It is a common norm for scientists to use “proofs” to describe the reasoning for various things. Scientists make use of these proofs to explain why something happens. For instance, geologists believe that the earth possesses an electromagnetic field that acts as a protector against destructive solar winds. These geologists have never really witnessed or seen this field, yet they strongly believe it to be the most plausible explanation of why the earth is protected from destructive solar winds. This analogy is comparable to the use of ‘proofs” by Christians to make strong arguments about God’s existence. When the proofs are separated or detached from each other and analyzed individually, they become very weak indeed. When combined, however, they become a Christian’s best and most plausible explanation for God’s existence.
The existence of a Supreme Being offers the finest explanation of the things that we observe in the universe. It also offers the finest explanation of what people deem to guide them through their lives. In actual sense, it is impossible to prove God existence without a shadow of doubt. However, if each “proof” is to be used correctly, then it is fair to state that the existence of a Supreme Being in the form of God offers the best and finest explanation of the universes that surround us. In this article, McCloskey is clearly against the use of these ‘proofs” because he deems them, not conclusive enough, and also claims that they do not create solid justification for people to believe the existence of a God. McCloskey may not realize it by forwarding this argument he also contradicts himself. If the theist's proofs of God’s existence are not justified, then the objections and proof that he, uses to claim the inexistence of God are also debatable. In simple terms, if you cannot prove that he exists, how can you prove that he does not?
Science has been unable to explain some of the natural phenomena that are currently in the world. There is not one single law of science that is 100% accurate and even when scientists try to brush off the role of God in the creation of certain phenomena; they are unable to provide full explanations for these phenomena. The universe is the way it is because, there is God who exists, who is more powerful than science and who has the capability to flout some of the so-called “laws of science”. Therefore, a belief in the existence of God is not only the most plausible and rational explanation for the universe situation, but also the only one that is indeed provable scientifically.
In this article, McCloskey also makes another astounding claim on the cosmological argument. McCloskey states “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being]” (McCloskey, 1968, p.51). Evans and Minas, are, however, of the opposite opinion and claim that the cosmological argument presents a conclusion that there must the existence of a supreme being who is the cause of the universe. . In the book of Romans, the apostle of Christ, Paul affirms the cosmological argument for the existence of a God where he states that ‘For the invisible things of him since the world’s creation are clear for everyone to see” (The Bible). The world that the human race is currently experiencing has been in existence for a long time, but itself alone cannot explain how it came to be or how it is. The fact that many creatures in the world cannot explain how they started existing is a sure indication that a supreme being must have been present to bring about their existence. Otherwise, they would not be in existence because there would an infinite trail of their existence. The universe has recently witnessed massive technology and science advancement. This science and technology do not, however, transcend other powerful forces such as gravity, tectonic plates movement, orbiting of the planets around the sun and so on. These factors only help to depict the limitation on the intelligence of man and the existence, therefore, of Supreme Being who made the universe the way it is.
The other major claim that McCloskey makes on the cosmological argument is that this argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey, 51). In Evans and Manis final paragraph, they suggest that McCloskey could indeed be right. This is because although the cosmological argument can lead one to believe in God’s existence, it does not however, bestow the enormous faith in God that most religions subscribe to. For one to gain faith in God, a more direct experience with this God is required. In the same sense however, everything that happens has to be directly caused by something else. The universe’s existence is dependent on an uncaused cause because if this cause were caused, it would become infinite.
McCloskey also offers criticisms to the theological argument. He states, “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (52). He also adds that what human beings need to believe in is the existence of imperfect or malevolently power designer. This assertion contradicts his previous “breaking of nature” argument, where he advocated for the “uncaused cause”. McCloskey also does not have undisputable proof bout the existence of an imperfect designer therefore, making his assertions disputable as well. When he suggests the existence of an imperfect designer at the beginning, he is essentially contending to the idea that nature was indeed broken at one particular time. McCloskey’s indisputability of a God’s existence proof is wrong because as Evans and Manis suggest, indisputability is something that is principle unattainable” (87). McCloskey’s supposition on indisputability is therefore not conclusive, as it is not accompanied by undisputable proof therefore making it unreasonable.
His theological argument criticism mainly emanates from an idea that the argument requires an “undisputable proof of design”, just like there exists indisputable evolution proofs (64). However, his standard of “indisputability” is not reasonable at all. First, the evolution pattern does not have any real proof. In addition, there is also no real proofs that a ‘first” life form or organism was there.
A superb example of a design that, while not necessarily “indisputable,” provides strong evidence of a designer of the universe is the intelligence design. Humans use their intelligence to produce machines that perform different functions. This manmade machinery emanates from an intelligent design. This is where materials making up the machine are combined intelligently. Similar, the natural things in the universe are made up of different parts, and these parts when combined achieve specific purposes. Consequently, it can be argued that the objects found in nature are the consequence of intelligence design emanating from various parts that have been assembled by a supreme being. This design is disputable, but at the same time, it is convincing since the world comprises of different parts that are joined together.
The other point that McCloskey puts across relates to evolution where claims that since it exists (evolution), it inadvertently displaces the requirement for a designer. One can argue that God essentially designed the universe to go on evolving in it without the need for redesign. Even if an argument could be forwarded that the process of evolution displaces the need for an initial designer, it is however; plausible to imply that just as the previous example of machinery are able to achieve their design purpose God also achieves his purpose. He created things such as animals and humans in a way that allowed them to evolve progressively. Therefore, his design of the universe has essentially fulfilled its purpose. As Evans and Manis suggest, “the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply the means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes,” (83).
The final thing on the teleological argument that McCloskey argues concerns the presence of imperfection and evil where he states the two is proof that God’s divine perfection does not exist. It is indeed true that imperfection and evil exist currently in the universe and the use of this virtue to argue against the divine perfection of the universe is significantly convincing. On the other hand, however, it is plausible side with Evans and Manis argument on imperfection and evil where it emerges that the cosmological argument does not really envision a perfect universe without the presence of evil. Rather, this cosmological argument argues that there was the presence of an uncaused cause and this implies perfection, where evil is absent. Evans and Manis therefore argue that without a proper understanding and comprehension of the cosmological argument, atheist can argue the world’s divinity and purpose are elementss that one is supposed to realize or see (Evans and Manis, 77).
McCloskey forwards the question of how humans can justify the notion of the existence of a loving and caring being who watches over the human race when the universe of full of so much evil. How can God who is supposedly omnipotent allow evil to occur? If such a being existed would not he have the power to eliminate these evils? This argument is somehow valid but then again, if evil was to be eliminated, this will mean complete elimination mankind since he is the one that commits evil because of the free will given to him by God. Without evil, there can be no good and the two therefore complement each other. It is vital to appreciate the fact that everything has an opposite and it this opposite that assists in the deduction or derivation of its meaning.
In regards to free will, McCloskey suggests that if God indeed existed, he would have developed a more practical model of free will, that is one that is biased so that people can always chose what is right (McCloskey, 66). This argument is however ambiguous and not convincing because it goes against the definition of the term free will itself. Whenfree will is biased, then it no longer free. God just created a moral principle, which was supposed to guide people on what, is bad and good, but it is up to people to make a choice between the two. If God did not exist, everything that occurs in the universe would be taken as accidental and, no one would question the other’s actions ever.
In the final part of his article, McCloskey contends that atheism is more comforting than theism. He reasons that the major reason why people need religion’s and God’s comfort is because of the pain brought about by bad thing that happens in the lives of human beings. However, his argument is not convincing and is, in fact, contradictory. Without God, humanity would not require comfort since evil would not be present. There would also be no good. Everything would just be, and this makes no sense of living at all. In addition, it does not make sense to argue that not believing in God’s existence makes life more comfortable or even better. Not believing in God means that one does not believe in the afterlife. Life would not be worth living if one’s efforts and hard work in life diminish when they die.
In conclusion, it is fair to state that McCloskey’s arguments about the inexistence of God are unwarranted. He goes to great levels to prove that God does not exist by countering the arguments of God’s existence, but, at the end, he is unable to prove that God does not exist. Expecting the theist to prove or provide undisputable proof that God indeed exists would also mean that he provides undisputable proof about his arguments.
References
Craig William Lane (2013). The Absurdity of Life without God. Retrieved from reasonablefaith.org, March 2, 2014.
Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2009). Philosophy of religion: Thinking about faith. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic.
McCloskey, H.J.(1968). “On Being an Atheist,” Question 1. 62-69.
