Atheism is a belief that has entered the mind of man prior to the advent of scientific revolution. This ideology is not an original one and has its roots even during the time of the kings and prophets in the Old Testament. The Bible records their existence in one of its verses The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.  They have been a minority in the past but as mans ability to invent and create progressed so does his self ego and pride expanded. More and more people are now embracing the belief that there is no God and the belief in an all powerful being is simply unreliable because there are no strong proofs that can prove its validity. Some of the countries which receive a high rate of atheism include first world countries like Japan, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Germany and Sweden which topped the list. It has indeed received prominence in the world and it is attracting more supporters through the series of counterarguments it throws to theism.

McCloskey in his article claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief have no weight. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends Gods existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskeys failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists arguments.

The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article. For one, atheists refute the belief of an all powerful being because it will result to absurdity. According to them such a being should be able to create an object that is both a circle and a box or if not create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot carry. But such a rebuttal should not be considered as worthy to be accepted. It is only a mockery. Atheists fail to remember that the God who is being supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral argument is a God of reason.  He is indeed all powerful but the phrase all powerful is not to be equated to human vocabulary as being absolute. It is only used to elaborate on the fact that compared to man his power is unimaginable. He is not bound or limited by anything in this world. He is not governed by the systems of the world rather he governs it. Whatever we do will not diminish nor lessen his godliness. He is the only thing that is constant in this world and will not undergo any change. He is self-existent and will remain that way forever.

Further clarification of the nature of God will lead us to the Cosmological Argument. The cosmological argument states that Gods existence is inferred through the existence of the cosmos or the universe. According to McCloskey, the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (omnipotent). He argues that the most we can accept is that the cause, which is the first cause or God, is powerful enough to create the universe.  But this position is in no way contradicting the belief that a being which is powerful enough did began the series of events which triggered the composition of the universe. It perfectly meets the demand of the temporal argument which only assumes that the universe had a first moment of existence. I have earlier stated that the phrase all powerful should not be misinterpreted because it is only used figuratively to describe God. How can you further address someone that is able to trigger the formation of galaxies Will the word powerful or very powerful be sufficient  For the sake of emphasizing his greatness we use the term all powerful because no man can ever do the things that he have done. It is unimaginable for man to even produce a single strand of hair from nothing. Yes, scientists have managed to clone plants, animals and humans but he is only capable of doing such if he has a specimen. He starts from something and makes it more complex but creation is not done in that process. It is from nothing to something.

McCloskey does not rest from this. He further tries to refute another argument, the Teleological Argument or Argument from Design. He rejects it because according to him there is no evidence for design and purpose in the world and evolution has sufficient evidence to prove this.  Evolution in his analysis has displaced the need for designer in the universe but is this really the case or isnt evolution further supports the teleological argument Evolution is the development of life and aims to answer how diversity is possible here on earth. It provides scientific reasons on why we see similarities amongst creatures under the same species but is has in no way stated that God does not exist because of this. So it is very wrong to assume that the evolution contradicts design actually it further supports design. Evolution believes that inside every living creature lies a genetic code, DNA structure which contains the genetic make-up of things. This has been passed on from one generation to another and can only be altered on extreme conditions which entail survival. Does he not see design in this process Does he not see the design towards perfection within the DNA structure of creatures But of course, these are simply assumptions if I am to accept evolution but in as much as I have not accepted evolution the scientific community has also rejected this because it lacks sufficient evidence.

McCloskey argues that the Teleological Argument lacks evidence but there is a wide array of undisputable evidence to prove the Teleological argument. The body structure of man is a perfect example of design.  Can you think of any better place for the nose to be located It would be very awful if accidentally found its place underneath our armpit. How about the eyes It would be a disaster if these are placed on the palm of our hands. How about the feet Imagine the difficulty it will pose if our feet are placed on top of our head. If you want to go to higher grounds then you may observe the planets size, orbit, rotation and revolution. The universe if filled with mathematical accuracy. A slight alteration on the mass of each planet is futile. It can mean destruction of the whole universe. Even the location of the earth away from the sun spells intelligence and design. If McCloskey will only open his eyes to this reality it will not be so hard to believe in the existence of an all powerful and all knowing being which we call as God. As St. Paul stated it For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse we may not be able to see Him face to face but we know that He exists because of the work He has done.

We may now go to the last argument which McCloskey tried to refute through the problem of evil. According to him, No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons. He further adds that it is because evil exists that we believe that God does not exist. Le us ask ourselves first if this is the wishes of God Is it his wish to have a world full of hate and corruption He is definitely a morally perfect being and his goodness is unspeakable. He is a God of justice and will definitely serve justice at the right time and at the right place. We should not put against his divine foreknowledge the burden of freeing the world from all possible source of evil. At the beginning of creation everything is perfect and good. Prior to creation, God has a divine foresight on the different possibilities which may happen in the world but this remains possibilities until the day when man decides for himself what action to act upon. God designed man to act responsibly thus every time we do a wrongful action we feel restless and uncomfortable. Our body is simply not designed to do evil actions like killing and lying. A person who is not a professional liar will definitely show physical signs of stress and discomfort when committing the crime of lying. This is proof that he originally created the world to be as good and perfect as he wanted it to be. But he did not program us like robots. The fact that we can make choices is proof to this. He provided us freedom and wishes us to choose right actions. Unfortunately at times we fail and fall into sin. He still allows this to happen so we can learn from these mistakes. He allows a certain amount of evil in this world to exist so we can show goodness towards others. He allows sadness and despair to enter into our lives so we can learn to appreciate happiness and success. So the existence of evil does not necessitate the non-existence of God rather it further proves his existence. In the first place will even call it justice if we are pre-programmed to do things Is there color and meaning to life if we simply act because of pre-ordained mandate

It is very wrong to assume that a life without God can ever be meaningful as McCloskey suggested. According to him, atheism leads to a spirit of self-reliance because it empowers man to seek comfort where he can realistically gain it like friends and relatives. This may ultimately become the dividing factor between theists and atheists. Atheists depend so greatly on what they can do individually while theists attribute everything that we do to God and address the impossible to him as well. McCloskey may not have found comfort in creating a relationship with God but for those who believed and trusts in him has better words to say. A life without God is meaningless because meaning is equivalent to existence and existence is only possible with God who holds eternal life. For what else can comfort a person who is about to face death but the hope that after death comes another life which is better than the one which he presently experienced. Only theism can offer such hope and comfort. Atheism will not offer you anything death except the end of things. Is there anything to be comforting in knowing that you have come to destruction and will cease to be Is there anything appealing to it Would anyone one even hurry towards death I believe the reason science is progressing is its belief that in the future she can discover the secret to eternal life. Everything that man does aims to that desire. Why do you study hard and wish to land a good job So you may have better chances of survival in the future. So you may have the financial funds to support sickness and decay in the long run. We act based on our desire to survive an no one in this entire universe has the promise to grant us that dream except God. He alone provided the promise of a life devoid from unhappiness, fear, hunger, despair and even death. He alone has the ability to grant true justice to anyone because of his capacity to see deep within a persons heart. He alone has the power to do what we cannot do and that is comfort enough for any responsible theist. It is a comfort which is immeasurable and cannot be equated with words. It is a comfort which gives us strength to move forward amidst the evil and injustice we see in this world. It is the very thing that makes us want to live for tomorrow.


Post a Comment