A response to H.J. McCloskey's Article, "On Being an Atheist"

In 1968 H.J. McCloskey wrote an article to his fellow atheists entitled "On Being an Atheist".  His purposes for writing this article were to inform other atheists of the supposed inadequacies of theists' belief in God, and to address accusations that the position of atheism is "cold" and "comfortless".[1]   The author intends to show that in fact, it is theism that is the cold and comfortless position to hold. 

Mr. McCloskey is undoubtedly an intelligent and thoughtful man.  His article was written in an easy to understand syntax, and was surely embraced by many that hold a similar position.  In fact, I think that any Christian would find it easy to wholeheartedly agree with Mr. McCloskey.  Atheism is a much better alternative than serving the kind of god he describes in his paper!  While McCloskey's arguments sound good, his portrayal of a vengeful, vindictive and manipulating god seems foreign to a discerning Christian.  Upon reading his article, one questions the depth of the author's research on the God of the Bible at all.  It seems almost as if his only understanding of Him comes from the obviously uninformed theists he quotes in his article.  One gets the impression that all theists are either dim-witted or gluttons for punishment, maybe even a little of both!

McCloskey attempts to refute three well-known arguments for God’s existence.  McCloskey’s arguments in most cases focus in the problem of evil.  In his attempt to refute the cosmological argument, McCloskey makes the claim that when a theist uses this argument, he has not “thought far enough nor hard enough about the problem of an uncaused cause."[2] It is upon making this statement that McCloskey’s bias takes center stage.  The author expects the theist to explain what he himself cannot explain about his own position.  McCloskey’s initial problem with the cosmological argument is that the existence of the universe, in its present state does not lend itself for one to extrapolate the existence of an omnipotent perfect God that created it.  I actually agree with that statement, however this argument is meant only to show the necessity of a First Cause.[3]  McCloskey is never quite clear on whether he believes in a First Cause, but as an evolutionist, I assume he does, just so long as the First Cause is not God.

Where the cosmological argument succeeds in revealing the necessity of a First Cause, the teleological argument is meant to show that this First Cause is a personal intelligence.[4]  The teleological argument focuses on the order and apparent design that we witness in the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator.  McCloskey accuses those who hold this view as people who “know nothing about evolution”.[5]  It seems as if the author has not bothered to ask any number of Christian scientists or molecular biologists to explain why they can still believe in a God, even in light of all they have undoubtedly had to learn in college.  He further states that, “To get the proof going, genuine, indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed.”[6]  This is something that the evolutionist himself cannot do.  One only needs to mention the problem with the fossil record or problems with abiogenesis.  Neither of these critical areas in evolutionary theory has produced an indisputable example.  The fact is, evolution has many problems, too many to get into here, but even if macro-evolution were true, and it is the only mechanism responsible for the apparent order that we see all around us, there still lies the problem of the origin of the mechanism.  If evolution operates on natural laws, where did the laws come from?  As McCloskey attacks these two arguments, he never really offers any details about how his position better explains reality.  Only that the theists’ explanations are wrong.

All of McCloskey’s arguments really boil down to the problem of evil.  It is clear that this is his strongest objection to the existence of a perfect God.   It is most theists’ position that God is a perfect being.  How then do we explain then existence of evil?  This is a legitimate question, and one that many theists themselves have struggled with.  I will not attempt to solve the problem of evil here due to my lack of scholarship on the issue and the nature of this paper, but I will show that McCloskey’s argument is flawed and largely fueled I suspect, by emotional objections rather that totally rational ones.  I will also offer some suggestions as to why God would allow evil, but they will in no way be meant to answer all objections with absolute certainty.

McCloskey argues more than once in his paper about the unfair conditions in this world particularly concerning the suffering of innocent people and animals.  He uses this fact not only to totally deny God’s existence, but also to attempt to show that if he did exist, he would be either a malevolent God or a well-intentioned, yet incompetent one.  McCloskey’s logic goes like this: If a good God allows evil, then he himself is evil, if He is unable to stop the evil, then he is incompetent; hardly a God worth worshipping.  But this is a false dichotomy. What McCloskey is trying to prove is that theism is not logically consistent. His attempt fails when looking at his underlying premises.  McCloskey assumes that a good God must eliminate evil.  But here are other explanations for why a good God would allow evil to exist.[7]  A few brief explanations could be that God is allowing evil to occur in order to prove to us that his ways are good, and that anything contrary to His will leads to pain, suffering and death.[8]  Maybe God is allowing us to witness evil in order to reveal to us the vastness of his goodness and love.  Or perhaps quite simply, God is allowing evil for reasons that we cannot understand. Many theists rely on their faith in God when encountering this paradox.  McCloskey likens faith in God to “taking a reckless, irrational risk.”[9]  Most theists would disagree with this rash definition of faith however.  If the theist has good reasons for believing in God, then his faith is a reasonable faith, not an irrational one.  And risk is defined as: possibility of loss or injury.  I cannot think of one theist that would define faith this way.

McCloskey sees a great deal of injustice in the world.  I think that he struggles to make sense of it.  This is where McCloskey reveals his emotional objections to the mere idea of God’s existence.  In a hypothetical story of a two-month old girl who contracts meningitis, and is thus impaired for life McCloskey attempts to show us God’s real maliciousness:

“…ought you to be comforted to think that God –and I remind you of theists’ accounts of evil– thought your daughter so evil as to deserve such a punishment, or that he simply chose to allow the world to be governed by inferior laws of nature which he, being omniscient, foresaw would have this precise effect?  …I suggest that a belief in God in such a situation would and should be a source of great distress and worry.”[10]
It is clear that McCloskey’s dismay at the state of the world and his misunderstanding of God has fueled his resistance to Him.  He seems so busy attacking theism he has ignored the total inability of his own position to handle the same scenario.

McCloskey finalizes his piece by stating that atheism is a superior source of comfort and strength.  He contrasts the comfort many theists describe as coming from their faith, being a “cold comfort in religious belief” to that of the atheist seeking and “receiving strength and comfort where it is available…from friends and men of good will”.[11]  Assuming this were our only source of comfort, how sad it would be!  What comfort can a person who is powerless to change the situation possibly offer?  Can another person ever really understand what you are going through? They may have had similar experiences, but not your experiences. What of those that find themselves alone?  Is comfort and strength merely unattainable for them?  When we depend on other human beings for strength and comfort, we are vulnerable to their imperfect natures.  We will never be able to rely on a human being with 100% confidence that they will not let us down.

McCloskey notes that in knowing there is no God, it is mankind’s responsibility to reduce the occasions that comfort is needed, thereby making the world a better place to live through medical research, curing diseases and doing whatever else is necessary to increase mankind’s overall happiness.  The issue I have with this idea is, who said we should support efforts to reduce suffering?  Why should we?  On what basis would a world without God decide what is good and bad?  Without God, everything becomes subjective.  Without God, what H.J. McCloskey says is good and what I say is good could be two different things.  Who is right?  How can an atheist possibly make the case for morality?  Atheists lack any foundation upon which to set moral principles.  Are they decided by culture?  If so, what right does the author have in saying, for example that it is wrong to kill babies?  There have been and still are cultures on Earth in which this practice is accepted.  According to many evolutionists, our desires and actions are determined by genetics.  If this is true, how can a serial killer be condemned for merely living out his inherited disposition to kill?

 McCloskey ends his article by stating, “Atheism, adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, leads to a spirit of self-reliance, to a self respect which demands that we comfort and help those who need such support…”[12] This statement creates more questions than answers.  Does the author have any genuine indisputable examples that this statement is true?  Why is the atheist obligated to do anything for anyone but himself?  What happens if atheism is adopted by an un-thoughtful and insensitive person?  Are they obligated nonetheless to comfort others?  Why? Who has the right to tell them that they are wrong? 

Mr. McCloskey has little problem bringing charge against theism.  His article amounts to little more than a way to make atheists feel more secure in their position when approached by theists asking tough questions.  He offers no adequate alternative to theism.  Only that theism itself is wrong.  As Christians, we should use opportunities such as these to defend our faith and show that belief in God is not irrational and far from a risk.  It is in these very types of debates, that God can reveal himself to all who will listen.