Theistic response to H.J. McCloskey's atheistic arguments

¶ … Theistic Response to the Atheism of H.J. McCloskey

For a Christian -- a person whose belief in God and Jesus Christ is unshakable and spiritually sustaining -- God is the omnipotent Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. God is the mysterious but loving force that has set in motion the world as we know it and the humans and animals that populate the earth. Meanwhile, given the strong beliefs of the Christian / Theist, the argument put forward by a hard-core atheist seems on the surface to be obscure and pessimistic. At first, second, and third glance, it appears to be indifferent to the reality of life on earth. But Christians are expected to be fair-minded, reasonable people and so the arguments by H.J. McCloskey are best evaluated and critiqued with as much objectivity as the Christian researcher can muster. This critique will not bow or bend to obtuse theoretical notions, but on the other hand it will not launch vicious attacks on McCloskey's absolute right to take any philosophical position he chooses to take. A critical evaluation of the assertions of McCloskey will be presented without rancor or cynicism. Hence the goal of this paper is to review and respond in measured narrative as to McCloskey's failure to prove his points, as to McCloskey's use of circular arguments rather than standard logic, and as to McCloskey's habit of cloaking his points in words like "proof"

Response to McCloskey's arguments as "proofs…"

In his second paragraph, McCloskey uses the word "proofs" (or "proof") ten times. This clearly is an attempt to actually define what a "proof" is -- as though an atheist is automatically closer to the truth than a Christian because there is no concrete "proof" that God actually created the universe (McCloskey, 1968). He provides no "proof" that there isn't a God, by the way, nor does he define how he came to use "proof" as justification for his cause. Christians believe the best possible evidence -- the best explanation -- that God does exist is to be found in the universe itself. The wondrous, incomprehensively vast cosmos, with its astonishingly beautiful mysteries, along with the cumulative reality of our own planet, is plenty of evidence to a Christian that Almighty God had more than a mere "hand" in this. The cumulative evidence is there plain and easy to see: something massively more powerful than a human created the cosmos, gave humans intelligence, and showed through Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible that mankind has a moral purpose.

It seems McCloskey's tactic is not only to dissuade Christians from their beliefs, but also to attack them in order to perhaps cause them to be on the defensive. The theistic arguments have defects, McCloskey writes, and is in fact "…a comfortless, spine-chilling doctrine"

(1968).

Response to the Cosmological argument

McCloskey uses a fairly standard atheistic argument to flatly state that the "mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being…" (1968). Author Gordon Leff responds to that kind of argument by noting that "Discourse about him is…defined, not nullified, by lack of evidence for his existence"

(Leff, 1975, 382). Moreover McCloskey insists that the "…world we know does not reveal itself to us as the handiwork of an omnipotent, all-perfect being… [in fact because] the world we know is a world containing a great deal of evil… [hence] we must conclude that is either a malevolent powerful being or that he is a well-intentioned muddler…" (51-52).

Once again McCloskey chooses to attempt to rattle the Christian believer by dipping into cryptic, anti-scholastic rhetoric, seeming to attempt to insult God and those who believe in Him. We note here McCloskey's use of the tired and petty argument that because there are evil, violent people on the surface of the Earth that therefore proves God can't exist because if He is the loving Father of the cosmos as many believe, He wouldn't allow evil events or natural catastrophes to occur.

On page 381 Leff argues that notwithstanding any attempt to discredit Him, "At the end God still remains God together with the means of identifying Him. What we cannot do is to know him in himself because we have neither intuitive nor self-evident knowledge of him" (1975). The Christian believes that God is "actually infinite by perfect infinity" because the Christian faith instills that within the consciousness of the believer (Leff, 384).

With McCloskey's claim that the argument that embraces the universe (the cosmological argument "…does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause," there is a fair and just response in the writing of evangelist / author Ray Comfort. Albeit Comfort is not a scientist nor is he a globally recognized theologian, his argument is down to earth and worth embracing in response to McCloskey's rebuke of the cosmological concept. Comfort uses the "anthropic principle," along with "…cosmology, biochemistry, entropy, relativity, and quantum mechanics" (Comfort, 2008, 14).

There is the intellectual knowledge that God exists: it is a painfully incomplete notion to suggest that "…something can bring itself into being from nothing, and with enough time, complex systems can be assembled by chance" through some "random, unguided processes" (Comfort, 2008). Sir Isaac Newton said "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being" (Comfort, 16). Humans' subconscious knowledge also plays a role in believing God is the Creator of the cosmos -- you cannot have a creation without a creator -- and experiential knowledge is also part of Comfort's presentation vis-a-vis there is a God. We witness every cloudless evening "…a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws…our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations" (Comfort, 18). Einstein once said "…The deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God" (Comfort, 17).

On the problem of evil

McCloskey takes the position that no perfect "being" could have created a place where there was such "unavoidable suffering" or where people engage in immoral acts (1968). Philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga explains that the argument -- "If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good, He would have created the best of all possible worlds" -- is not satisfactory at all.

"How, indeed, could one argue, from the existence of evil that it is unlikely God exists?" (Plantinga, 1974, 61). We have every reason to believe that "…all natural evils have perfectly natural causes," Plantinga quotes from Cornman and Lehrer; and therefore it is "…unreasonable to postulate some non-natural cause to explain their occurrences" (62).

Is Atheism really comforting?

McCloskey may be comforted with his beliefs, and a Christian will not and would not intrude on his comfort zone without just cause. But he is talking in circles when he speaks about the "self-respect" and "self-reliance" that comes with being part of atheism. Actually those phrases fit perfectly into the Christian theology as well. McCloskey's use of semantics and filibuster -- and rhetorical bluster -- just shows the flimsiness of his argument. In fact, the words of William Lane Craig are germane to this issue. Could anyone be comfortable believing God does not exist? If he does not, then, Craig explains, "…life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful… [and as a result belief in God] enables us to live happily and consistently"

(Craig, 2008). In conclusion, Craig rightly explains that it is important for the Christian to "push [the atheist] to the logical conclusions of his position… [because the atheist] affirms meaning, value, or purpose without an adequate basis." And as the thesis of this paper pointed out, Christians "…need not make [the atheist] defensive by a frontal attack on his personal values; rather we offer him a foundation for the values he already possesses" (Craig).