Photo: Jack Star/PhotoLink/Getty
Are atheists arrogant for insisting that theists support their claims before we accept them as true? I've seen many attempts to argue that atheists are arrogant, but this is an unusual one. It's a serious sign of weakness, I think, when someone starts whining about having to support their assertions.
This isn't something we'd accept under any other circumstances. We would not, for example, allow a used car salesman to call customers "arrogant" for expecting documentation to support claims about a car they're selling. In fact, I'm sure Christians wouldn't accept this sort of thing from a person who's part of another religion. So why should it suddenly apply to atheists?
Ryft Braeloch wrote a couple of years ago:
The really frustrating thing about most atheists--at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism--is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system. ... This is implicitly demonstrated in challenges such as, "Provide evidence that God exists." The relevance of evidence, and even what constitutes evidence, are defined by his system of thought.
Ryft doesn't like being held to the standard of having to provide evidence for his claims. Actually, though, I suspect that he only objects to being held to that standard when it comes to claims about his god -- I'll bet that he is quite comfortable with that standard in every other situation. Would he, for example, object to scientists having to provide evidence for their scientific claims? Would he object to prosecutors having to provide evidence in support of murder charges brought against him? Unlikely.
It's fair to question the nature of what evidence is expected in support of a claim, but trying to exempt one's own personal god-claims from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy. If someone really thinks that some particular claim merits being exempt, they'll have to provide a sound logical argument in defense of that claim. Of course, sound logical arguments is another one of those standards that atheists typically apply to god-claims -- just the sort of thing Ryft is complaining about.
The whole thing strikes me as an admission that one's god-claims can't stand up to the same critical scrutiny that all other claims are expected to and, so, the only recourse is to try to deny that those standards should be employed. Convenient, eh?