PHIL 201-D40

Major Hillman
PHIL 201-D40
May 5, 2012
Response Paper
H. J. McCloskey, a renowned philosopher in the mid 20th century,
wrote a provocative article in 1968 titled, On Being an Atheist.
McCloskey argues for atheism as the preferred and better belief
system based upon his refutation of the theistic arguments. He argues
against the existence of God by attempting to refute the cosmological
and teleological arguments; as well he endeavours to discredit a God
based upon the presence of evil. In doing this, he extends the
boundaries for arguing God, whilst opening the floor to debate free will
and the apparent comfort of the atheistic belief system. However,
through careful analysis of the arguments for God, and an insight into
the mysterious free will that God has given man; we see that a theistic
belief is logically more sound and preferred.
McCloskey says that the proofs for the argument of God cannot
definitively establish a case for the existence of God. Therefore, all
those proofs for God cannot be used in the logical argument for a God.
However, McCloskey didnt recognize the three aspects when
approaching the question: does God exist. Through these three studies,
we are shown that though no one person can empirically prove the
existence of God, He in fact still exists (Foreman, Lesson 18).

PHIL 201-D40
The three aspects to approaching the question of God are: best
explanations approach, cumulative case approach, and the
minimalistic concept of God. The best explanations aspect refers to the
existence of God as the best way of explaining the effects that we can
empirically observe within our universe. The cumulative case view tells
us that no one argument can get us to the existence of the God of
Christianity. Finally, the minimalistic concept of God argues for a
personal, moral, and intelligent creator; minimally, the argument is not
arguing for every attribute of God (Foreman, Lesson 18)
The cosmological and teleological arguments are both attacked
and argued against in McCloskeys article. In understanding his
attacks, the arguments themselves must first be understood. The
cosmological argument is an argument for a theistic outlook through a
creator God. [A]ttempts to infer the existence of God from the
existence of the cosmos or universe (Evans, 67) Similarly the
teleological argument argues for a theistic perspective through an
intelligent God, a God who created self-regulating mechanisms,
designed to maintain their own existence and reproduce themselves
(Evans, 81).
On being an Atheist begins with McCloskeys first defense for
atheism in arguing the cosmological argument by asserting that the
mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in
such a being (McCloskey) Theologians would argue against McCloskey

PHIL 201-D40
by using the cosmological argument as foundation, saying that the
universe is in need of a cause and that the cause must be a God;
based upon the contingency of the universe. Contingency defined as
things which do exist but not have (Evans, 72).
The response by McCloskey to the need for a causer is
explained in the statement, the cosmological argument] does not
entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause
(McCloskey). Within this parameter, McCloskey would be sound in his
argument. The cosmological argues for a cause, not necessarily an all
powerful, perfect creator. Evans says, the [cosmological] argument
only seems to show the existence of a necessary being is the cause of
the universe (Evans, 77)
In conclusion of the cosmological argument against McCloskey;
the universe is indeed in need of a necessary cause, based upon the
mere possibility, the contingency, of the universe itself. However, the
cause being an all powerful, perfect, creator God is not necessarily the
cause for the universe in existence today.
McCloskey continues his defense of atheism by moving from the
cosmological argument onto the teleological argument. He sums up his
argument against this proof for God in the phrase, to get the proof
going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are
needed (McCloskey). As shown earlier, the teleological is similar to the
cosmologic argument in that it focuses an aspect of God; the

PHIL 201-D40
teleological argument focuses on the concept of God being an
intelligent designer (Evans, 79) The statement by McCloskey is not
argued through reason, because of McCloskeys inherent belief in
evolution.
Continuing on with McCloskeys assumed evolution, it is apparent
that he is refuting the teleological argument based upon another
different preconceived belief. From an already stated quote, the idea
that God created an intricate machine such as humans and gave them
the ability to reproduce is evidence enough for an indisputable
example of design (Evans, 81). Now of course, McCloskeys notions of
evolution blind him to seeing the human as being a design. The
response to this would then have to be similar to Evans in, nature
[itself] contains many instances of design therefore, nature is
probably the work of a designer (Evans, 83) Using this argument to
say that through all time and through the apparent evolution, nature
remains to show the design of a designer.
In conclusion of the teleological argument against McCloskey; the
universe and nature in general needs a designer of great intelligence
for the creation of such complicated organisms such as the
reproductive human. Even with the notion of evolution in mind, nature
around all living things is an example of design, as nature itself bears
non-evolved markings of design.

PHIL 201-D40
McCloskey finishes refuting the cosmological and teleological
argument by moving on towards the problem of evil within our
universe. He argues this by claiming that the mere presence of evil and
imperfection in the world is against the perfection of the divine design
or divine purpose of the world (McCloskey). In a first retaliation to this,
one must return to the three aspects in approaching the question of
Gods existence. Within those aspects it is made evident that no one
can fully understand or explain the nature of God. However, just in the
fact that McCloskey refers to evil and that there is a possibility of a God
that allows that evil, shows that there in fact is a God who also has
other attributes and goals in mind.
McCloskey opened the floor for debate about the mind of God,
stating that he is able to concur to the possibility of there being a God.
He shows this through what he says in his article; no being who was perfect
could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his
creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil
acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons (McCloskey). In
furthering this argument, the discussion may lead to what has God
done to allow evil. In a phrase; God, the perfect creator, gave perfect
free will.
Now, the freedom to discuss the nature of God is given; the
parameters for arguing the existence of God have extended. God and
evil are not in any way compatible (Evans, 159). This is a known

PHIL 201-D40
concept and agreed upon by all theologians, so with this idea in mind;
God allows the existence of evil. [We do] not try to explain why God
actually allows evil but [we argue] that it is reasonable to believe that
God has good reason, even if we are not in a position to discern what
they are (Evans, 161). There are many ways of refuting McCloskeys
objective to theism yet a true theist must be careful not to limit Gods
power.
McCloskey would probably be quick to give an accusation for an
easy cop-out argument. However, when arguing God, and especially
when McCloskey opened the floor to arguments on what God is
thinking, theists are allowed to argue for God in saying that they do not
fully understand the God. For a true theist, we cannot undermine or
limit the power of God.
Arguing free will, McCloskey asks, might not God have very
easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men
always freely chose what is right? (McCloskey). In refutation of this, a
theologian would argue that the second order evil, the continual evil
produced by creation, happens because humans choose foolishly to
abuse the free will given them by the perfect God (Evans, 164).
McCloskey is attributing evil to God, when in fact evil is due to the
wickedness of man and his desire to misuse the freedom that God has
given man. However, there are humans who choose to not do evil and

PHIL 201-D40
those who choose to do good. God allows evil so that humans may
choose good if so desired.
Concluding the problem of evil very briefly; God gave his creation
free will, through this freedom humans have chosen to do evil, and God
allows this evil so that others will choose to use the freedom given to
worship God. To restrict the choice to do evil, the choice to do good
would also have to be restricted.
To close his argument McCloskey falls back on the concept that
atheism is more comforting to the human heart than theism is.
However another philosopher, one William Craig, gives a counter
argument to that notion in his article, The Absurdity of Life Without
God. Craig gives numerous reasons why McCloskey is incorrect in his
statement. Craig focuses on the idea that there is no meaning,
purpose, or value to life without the promise of immortality or God for
that matter (Craig). Continuing on, McCloskeys response to this would
be that, atheism, adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, leads
to a spirit of self-reliance, to self-respect which demands that we
comfort and help those who need such support... (McCloskey). With
McCloskeys thoughts and Craigs thoughts in mind it is ultimately the
decision of the choice maker to decide.
A final word on the problem of comfort; McCloskey reasons that
thoughtful atheists would be kind and would comfort their society
based upon their own self-respect, however, one would argue that

PHIL 201-D40
without a motivation or purpose to the actions of comfort or restrain
the idea is better in concept than reality.
H. J. McCloskey wrote an article On Being an Atheist. In this
article he defends atheism by arguing against the cosmological and
teleological arguments for God. He goes on to bring in the problem of
evil after recognizing the probability of God. He extends the boundaries
for arguing God, whilst opening the floor to debate free will and the
apparent comfort of the atheistic belief system. However, through
careful analysis of the arguments for God, and an insight into the
mysterious free will that God has given man; we see that a theistic
belief is logically more sound and preferred.
For if God exists, then there is hope for man. But if God does
not exist, then all we are left with is despair. William Craig

PHIL 201-D40

Works Cited
ApproachingtheQuestionofGod'sExistence.PointeCasePresentation:Lesson18.
[Audiopodcast].RetrievedfromLibertyBlackBoard
Craig,WilliamLane,ReasonableFaith:ChristianTruthandApologetics,3rdEd.,
Wheaton,IL: CrosswayBooks,2008,7190.
Evans,C.S.,&Manis,R.Z.(2011).Philosophyofreligion,thinkingaboutfaith.IVP
Academic.
McCloskey,H.J.(1968).Onbeinganatheist.Informallypublishedmanuscript.