The existence of God has been a subject of discussion among modern philosophers. The nature of God requires one to actually believe without seeing and reason with the various natural occurrences. However, McCloskey believes that there is enough evidence to prove that God is a myth whose existence will never be proved. After studying various religions and their believe systems, McCloskey has come to a conclusion that such religious believes have only been created to enhance morality in the society. The fact that they are contradictory in nature makes McCloskey convinced that there can be no specific supreme being inclining to such confusing believes (McCloskey, 1968). There is nothing special about people of different backgrounds and religious believes. A person’s lifestyle and their way of thinking mainly depend on where they were born and brought up. A person has been brought up learning a particular system, which at times is followed by threats, and consequences that will follow if they do not incline to them.
McCloskey recommends that people reason out for themselves instead of simply following what they were taught. Such arguments of existence should be analyzed and approved. Most religions claim that God manifested many years ago in flesh and currently exists as a spirit. This, according to McCloskey cannot be proved as none of the people that witnessed him in person exists. There could be people, as well, who came up with literature or just rules to influence the society. This could have also been influenced by the need to bring order in the society by dictating what is right or what is wrong (Evans & Manis, 2009). Another argument is based on the equal treatment that all people are subjected to. The rewards promised are mostly farfetched and out of this world, a proof that can only be confirmed by the dead. Since death is a destination with no return, there is no one to confirm the eternal happiness or damnation.
On the Cosmological Argument
The very existence of the universe and the living creature there in has been the basis of confirmation that God exists. This is simply because nothing just came into existence; there must have been a force behind such existence. McCloskey however argues that it cannot be the evidence. Even if there is a force behind such existence, it was brought about by necessity rather than a supreme being. McCloskey explains that whenever there is a need for something, nature gives provision for its existence. This may come through human invention or natural selection (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis argue that there was an initial force, the designer of the universe, which led to the existence of other inventions. This hence implies that the existence of a supreme power cannot be disputed.
The cosmological argument looks at the nature of the universe and the natural events occur. The times and seasons at which they happen is enough proof that they do not just occur but are influenced by a force. Even though scientist have come up with strategies to predict and explain such occurrences, they are either contradictory or are not as accurate. In response to the arguments, it could be concluded that the frequent changes happening in nature is one of the sovereign ways through which God wants to prove his existence (Evans & Manis, 2009). The fact remains that no matter the predictions that are made and the precautions taken, nature has its own way of surprising humans and shaming their very intelligence.
On the Teleological Argument
McCloskey disputes all evidence brought forth on the existence of God. McCloskey has been engaged in various studies and observed all existing religions to come up with his conclusion. McCloskey believes that everything is influenced by nature. Science acts as absolute evidence that nothing just happens but is caused by certain forces. Such forces are not divine but rather prompted by man’s activities. This undisputable evidence, according to McCloskey is simply a way to justify his personal believes and a way to influence the rest (McCloskey, 1968).
The strongest evidence I observe on the designer of the universe are the new developments that occur in the field of science. Scientists have always maintained that they discover and not create. This simply implies that what is being done is a revelation of what was already there. Since there is no convincing study of how they came into existence, it is clear that God was a designer who not only created the universe but also placed the galaxies where they are currently situated.
Evolution in its sense is a study that cannot be proved. There are no clear guidelines to prove that what is being termed as an evolution could actually be a different creature that was designed. The role of scientific evolutions is to simply explain to the ordinary mind what was previously created. Evolution can be considered as an invention that the designer of the universe waited to reveal to the people (Evans & Manis, 2009). The issue is when scientists try to imagine that they created the idea when they simply discovered it.
The existence of good and evil is undisputed fact yet it does not disqualify the existence of God. In fact, this is clear evidence that there are two forces influencing the actions of humans. The urge to behave in a particular way is an internal rather than an external influence. The internal force is the spirit of man, which is influenced by a higher spirit of either good or bad. It is through the consequences that a person gains from the actions that will influence their subsequent actions. Consequences of evil are always negative, prompting a person to engage in good acts.
On the Problem of Evil
It is unfortunate that most atheists use the existence of evil and suffering in the world to disqualify the existence of God who is described as good. It of course disturbs to see an innocent person such as a child facing all manner of suffering when God is there. On the contrary, this serves as a proof that a force influences evil in the world. In as much as the force of evil is strong, it can always be overcome by good. The existence of evil is simply to prove that there is good. This can be done through humans or even divine intervention when such evil or suffering is eliminated by acts of goodness. People can only appreciate the good that is in the world when they taste the evil (McCloskey, 1968). This is why evil cannot be eliminated from the earth.
God is the sovereign creator and even though he is a good God, he initiated evil for a purpose. This was mainly to distinguish between the forces as well as give people the ability to choose between what they believe is right. God did not just design evil and good but ensured that there were consequences attached to the actions. For man to understand the sovereignty of God and to shame the evil in the world there had to be two contradicting sides, which ultimately influence the decision of man. There is absolute peace and satisfaction in doing well despite how costly it may be. Man usually has a conscience that prompts him or she to do well, this is a God given conscience a violation of which brings guilt.
On Atheism as Comforting
Atheism is only comforting in the sense that a person is able to ignore the guilt feeling of not obeying his conscience. It is clear that we live in a world that give us the liberty to do what we believe is right. However, realizing that we have to co-exist with each other also creates in us that conscience not just to think about ourselves but also others. Atheistic thought is based on individualism where one has to assume that they are the only ones existing and hence not bothering about the person next to them (Evans & Manis, 2009). This in essence is impossible, as man can never exist alone. This is the very reason that we depend on each other for our very existence. Consequently, we can never co-exist if we care less about the people around us. In conclusion, atheism is simply an excuse for people to live individually and justify their actions through such selfish reasoning.
Reference list
Evans, S. & Manis, Z. (2009). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. London: Inter-Varsity Press
McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being an Atheist. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues.