Can Atheism Be Proven?

Most theists seem to think that the existence of their god can be proven. Is it possible, however, for a broader disbelief in the existence of any gods be "proven"? Is it possible to prove that no gods can or do exist? Probably not, no.

Den Beste writes:

[T]here are some people who are atheists because they come around to the idea of atheism as being the most acceptable answer, for whatever reason. I'm one of those. But there are a lot of people who become vocally atheist mostly because it isn't Christianity, and try to wield atheism as a rhetorical weapon in their crusade to convince Christians that Christianity itself is wrong. To that end, they will try to claim that atheism is better. Like all zealots, such advocates can become a pain in the ass; they're usually confrontational and intolerant and actively seek out strife as they engage in anti-Christian evangelism. Because the atheists like me generally don't seek out "the enemy", it's the zealots who are most visible and establish the reputation we all must live with.

Belief atheists like me make weak claims. I do not say that "there is no God". I say that "I believe that there is no God". The claim is about my belief. The only way my statement can be false is if it can be shown that I don't actually hold that belief, and since I'm ultimately the only one who really knows whether that's what I actually believe, it is very difficult for anyone else to disprove my claim. And if I really do hold that belief, my statement would be true even if it turned out there was a God. ... My statement that "I believe there are no gods" is a weak statement, and part of why it is uncontroversial is that even if my statement is a fact, it doesn't have logical consequences for anyone else's religious belief. It's a claim about me, not a claim about the universe.

[W]hen a proof atheist says, "it is a fact that there are no Gods", then he too has made a strong claim about the universe. ... The difficulty for proof atheists is that it's damned hard to prove a negative, especially one as expansive as this. The reductio ad absurdum is pretty much the only way to do it. If it can be shown that every conceivable religion based on every conceivable deity or pantheon of deities either will be required to claim something which can be demonstrated to be empirically false, or will be required to claim something which is logically impossible, then it means there cannot be any Gods. That's the burden on the proof atheist. If he wants his claim accepted as fact, that's what he has to demonstrate. But that's damned hard because he has to get them all. It has to be complete. If he only shows that some religions embody contradiction or empirical falsehood, it isn't enough. It isn't enough to prove that all existing religions are wrong. He also has to prove that any conceivable religion which does not now exist also is wrong.

So-called "proof atheists" attempt to get around this problem by singling out a particular definition of "god" and disproving that. According to them, that's the only sort of "god" that counts. Such a definition does not and cannot encompass even all of the gods which people in the West have believed in over the past couple of thousand years, much less other gods in the history of humanity or theoretical gods people might come up with.

It's a dishonest argument because it is ultimately a straw man — it disproves many, if not most, of the currently popular gods but certainly not all gods. If someone simply wants to argue that commonly accepted god-attributes are unlikely at best, then that's one thing; if someone wants to definitively prove that gods don't and can't exist, then this tactic doesn't do what they want.

Read More:

• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?