Most people understand that the absence of belief in the truth of a claim is the position we all start out with regarding every claim. Most people also understand that unless a person making a claim offers good support for that claim, then continued disbelief (if not rejection or denial) is the only justified reaction. For some reason, once the claim becomes "theism," people stop acting rationally or consistently.

J.E. Heath writes:

There are two possibilities to the god question: either there is a god, or there isn’t a god. One of those possibilities is true. Those of us who are interested in such things want to know which. Atheism doesn’t tell us. Atheism doesn’t offer an answer.

Actually, there two other options: there are multiple gods and there was once one or more gods, but not anymore. It's interesting that Heath ignores them; it's also interesting that Heath ignores that the sheer number of possible gods increases the number of possible answers to the question. Ignoring all of that, though...

It is true that atheism, as mere disbelief in gods, doesn't tell us whether Apollo, Odin, Krishna, or Yahweh exist. Since atheism isn't a worldview, religion, ideology, or anything similar, it doesn't need to. It also doesn't tell us whether to be liberal or conservative, to prefer opera or country & western music. This doesn't mean, however, that the default position of disbelief in these gods isn't justified — on the contrary, there's no logical connection between that premise and the conclusion Heath is arguing for.

Consider a legal analogy: absence of belief in the truth of the proposition "O.J. Simpson killed his wife" doesn't answer the question whether he did, in fact, kill his wife or not. Does this mean that it's not justified for jurors to maintain the absence of this belief unless those making the claim (the prosecutors) can support what they are saying? Of course not.

Such legal situations are merely formalized, structured examples of how we should all act with regard to claims in general. Before a claim is made, we obviously don't believe it is true. Once a claim is made, we shouldn't believe it is true until we are presented with good reasons to do so. This doesn't require starting out with the assumption that the claim is false; it merely requires that we refuse to accept it until and unless the believer can make a case. There is no other rational option. The fact that our absence of belief doesn't tell us whether the claim is true is beside the point and objecting to this fails to appreciate the fact that the claimant is obligated to support his claim.

Paul Lytle writes:

First of all, we must define what we are talking about. By proving, do we mean scientific proof, or a looser proof (like legal proof)?

As with everything, the nature of the "proof" is entirely dependent upon the nature of the claim. If someone claims to have certain evidence of the existence of their god, then they have set the bar pretty high for themselves. If someone merely claims that belief in their god is reasonable — but not necessarily mandated — by the available evidence, then they may not have a tough job to do.

Theists who ask what kinds of "proof" are required to defend their position seem to me to be missing the point: if they have to ask, that suggests that they haven't given the matter much thought already. Who accepts the truth of a proposition without already having a good idea what kinds of support are required for such acceptance?

[A]theism takes as much faith as does theism.

This is a common claim made by theists, but it holds absolutely no intellectual weight and marks the author as lacking intellectual credibility. It takes no more faith to fail to accept the truth of someone's claims about their god than it does to accept the truth of someone's claims about elves. A person who so obviously doesn't know anything about atheism really shouldn't make such grand, sweeping pronouncements about the nature of atheism.

Evolution is not a scientific fact. It is a mythology in that it is a set of beliefs designed to explain the origin of things.

Is it just a coincidence that those who know nothing about atheism but insist on making sweeping statements about it also tend to do the exact same thing about evolution? I don't think so, but I'm not quite sure what the connection is.

Evolution is a scientific fact — it's as much a fact as plate tectonics or relativity. It's most certainly not a set of beliefs designed to "explain the origin of things." Evolution happens. Evolutionary theory explains how it happens — specifically, how genetic diversity develops.

[S]ince most philosophers and scientists in the history of the world have found sense in theism, I would say that the burden of proof is on the atheist.

It's not often that you find three fallacies rolled up into one statement, but Paul Lytle manages. We have here a combination of an Appeal to Unqualified Authority, Begging the Question, and an Argumentum ad Populum

First, it's an appeal to unqualified authority because all those scientists and philosophers have differed radically in the "theism" they have found sense in. Even if we were to accept that any of them were "experts" on the question of the existence of gods, the existence of such widespread disagreement doesn't allow us to point to any of them and use their statement as authoritative.

Second, it's an example of begging the question because assuming that some scientist is an "authority" on the existence of a god assumes that there is a god whose existence one can be an authority on in the first place. It's like citing alleged UFO abductees as "experts" on UFO abductions and, therefore, accepting their reports as "authoritative" on the nature of UFOs.

Third and finally, it's a blatant appeal to numbers: most people believe X, therefore it's sensible to believe X and those who don't are the odd ones who have to justify themselves. This allows the defender of X to mount their defense without ever even trying to offer an argument for X. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

Update: Paul Lytle adds to his comments, saying:

I am not trying to prove Christianity here, but theism.

You can't "prove" theism because "theism" is a mostly-empty concept. Theism is the belief in at least one sort of god. There is no "proof" of theism that isn't a "proof" of some specific god or gods. In order to "prove" theism, you have to have in mind some set of characteristics of some type of god. It's ironic that whenever those characteristics are taken into account, apologists begin a quick retreat in to a vague "theism" which may be immune to critiques, but is intellectually uninteresting.

Paul Lytle ran into this problem earlier when he wrote:

And since it is impossible to prove a negative like, "There is no God"...

This is 100% false. It's not "impossible to prove a negative." Whether a negative can be proven or not depends entirely upon the subject in question. Can we prove that there is no "God"? Perhaps — it all depends upon how "God" is defined. When undefined, it's not possible to prove or disprove it — but only because nothing substantive enough has been raised to be subject to proof or disproof. It's like saying that it's impossible to prove a negative like "There is no Grazmip," without ever defining what "Grazmip" is. Who cares?

Look: we cannot prove everything over again in life. With some things you have to accept your sources. If it is the opinion of most men who study God that there is a God ... then it is incumbent upon the atheist to support his claim more than it is incumbent on me.

Paul Lytle is right that we can't prove everything over again in life; however, no one has proven the existence of any gods even once. Expecting theists to support their claims about alleged gods isn't asking them to prove anything "over again," it's asking them to do what is expected of everyone who makes claims.

Notice also how Paul Lytle repeats his argument from authority fallacy. Yes, it's true that most people and most philosophers in history have believed in gods; that, however, isn't a good enough reason to agree with them unless there are sound arguments to back up those beliefs. Every time an argument from authority is offered, it's a type of "short hand" for those full arguments — it's assumed that the argument exist and are sound. A person offering an argument from authority is, however, committing themselves to providing those full arguments if challenged.

You can't just wave your hands and continue to insist that smart people believed X and, therefore, the burden of proof is on those how don't. The burden of proof is always on those making the claims. An argument from authority, when valid, isn't an exception to that — it's just short hand so that we don't have to repeat long explanations unnecessarily.

It's ironic that Paul Lytle would insist on persisting with an unjustified appeal to authority like this when, at the same time, he also insists on rejecting the idea that evolution is a scientific fact. Here we have a similar situation in which the vast majority of working biologists and scientists in the life sciences accept evolution as a scientific fact. If challenged on this, there are is a mountain of documentation of evolution occurring, thus demonstrating that evolution is fact. Lytle, however, doesn't appear to accept any of this — neither the original appeal to authority nor the supporting evidence. Curious, isn't it?

Christianity should answer when someone who claims to be Christian bombs a Planned Parenthood office. Islam should answer when people claiming to be Muslim bomb anyone they can find. Atheism should answer for Marx, Lenin, and Moa.

I'm male; should I answer for everything done by males? No. I have dark hair; should I answer for everything done by people with dark hair? No. I don't believe in UFOs; should I answer for everything done by people who don't believe in UFOs? No.

The reason why I shouldn't answer for everything done by people who happen to share this or that characteristic with me is because not every characteristic is a philosophy or ideology that motivates action. If a person bases their actions and beliefs on some principle or belief system, then others who share that principle or belief system may reasonably be asked about it. Do they also share a motivation for such actions? If not, why not? Is there something wrong with this belief system that it leads to such actions?

These questions are, however, just as inappropriate when applied to atheism as they are when applied to being male or lacking belief in UFOs. Contrary to what some religious conservatives keep trying to insist, atheism isn't a belief system. It isn't a philosophy. It isn't an ideology. It isn't a religion. It isn't a principle. It isn't even, at it's bare minimum, a belief. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods and, as such, can't "answer" for anything. There are lots of people who, like me, don't believe in any gods — but other than that, they share nothing in the way of my beliefs or principles. There's no possible reason why I or other atheists should have to "answer" for them.

 

What is Blogsnark?

 

Want to Comment on this? Post in the Forum

 

 

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Critical Thinking
• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?