On Being an Atheist

On Being an Atheist

H.J. McCloskey in 1968 wrote an article on Atheism. The article was named, “On being an Atheist.'' The purpose for this article was to enlighten other atheists of what he believed were inadequacies of Theism, and to deal with the accusations that the position of atheism is to “cold” and “comfortless.”[1] McCloskey is unquestionably a great intellectual. His article is well written and is definitely embraced by other fellow atheist. Although McCloskey's arguments raise some important questions, his portrayal of a ruthless, cruel and manipulating god seems alien to an astute believer. And by believer, I refer majorly to the followers of the three major Abrahamic faiths i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

McCloskey attempts to disprove three eminent points of view for God's existence. He talks about the cosmological argument, teleological argument and the problem of evil. His main argument is about the problem of evil. While talking about the cosmological argument, he states that a theist has not “thought far enough or hard enough about the problem of an uncaused cause.”[2] Upon reading the complete article, it is here where McCloskey takes an obvious bias standpoint. He expects the theist to explain what he himself has failed to explain. McCloskey's view about the cosmological argument is that the existence of the universe does not provide sufficient reason for one to believe in the existence of an all-powerful God that created it. This indeed is a exceedingly valid argument; nevertheless this disagreement is intended merely to illustrate the prerequisite of a First Cause.[3] He never clarifies his position about the First Cause, although being an evolutionist himself we can safely assume that he probably do believe in the First Cause but as long as that cause is not God.

He refers to the cases as "proofs" and frequently implies that they can't definitively create the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. He further explains that there is some intricacy with a first cause i.e. “uncaused being” being the cause of this world. Recently, some scientists have tried to explain the universe ex nihilo (out of nothingness) through the “quantum mechanical principle argument.'' According to this argument the virtual particles are through some mechanism converted to “degrees of universe.'' Although, a good try to explain a causative cause of this universe but this argument needs probably more complex explanation than the cosmological argument because even the “virtual particles” are “something” needing “something” else to cause them.[4] This has placed science in a very compromising situation since it has failed to explain this dilemma between “something out of something” or “something out of nothing.”

He states that the existence of a cause for the universe “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.”[5] This is to a degree acceptable, but logically incompatible to his entire cosmological argument. At one instance he says the existence of a cause for the universe “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful…uncaused cause,” but right after that he ...