Defense of Theism
Mary-Faith Pittman
Theology Module
March 18, 2012

In February 1968, renowned atheist H.J McCloskey remarked in his article titled, On Being an Atheist, that “Atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and theists should be miserable just because they are theists.” McCloskey lays out three main reasons for his belief that atheism should be more widely accepted than theism. In the next few pages I plan to discuss why McCloskey is seriously mistaken in his opinion that the atheist worldview is more conducive physiologically than other worldviews. 

 
His first argument touches on the cosmological argument - an argument for the existence of God that claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence. McCloskey argues, “If we use the causal argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect uncaused cause. The most it would entitle one to conclude is that the cause is powerful enough and imperfect enough to have created the sort of world we know.” McCloskey assumes that our Creator cannot make anything that is not like Him. Since man is evil McCloskey says God is evil. Although we are made in God's image we do not have the same attributes as God, nor the same nature. Man has a sinful nature, while God does not. Even though Adam originally had a sinless nature, his sin caused him to fall away from his holiness.The Bible clearly stresses the fact that God is good “For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations” Psalm 100.5. Mark 10:18 is another text which supports God's goodness and refutes McCloskey: “No one is good except for God alone.” God is omnipotent and if He wanted evil to triumph, it would have. McCloskey is stating his opinion as fact, and in doing so, misleads his readers. Additionally, his lack of clear evidence for his proposed “facts” and “reasons” to discredit theism are very weak.

In his second argument, McCloskey denounces design and purpose in the universe, commonly referred to as the teleological argument. He mocks, “To get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed. There are no such examples, so the proof does not get going at all”. To McCloskey, the fact that there is no evidence of a creator provides a “very conclusive objection”. On the contrary, however, there is so much evidence for a designer, not just in the Bible but also in nature itself. Take the human body, for example. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to say that the human body is not an amazing machine, yet people are foolish enough to believe that this intricate, precise machine came into existence out of nothing, without a designer. The doubters further their ludicrous claims by accusing theists of having no evidence for a Designer, when they themselves have no sound evidence that there is not one. Hypothetically, let us assume there was indisputable, 100% proof for evolution; it still would not disprove God as a designer. An omnipotent God could work through macroevolution if He willed to do so, but He did not.

McCloskey goes on to argue that the universe is just a machine, but he fails to acknowledge that every working machine requires a focused designer. For example, if you were to walk into a room and see an iPhone laying on a table you would probably wonder how it got there and who was behind it. What if I told you that no one was behind it? What if I told you that it had been there for a very long time, as long as anyone could remember. Would this be a satisfactory answer? Not at all. I’m sure it would leave you with more questions, one of which might be how I could be so ignorant. However, if I were to explain to you that someone took the time to intelligently create this phone, precisely place it in this room, for a specific reason, and then went on to show you the owner’s manual describing the creation, you would be more satisfied, as well as be in awe of the creator as well as the creation.

 
McCloskey also imprudently and inaccurately defines faith as “the state of being ultimately concerned, as claiming truth for its concern; and as involving commitment, courage, and the taking of a risk.” His misunderstanding of faith is the basis of his very weak argument. He compares God to mankind by comparing the faith of mankind to a faith in God. McCloskey gives an example of having faith in a good friend who is accused of being a criminal because of knowledge of their past actions. He claim “it's reasonable to have faith in one's friend on the basis of past knowledge...to have faith in his (God's) existence and perfection in the face of the existence of evil is to be irrational and foolish.”According to Hebrews 11:1,2 faith is “ the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” To put it simply, faith is a demonstrated confidence in the integrity of God. Again, God is not like man. We cannot compare our faith in fellow human beings to our faith in God. Even the best man is undeserving of unconditional faith. McCloskey's argument against Christian faith leads to his argument about the existence of evil.

McCloskey primarily bases his atheism on the existence of evil. He even goes so far as to remark,“It is because evil exists that we believe God does not exist.”Jamie Woodham, a student of philosophy at Liberty University stated in his article, A reflection on H.J McCloskey's 'On Being an Atheist', “the problem of evil proves to be a greater problem for atheism than it does for theism. In the first place, recognizing the existence of evil requires the existence of objective moral good. If there is no good in the universe, how can we recognize or classify anything as evil? Yet we do recognize evil, and the atheist cannot raise the problem of evil without also raising the recognition of the objective moral good which he is attempting to deny.” By disproving the point that evil only results in more evil, the very core of McCloskey's argument is proved false. The fact that evil exists actually aids the argument for the existence of God. There is an objective standard for good; that is the Supreme Good, who is God. Suffering is not necessarily bad. Man's suffering can be for a greater, sometimes invisible, higher purpose.“Pain and suffering are frequently the means by which we become more motivated to finally surrender to God and to seek the cure of Christ”, surmised Peter Kreeft. A loving, just God does not make mankind suffer unnecessarily. Furthermore, without evil we would not have free will. God knows what He is doing at all times even when He ordains suffering for His people. Just as it pains a human father to see his child hurting, whether from an accident or needful surgery, God the Father suffers alongside His children. God is acquainted with suffering; He suffered extreme pain when He sent His son Jesus Christ to die the painful and shameful death of the cross. 

The problem of the existence of evil co-existing with a good God never fails to lead to the topic of free-will, which is the next argument McCloskey brings to the table. “If we have free will is it so valuable as to justify all the evil caused by men's morally evil acts, i.e. would it really be a worse state of affairs for us to be rational automata?”By stating that he would rather be a robot than have free will that might lead to evil he shows that he misunderstands the free-will theodicy. What he fails to comprehend is that God wants us to be able to freely give our love to Him. God doesn't want us to be machines that can only obey Him mechanically, with no heart or allegiance. Man's purpose on earth is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Man is to love God by choice, not by automatic means. In his article Genesis in Time and Space, Francis Schaeffer put it nicely when he said, “In the flow of history, man is brought face to face with that for which he has been made—face to face in a loving relationship to the God who is there.” Man's ability to choose between good and evil is what makes him distinct from animals. We cannot have free will without being able to choose evil, because it wouldn't be free will without that option. McCloskey makes a mistake that Ravi Zacharias points out in Jesus among Other Gods: “Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through nonmoral processes has produced a moral basis for life, while at the same time denying any objective moral basis for good and evil.”

McCloskey closes his article by discussing mankind's purpose in life, or the lack thereof. He argues that “victims can find comfort in knowing that no god caused them to suffer, and seek and receive comfort and strength from their friends and men of goodwill instead.” Men of goodwill are poor substitutes for a merciful, gracious, powerful God. Without God, man is doomed and life is pointless. The universe and all human beings are fated to die, and when they do, their existence will have been temporary and eternally meaningless. How does McCloskey find comfort in meaningless life? How is having no purpose in life a comfort to atheists? There is no reason for existence if the end result is eternal death. What meaning can be given to one's life? Does it even matter how one lives? I can hardly fathom the idea of my life ending at the grave. Death would become the scariest thing. William Lane Craig in The Absurdity of Life without God says,“So if God does not exist, that means that man and the universe exist to no purpose—since the end of everything is death—and that they came to be for no purpose, since they are only the blind products of chance. In short, life is utterly without reason.” Again I ask, how is this any comfort at all to an atheists and why would McCloskey set out to convince others of his dismal view of life?

In conclusion, H.J McCloskey's arguments against theism are full of logical fallacies, baseless facts contrary to evidence, illogical statements, and ill-defined definitions for the concepts of theism. In Psalm 14:1 David cries, “The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'” H.J McCloskey's arguments are foolish and poorly constructed. I echo Mr. T when he stated, “I pity the fool”. I think that Proverbs 18:1 accurately describes McCloskey- “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion”,because Mr. McCloskey’s article was simply the musings from the pen of a sad, misinformed, pagan. He failed to disprove theistic beliefs. Ecclesiastes 4.5 says “a fool folds his hands and eats his flesh”. Sadly, God will hold Mr. McCloskey accountable for everything he has done and written during his lifetime, just as all humanity is accountable for every thought, word, and deed. And with that truth in mind,  I find no reason to reject the arguments for God's existence. I find no reason to reject the idea that evil and a good God can co-exist. I find no reason to believe that atheistic beliefs are more comfortable than theistic ones. I find no reason to believe that there is no meaning or purpose to life on earth.