Refutation to McCloskey

H. J. McCloskey in On Being an Atheist argues in favor of atheism and attempts to discredit theism. He uses many tactful approaches in disputing theism such as the arguments for God as a whole failing to establish a case for God. Focusing on the Cosmological argument, McCloskey claims that the existence of all that we see fulfills no grounds for there to exist a God or necessary being. He furthers the argument by stating that the cosmological argument gives us, as humans, no right to assume that a necessary being or God exists. Furthermore, McCloskey debates the Teleological argument by claiming that in order to believe that nature was designed there would need to be examples that were indisputable. Moreover, he delves into the problem of evil, bringing one of the most disputed and difficult cases to the table. His main objection to theism contains the fact that evil exists. He asks how evil could exist if an omnipotent God existed as well. The argument of evil and why it exists inevitably leads to the concept of free will of which he also asks why God allowed it or couldn’t have kept human beings from making wrong decisions. Lastly, McCloskey attempts to explain his argument that atheism produces more comfort and satisfaction than theism. He uses the example of illness and says God either cannot stop it from happening, allows it to happen, or deliberately gives an illness to someone.

For McCloskey’s first argument, that of abandoning of some proofs because they are inadequate, I challenge by stating that any argument for God may not be absolutely solid but all the legitimate arguments for God brought together form a convincing and unyielding argument. The best explanations approach states that the existence of God is the best explanation for what we see, observe, know, and don’t know of the universe surrounding us. Basically, a moral, intelligent, personal, necessary being, God, is the best explanation for what we experience in the universe.

Secondly, McCloskey argues that just because the world exists does not mean a necessary being or cause has to exist as well. However, anything and everything that we observe in the universe does not need to exist, but does. More so, the objects in the universe, separately or as a whole as the entire universe, exist, but could easily not exist. That, in turn, leaves no reason why our universe exists. Basically, what we see, observe, and know are not things that had to exist necessarily. The universe is contingent which means it is liable to happen, to have been caused, or not. Therefore, to have a contingent object or being requires that there be a cause or necessary being. This necessary being must not be able to cease to exist for if it could cease to exist, which means it has or had an end, then that would imply that it indeed had a beginning. And for anything that has a beginning must therefore have been created or caused. The argument is as follows: some contingent beings exist, and if they exist then a necessary being must exist because, as we discussed, contingent beings require a necessary being to have caused them. Therefore, there must be a necessary being which is the cause of the contingent beings (Evans). As for a common objection, if everything requires a cause then God also requires a cause We argue that God is not a contingent being. Besides, only a self-existent or necessary being can be thought of as God (Evans).

McCloskey furthers his refutation against the cosmological argument by stating that it “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” (McCloskey) However, if someone accepts the cosmological argument, then he or she should inherit a desire to search and learn more about the Creator (Evans).

After McCloskey’s claims against the cosmological argument, he transitions his focus to the teleological argument claiming that to approach this argument or proof, indisputable examples of design and purpose would be required. I disagree in that to give any example shows the possibility of a creator, whether the example is disputed or not. Although an example may lay prone to argumentation and disputation, there generally exists an argument in favor of the example, a refutation of the disputation if you will. To give an example of design or purpose would then make it possible that there is a Designer; for if it is possible that there is a God, then God must be necessary. To state Malcolm’s version of a necessary being, if God exists, His existence is necessary. But if God does not exist, then His existence is impossible completely. So either God exists, or He does not exist and God’s existence is either necessary or impossible. Because we can give examples, God’s existence is then possible meaning, conclusively, God’s existence is necessary (Evans). McCloskey also goes on to claim that evolution has disqualified and dismissed the need for a Creator or Designer. Even if evolution were true, as I don’t believe it is, it is indeed a process following the laws of nature whose ultimate outcome is beneficial. Just as a print machine uses a process to produce several copies of a particular document and has a creator, someone who designed the print machine, so the process of evolution would also have a designer. God cannot do something that is impossible. He, for instance, cannot make a square circle or round rectangle (Evans). So the imperfection and evil in the world do not count against the divine design.

From there, McCloskey then moves to the problem of evil in and of the world.

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 (McCloskey).

To define first, as is within the logical form of the problem of evil, moral evil is caused by the actions of free, morally responsible beings. Natural evil, however, appears to be evil that does not occur as a result of a responsibly moral being. Theodicy attempts to show that God is justified in allowing evil. It explains that God allows evil and possibly that He has good reasons for doing so. Evans referred to Alvin Plantinga who claimed that God may have reasons for allowing evil that we don’t or can’t know.

Another thought refers to the idea that the amount of good in the world ultimately outweighs the bad and evil in the world. For example, something bad happens; but because of it’s happening, a greater good is achieved and therefore the good outweighs the bad (Evans). Another argument is that some of the first order evils in the world, namely natural evil, happen in order to produce or provoke second order virtues. For example, a first order evil occurs, perhaps such as a grizzly charging a man’s daughter; perhaps a second order virtue, courage, is provoked and therefore produced when the man charges the bear waving his arms around to scare the bear off. Or, if the bear gets the girl, which would be an evil, perseverance and reliance on Christ could be the second order virtue of the man. You may ask, then, what of the second order evils that occur, those opposite of the virtues, such as cowardice? This is basically the result of the mistakes of Man and his poor use of free choice (Evans).

This then leads us to McCloskey’s discussion of free will where he asks why God did not arrange so that man always chooses the right choice. His argument, however, is not logical. If God said that everyone would always choose the correct path of A, then no one really would have any free will seeing as how free will would give everyone the option to also not choose path A (Evans). As Evans stated in his book, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith, “God is said to allow freedom because without it humans could not be morally responsible agents, capable of freely doing good by responding to and loving their Creator,” (135-136). McCloskey states that theists cannot always argue that free will and necessitation to virtue are incompatible, for they represent God himself as possessing a free will and as being incapable of acting immorally. If this can be the case with God, why can it not be so with all free agents (McCloskey)? One interesting point McCloskey is overlooking, however, is that God, possessing free will and the necessitation to virtue, is good. Man, however, since the fall of Adam, is not naturally good.

Finally, McCloskey, as he closed his article, claimed that atheism is more comforting than theism. He argues that it would not be comforting to know that God was responsible for the illness that befell a loved one; or that God was to account for the death of a child or the cancer of a mother. He argues that it would be much more comforting to know that these issues came by chance and was not able to be helped or stopped. I disagree. I don’t believe that it would be comforting to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and not believe in an afterlife in heaven. I do not believe that a person could find comfort in believing that they were going to cease to exist completely, other than by memory of others alone. It is not comforting, in my opinion, to believe that there are no basis for values or morals; that we have no grounds for right or wrong. As Craig so brilliantly put it, “...it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist---there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say that you are right and I am wrong.” Is that the kind of world we want: A world without God? I find absolutely no comfort in the thought of a Godless world.

Works Cited

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. “The Absurdity of Life Without God.” Wheaton, TL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Evans, C. Stephen. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1982.

McCloskey, H. J. “On Being An Atheist.” 1968.

Television’s Affect on Children

Warm sunny weekends prompted times that my parents did not allow me or my siblings indoors. I still remember trying to sneak my way into the living room to watch the Saturday morning cartoons while everyone resided on the deck. Although my dad disapproved, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and Tom and Jerry filled my agenda and sparked my interest. However, to my parents, kids should not have been inside on a beautiful sunny day. My step brother and I were forced outside many times to play with our Tonka Trucks or Matchbox Cars in the dirt. We did not quite appreciate that at times. However now when I look back, I honestly have to thank my parents for doing that: not allowing my brain to become a rotisserie oven. After awhile of adjusting to no television, my mind was forced to create its own entertainment and before I knew it, I wandered the forests out back from sun-up to sun-down every chance I got. I would fight off enemies, make alliances, and take over kingdoms! I was ruledr there, in the small one acre wooded area, but it was mine nonetheless. One of the most important lessons I learned during these years of childhood was to never complain that I was bored. If I did, my dad would hand me a toothbrush and send me to the bathroom to scrub the toilet.

Sadly, in these modern digital days, parents do not react the same way as mine did. Turning on the television to silence a crying two year old has become a sufficient means to end the inconvenient discomfort. Story books, crayons, outdoor activities, and sixteen year old babysitters have been replaced by Cartoon Network and The Disney Channel. A study concludes that “twenty percent of two to seven year olds, forty six percent of eight to twelve year olds, and fifty six percent of thirteen to seventeen year olds have TVs in their bedrooms.” Television earns the undivided attention of two to seventeen year olds for approximately twenty five hours per week; three and a half hours a day. The amount and the content of television watched impact a child’s reading and other academic skills (Institute on Media, Television’s effect). Television can affect children and youth in a negative way by obscuring values, weakening their health, and affecting later adolescent behavior.

When children watch television, they intercept the values of other peoples. Over the course of time, I have found that values differentiate from culture to culture, country to country, and area to area. Everyone has values and as Jeanette Winterson once said, “What you risk reveals what you value.” (Quotes) Values dictate the choices a person makes and those choices determine the life a person leads. In the 1920s marriage was a value amongst people. Living together out of wedlock was nearly unheard of and strictly frowned upon. It was proper to date, court, engage, then marry and move in together. Now, in the 21^st Century, marital values are backwards comparatively: two people will meet (of the opposite or same sex), date, move in together, engage, and then marry. (Sometimes they skip the dating part.) Values can define a person. What does that person wear? What does that person say or talk about? Where does that person spend their leisure time? What is that person not willing to part with? One must ponder where these values come from. How do they change? I think a main factor to the answer of that question is television. Television normalizes what used to be outlandish. How do the foreign and outlandish values of other people affect our children when they sit in front of the tube and watch the display of filth, murder, thievery, sex, drugs, fighting, and profanity?

Television, especially an excessive amount, can affect a child’s health: mental, physical, and aggressive health. Children who watch three or more hours of television per day display a decline in their reading ability (Institute on Media, Television’s effect). I once heard from a respected community leader that television is projected in an up and down motion. You may recall this from older movies when you could see the pictures from the film moving from top to bottom in a fast motion creating the illusion of movement among those portrayed in the pictures. The faster the film tape moved, the less likely you were to see the brief pauses in between each slide. This soon gave the effect of a motion picture. The same is true today. The motion picture in television is still moving in the same fashion, just faster and clearer. You do not notice this; however, subconsciously, your brain still captures the individual slides. If a child constantly watches television, habituating her brain to the constant up and down movement, it is thought that the child will have more difficulty reading because reading is a side to side motion for the brain.¹ Furthermore, a child’s physical health may be in jeopardy due to an excessive amount of television. “Regardless of race or ethnicity, those who watched four or more hours of TV each day had a greater proportion of body fat than kids who watched two hours or less,” (Joseph, “Budding Couch Potatoes”). More so, children who watch a considerable amount of television a day risk injury or bodily harm. The distortion of reality, the constant death of immortal cartoons, the perfect infallible high jumps of martial artists, or the high speed thrill of fast car movies account for the increased chance of injury (Joseph, “TV viewing and risk”). In relation to the risk of injury, the risk of aggression, violence, and injury to others becomes a possible issue. “A range of studies found evidence that subjects exposed to violent filmed models were subsequently more aggressive,” (Tulloch, “Violence and Television”). A child watching their favorite action hero could begin to act out or imitate what they saw on television; these actions could range anywhere from punching, kicking, biting, cursing, or even pointing toy or real guns at other people. I remember my cousin when he was young, no older than seven years old, holding a steak knife at his mother’s throat cursing in her face, mainly because she wouldn’t allow him to do something he wanted to do. Where did he learn this action? Among the family, we concluded that he had learned it from the Chucky movies. How many stories on the news have there been about young children shooting their parents, taking guns to school, stabbing their siblings, or going on high speed chases with police?

Therefore, watching television, and increasing the aggressive rate among children, could lead to later troublesome adolescent behavior. What does television teach our children? Does it teach them that one can fly if he straps homemade wings to his arms and jumps from his housetop, or does it convince a child that shooting someone will just make their face spin around? Do movies teach our children sex first, marriage later? “What are children viewing on television that could be so bad”, one might ask. From the crazed Coyote on Roadrunner from Jerry Springer, “I’ve had more lovers than meals,” a child sees and absorbs these images, these ideas, and these values and may grow to be someone who may also portray the same behavior. They may have sex before marriage, and learn to buy diapers on their way home from their job at a fast food restaurant. They may take a gun to school because someone looked at them wrong, ending up dead or being lead down town in the back of a police vehicle.

Why is violence among children and teens on the rise? To answer that question, one must go to the source. I think one major source is the affects of television on children. It can advertently lead to mental problems, health issues, and misbehaving juveniles.

¹ I do not have a source for this information but it was given to me by an intellectual that I trust.

Works Cited

Joseph, Jennifer. “Budding Couch Potatoes.” ABCNEWS.com. http://www.drwoolard.com/peinnews2/tv_linked.htm.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Television Associated With Children's Aggression.” Mercola.com. 2009. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/04/tv-children-part-four.aspx.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “TV Viewing Tied to Child Injury Risk.” Mercola.com. 2009. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/tv-viewing-tied-to-injury-risk.aspx.

“Television's Effect On Reading And Academic Achievement.” National Institute on Media and the Family. 17 July 2002. http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_tveffect.shtml.

Tulloch, John and Marian. “VIOLENCE AND TELEVISION.” The Museum of Broadcast Communications. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/V/htmlV/violenceand/violenceand.htm.

Winterson, Jeanette. “Quotes: Value.” About.com. 2009. http://quotations.about.com/cs/inspirationquotes/a/Value1.htm.

Christians and the Environment

Have you ever seen one of those signs along the road declaring that a person or a community adopted that particular highway? Have you ever wondered what that meant? I used to wonder what it meant. As a youngster at that time, one could only imagine what went through my mind when I equated what I knew as adoption to a highway. Not far from where I lived, there was one of those signs that declared that Bear Creek Baptist Church had adopted that highway. I attended Bear Creek Baptist Church on a regular basis. My first summer there as a youth, I found out what it meant to adopt a highway. With orange vests, pointy sticks, big orange bags and lots of drinking water, we spent the entire day cleaning the trash and liter off the sides of the road. We did not stop there however; we continued on and cleaned up a few other roads. Amazingly, we enjoyed it. Every summer the Bear Creek Baptist Church Youth went out on this road, draped in orange, and cleaned our local environment.

According to the Department of Transportation, Americans burn two hundred million gallons of gasoline a day by driving our vehicles (Influences). Approximately seventy thousand people die early deaths caused by heart and lung related illnesses (The Light Party). Christians today should concern themselves with our environment locally and then expand our contributions and concerns worldwide.

How can one begin to help, restore, and preserve the world we live in? I believe that we, as Christians, can start with ourselves. For the smoker, how common and habitual is it to throw your cigarette butt out the window? When brushing your teeth, how long do you let the water run? How many empty water bottles have you thrown away or how many times have you scored jump shooting a ball of paper in the trash bin? How often do you choose plastic over paper at the super market? These are minor habits we each have in our daily lives that if we change them, we help the environment little by little. To save well over 2.5 billion plastic bags a year, approximately twenty-five percent of American families, Christian families included, would have to choose plastic ten times less and choose paper instead (Influences). For each ton of paper we choose to throw in the recycle bin rather than the garbage bin, we can help America save three hundred eighty gallons of oil. Contrary to popular belief, the butt end of a cigarette is not biodegradable. The white fibers in the end of the butt are not cotton but a form of plastic, which can last as long as other plastics in the environment (Cigarette Butt Liter). Furthermore, we, especially as Christians, need to learn not to waste what we use and use only what we need. “The more you conserve, the less you have to recycle.” (Clendennen).

I live relatively close to an ocean inlet where there resides a dock, a landing, and a lot of miniature crabs. I remember when I used to take strolls down to the landing to look out on the ocean. I remember I went down there once and discovered, as the tide was out, that beside the dock, there was an old, but very large tire in the water. Along side of the tire rested debris of sorts: empty glass beer bottles, tin cans, tangled fishing lines, a shoe, a mud soaked shirt, and a few other unnatural objects. On the surface of the water, if the light from the sun hit it just right, I could see engine fuel waste floating on top, purple and green in color. Fish and crabs, and a lot of other living creatures lived in that water. I had made a mental note one time of the stench that came from the landing area and one day I discovered why: a dead fish. A fish, a flounder, had wrapped itself in some of the tangled fishing line. When I found it, crabs were picking away at it. Although the sight and smell was horrid, I knew that that flounder wouldn’t have died, likely, if the debris hadn’t polluted the area. I later found out that toxic chemicals enter our waterways every year polluting the environment for wildlife and polluting our own drinking water (The Light Party).

Human waste is becoming a problem in our world. The United States alone, which is approximately five percent of the world’s total population, produces thirty percent of the waste in the world (Bicycle Greenway). In Australia, a shire implemented a plan to reduce or recycle human waste. The worm farm was built in 1997. Basically they use worms to eat human waste and turn it into fertilizer and then sell to those wishing to grow plants. The treatment plant receives eight thousand mega-liters of sewage a year. (About four thousand full sized swimming pools.) “The worm farm produces 200 cubic metres of worm castings per week, which is 10,400 cubic metres per year,” (Ian).

We as Christians know that there is a proper way to handle and treat God’s creation. God created the heavens and the earth and all that was in them and saw that they were good. It says in the Bible that God knows every fowl of the air and every creature of the ground. It also says in the Bible that God provides for His creation. When Jesus taught, for instance, that we shouldn’t worry about what we shall eat or what we shall wear because if God can take care of the smallest creature on earth, feeding it every day, He will take care of us, His beloved. Notice, in Genesis at creation, that when God gave man dominion over the earth, it didn’t mean for men to raze earth, but to raise it. When He created Adam, He put Adam in Eden and told him to take care of it. (Deem)

We as Christians should do the same thing with the world God has privileged us to live in. He created this world for us, to live in, be happy and fruitful. He never intended for us to pollute and destroy it. We need to begin small, locally, correcting what our earlier generations have done.

Works Cited

Cigarette Butt Litter. “Are cigarette butts biodegradable?” Clean Virginia Waterways. http://www.longwood.edu/CLEANVA/cigbuttbiodegradable.htm.

Clendennen, Andy. “Preserving the environment: energy- and cost-saving alternatives to recycling abound.” Washington University. http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/5375.html.

Deem, Rich. “Is Christianity anti-Environmental?” Evidence For God. Feb. 17, 2007. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/environment.html.

Human Influenced Facts. “Facts and Figures, Did you Know?” ThinkQuest.com. http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/facts.htm.

Ian and Luke. “Worm Farm.” The Redlands. http://www.virtualclassroom.org/99/vc_45/bsssenviron/Wormfarm.htm.

Light Party, The. “Environmental Facts.” The Light Party. 1996. http://www.lightparty.com/Economic/EnvironmentalFacts.html.

National Bicycle Greenway. “Environmental Facts.” Cycle America. http://www.bikeroute.com/EnvironmentalFacts.php.