A Critical Analysis of McCloskey's 'On Being an Atheist' Essay

This essay critically analyzes McCloskey's arguments presented in his essay, 'On Being an Atheist,' which challenges the existence of God. The essay explores McCloskey's stance against theism, focusing on the problem of evil, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument, and the concept of atheism as a source of comfort and self-respect. The analysis discusses the arguments of McCloskey and refutes them, including the non-temporal form of cosmological argument and the presence of imperfection. The essay references Evans and Manis's work on the philosophy of religion and discusses the role of evolution. The essay also addresses the problem of evil and the concept of free will, ultimately contrasting theism and atheism in the context of comfort and meaning in life. The essay concludes that the arguments presented do not offer proof of existence of God but provides an explanation that needs further support.

ON BEING AN ATHEIST
On Being An Atheist
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author note

1ON BEING AN ATHEIST
In his famous article “On Being An Atheist” written by McCloskey he takes a stance against
the existence of God. He offered many reasons including the problem with evil to show that
one should never believe in the concept of God. He believes that atheism offers a comfortable
belief that opposes believing in God who allows the sufferings to be perpetrated on innocent
people. Atheism was conceived of by a sensitive person hence it leads to self-respect.In the
end, he states that in order to live in this world a person should find solace wherever he finds
it. He feels that since the world created by him is imperfect hence He cannot be deemed as
perfect. In his words, since evil exists hence God cannot be there and hence we should accept
the state of this world.
According to Mc Closkey, the arguments act as proofs. On the basis of this, he reaches the
conclusion that God exists. When he refers to the arguments as “proofs”, it means that the
arguments have scientific factualness. A proof is a factual statement that has an end product.
The cosmological along with design arguments do not point forward to the existence of God
but they offer arguments that proves the existence of God. The arguments offer explanation
of the existence of God. McCloskey hence is denying the possibility to think of the existence
of God as he takes the arguments of the theist and offers them as proofs (Ryan, 2015). On
the basis of Foreman’s presentation, “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence”, it can
be argued that McCloskey is interpreting the cosmological and the design arguments ina way
that was not done before.
On the Cosmological Argument
The first argument that McCloskey wants to disbar revolves around the cosmological
argument. It argues that the existence of God is sure because there must be a creator of the
universe that can be either a being or a thing. According to McCloskey, existence of universe
is not sufficient in order to validate the existence of God. In order to counteract the claim of

2ON BEING AN ATHEIST
McCloskey, non-temporal form of cosmological argument can be made use of. According to
Evans and Manis in his book “Philosophy of Religion”, the claims of non-temporal form can
provide the answer. According to Evans and Manis, there is the existence of both “necessary
beings” along with that of “contingent beings”. A contingent being is something that can be
seen in the universe that can prove it’s existence but the existence is not a necessity and it
depends upon something else. A necessary being exists without requiring any validation and
it provides the source from where contingent beings come (Zewde, 2015). The contingent
being can be the world and the necessary being can be God. On the basis of this logic, God
exists because the world also exists. Refuting McCloskey, the world around him exist and
there is an ultimate creator which according to cosmological argument is God.
According to McCloskey, the cosmological argument does not give the right to assert an all-
powerful, uncaused cause. The cosmological argument states that contingent beings stems
forward from necessary being and the world relies on a creator for existing that is God.
Cosmological argument by mere surface value cannot be solely used supporting existence of
God. In the words of Evans and Manis, cosmological argument cannot provide a substantiate
proof of knowledge in relation to God. Cosmological argument provides the base for
existence of God and support of argument can stem from knowledge of God (Peterson, 2013).
On the Teleological Argument
McCloskey addresses the teleological argument that is also known as argument from design.
According to this argument, order can be seen in the universe and hence there must be the
presence of an intelligent creator in terms of argument from design. God acts as the
intelligent designer on account of the order that is seen to exist in the universe. McCloskey
feels that in order to get proof examples that are indisputable and genuine is a necessity. He
claims that no indisputable examples are there and hence the argument does not hold much

3ON BEING AN ATHEIST
ground. Focus should be laid on the word indisputable. The teleological argument cannot
prove the existence of God bit it provides an explanation of universe that points to existence
of God. He is hence right in his claim that there are no indisputable examples as the argument
cannot be said to have indisputable proof but provides an explanation (Fitzgerald, 2014).
The following provides strong evidence of the presence of designer of the universe:
 Animals are self-regulating mechanism who are designed in order to maintain their
very own existence
 Lungs exchange oxygen instead of carbon dioxide
 The heart pumps blood
Evolution in small scale occurs over a period of time, but other things are there which cannot
possibly be explained with the help of natural selection and goes against the idea of natural
selection. It hence points forward to the guidance along with direction of a being that is
supreme. The first point that McCloskey makes use of in order to disbar teleological
argument and need of intelligent designer is theory of evolution. Earth and organisms
evolving from creation form and being developed into adapted forms in relation to their
original state does not rule out the existence of intelligent designer called God. If someone
assumes the fact that evolution is true, it is unlikely to perceive an intelligent designer that is
God who was responsible for creating the world and allowing his creation to evolve. The
creation can thus adapt into a suited form in order to face the challenges in the world
(Zuckerman, Silberman & Hall, 2013). Evolution increases the understanding of complex
and ingenious means with the help of which God is able to realize his purpose.
Second point that is used by McCloskey in order to disprove teleological argument is the
existence of imperfection in universe. He states that the existence of imperfection is
contradictory to that of divine design. The questions that are raised are how can an imperfect

4ON BEING AN ATHEIST
world be created by an intelligent designer. These valid questions can be asked even by a
theist. Conclusion of cosmological argument can provide the answer. Cosmological and
teleological argument does not offer proof of existence of God but it provides an explanation
that needs further support (Zyla, 2014). It takes us back to knowledge related to God.
Knowing the character of God, theists can offer support in order to back the argument that is
at hand. Teleological argument, however, provides a mere explanation of the possibility of
existence of God.
On the Problem of Evil
McCloskey objects to Theism on account of the presence of evil in the world and he raises
this thing several times in the course of his work. According to him, if the being was perfect
then why would he create such a world where there was so much of suffering. The Evans
and Manis’s discussion of this logical problem reveals that free will is there in the world but
only the presence of good without the negative factors would give rise to a kind of world that
should be seriously thought of. If God has created a world where there would be no existence
of evil, then in such a case there would be no one helping each other as no suffering will
exist. The second hand benevolent acts like caring, sympathy and growth would not be
existing in such a case. All evil gives rise to greater good in the long run. Evil ultimately
leads to something good.
McCloskey discusses the free will argument and asks that it would have been convenient if
God had arranged the world in such a manner that men would only commit virtuous acts and
always choose to do the right thing. Evans and Manis has talked about free will in the section
on Mackie and Plantinga. According to me, if God had brought forth a world where no one
would do anything wrong then freedom of the creatures would have been jeopardised. It
would not have been real and it would necessitate some kind of pseudoform (Gbadamosi,

5ON BEING AN ATHEIST
2015). If the humans are free then it would result into putting that freedom to bad use. Free
choice suggests that what we are going to choose should be left to us and not to God.
On Atheism as Comforting
Without the existence of theism, ideas that are frightening come into play. Without the
existence of God, no reason would exist. In that sense, life has no meaning. Everyone acts in
a manner that is selfish regarding how life should be prolonged. From this point of view,
protecting the life of other people and risking one’s life for the sake of others would become
futile concept (Rennie, 2014). There are hardships and diseases in the world even when God
is there and it becomes a burden to our soul. It is easier to carry such a burden after knowing
that there is a particular reason for it to be carried. It is comforting to know that one will be
free in heaven after suffering in life rather than knowing that everything will be miserable.

6ON BEING AN ATHEIST
References:
Fitzgerald, J. J. (2014). Can Philosophy of Religion Be Pastoral? The Problem of Evil and the
Ethics of Comforting the Sick. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 16(4), 239-
260.
Gbadamosi, O. A. (2015). Natural theology and modern science: an exposition on emerging
scientific proofs for God’s existence in Christianity. Ilorin Journal of Religious
Studies, 5(2), 23-36.
Peterson, M. L. (2013). The problem of evil. The Oxford handbook of atheism.
Rennie, B. (2014). “The Philosophy of Religion Past and Present: Philosophical Theology or
the Critical Cross-Examination of Institutionalized Ritual and Belief?” Bryan Rennie
Vira I. Heinz Professor of Religion Westminster College.
Ryan, P. (2015). The Rhetoric of McCloskey. Challenge, 58(3), 251-261.
Zewde, Y. (2015). The Compatibility of the Problem of Evil and The Existence of God.
Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2013). The relation between intelligence and
religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 17(4), 325-354.
Zyla, J. M. (2014). The moment of faith: against relativism through a reinterpretation of the
story of Abraham. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 13(39), 45.