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.