RESPONSE

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



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

Introduction

For millennia natural theology and Christianity have been debated, rejected, accepted, and ignored. H. J. McCloskey attempts to refute Christianity and theism as a whole. He gives arguments against the cosmological argument, the teleological argument from design, and incorporates a problem of evil throughout his work. His arguments, as will be shown, fall short of being convincing. The Christian's belief in the existence of God is the most rational philosophical position with the most explanatory scope and power of the universe and being of humanity.

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument argues for a cause of the universe. It attempts to answer the question—why does anything even exist? The argument is minimal and does not necessarily conclude with the all-loving Trinitarian God of the Bible. McCloskey's objections are specifically against the argument of a first cause. He postulates that the cause and effect relationship of the universe in no way constitutes an uncaused cause. Scientific, mathematical, and philosophical evidence serve the explanatory scope and power to rightly justify the existence of an uncaused cause via the Kalam argument.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise (1) seems obviously true—at least, more than its negation. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic. McCloskey's objection to the cause and effect not constituting an uncaused cause is patently false because one would then run into an infinite regress, which is philosophically and mathematically untenable.

Science gives empirical evidence for (2). In 1929 Edwin Hubble showed that light from distant galaxies were systematically shifted toward the red end of the light spectrum. This Doppler Effect indicated that these galaxies were moving away from each other suggesting the expansion on the universe.

Richard Swinburne points out; there are two types of causal explanation: The first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions.

Providing (1) and (2) are true, (3) logically follows. A naturalistic atheist, surprisingly, denies even the empirical evidence. McCloskey never offers a better solution as to why the universe exists or where it came from. Interestingly, he never completely discredits the argument from causation, but conveniently stops his argument with a cause and not an uncaused cause.

The Teleological Argument from Design

McCloskey's answers to the argument from design are based on two unconvincing objections. First, he attempts to discredit the appearance of design by inferring natural selection and evolution as the reason for these appearances. Second, he tries to void the argument by appealing to suffering and evil, which he implies as being a lack of design. The teleological argument may be formulated as follows:

The modification of the universe is due ...