts that harm innocent people make quite a lot of sense, critically speaking. To some extent I would ask the same question, why innocent people have to suffer because of some evil acts. Why does God allow that to happen? From this logical point of view McCloskey’s view of impact of evil in the world would be justified. However, this does not fully justify the argument that the world need to be perfect to match its originator.

The Importance of Free Will

Free will is the greatest and most useful reward one could be offered. If an individual is given freedom, it becomes easier to discern evil from good, sometimes based on experience, and this in turn creates responsibility. As McCloskey claims, God biasing humanity towards virtue would be an act of denial of freedom. Based on my opinion, I feel that free will was the greatest gift that God gave humanity. If it was not so, how would God even judge us? Free will does not necessarily translate to tolerating evil. It means individuals are able to live in a more aware environment in which problems, virtues, rewards and punishment have some significance. Life would lose meaning and be more of a lie if God withdrew from man the ability to make self choices. This freedom provides an end to which sensible means can be applied.

The Comfort of Atheism vs Theism

McCloskey states that atheism is more comforting than theism. He goes ahead to refer to theism as mere comfortless area. William Lane Craig, in Reasonable Faith, however states that regardless of whether one lived as an atheist or theist, death is the ultimate journey for all of us. In the grave, no difference exists between these two extremes. An individual’s destiny has no relationship with how they lived their life. Atheism lack a higher calling and their lives are based just on their desires. This lack of belonging or attachment to a superior being to whom you can present gratitude, troubles and requests appears quite unfulfilling. Following one’s desires without some guidance might lead to being deviant because after all one does not feel obliged to answer to anyone. Unless the comfort McCloskey talks about means living with no accountability, then this means that one can choose to be reckless or irresponsible, because after all they won’t answer to God. This is not comfort as such, it’s a ticket to stray without accountability. From a point of view, I feel that without God there is no morality, hope or comfort. With God we discern what is right from what is wrong, we learn how to treat other human beings and derive a basis for our actions that determines a happy ending. God provides us with a sense of direction in life and we adore Him with our existence. Atheism does not recognize any supernatural power. Their life is crowded with a certain kind of emptiness, to speak honestly.

Closing Thoughts

I respect McCloskey’s opinions and even though my support lies with theists, I feel that some of his arguments make a little sense. Even the staunchest Christians experience some dark and bitter moments in life, and yes, at such moments they may really doubt the existence of God. Either way, such moments occur both to atheists and theists, therefore we wouldn’t attribute that to God’s will. Whether God intends for us to learn from those occurrences or not, is not in our knowledge but that of God.

References

McCloskey, H.J. “On Being an Atheist.” (2005): 63-68.