Atheism & Theism; Proof & Disproof
Dateline: October 07, 1998
It is a common contention between theists and atheists as to who has the "burden of proof." Who has this burden - theists? atheists? both? neither? This issue comes up often enough in debates and discussions that it really needs to be addressed here in some detail.
Theism and Evidence
That the theists have some burden of proof simply cannot be denied.
They are obviously making at least one claim - that at least one god exists. Theists
must, then, be prepared to offer justification for their claims - they must face
up to their burden of demonstrating that their assertions are reasonable. Of course,
it would be unusual for theists to limit themselves to just the claim that a god
exists - normally, there will be concurrent and related claims about what this god
wants and how we are to live, and those too will require some degree of support from
the theist. The more necessary and fundamental they are to the theist's religious
belief system, the greater will be the need for support.
How is a theist to support their claims about their god(s)? Well, that will depend
entirely upon the nature of the god for which they are making those claims. As with
any other claim about any other sort of thing - the nature of the support is dependent
upon the nature of the object in question. There isn't any one set of catch-all "proofs"
which will suffice for every possible god. Clearly, then, one of the first steps
any theist will have to take is to explain the nature of this god
they are claiming. What is it, exactly?
Unless we have a good idea of what we are looking for, we'll never know if we've
found it or not! Unless a person's theism is literally nonsense, they must be capable
explaining the content of their belief.
Parallel to this, and well recognized by many theists, is the fact that the more
ambiguous and vague the description of their god is, the easier it will be to find
"evidence" for it. If they don't start out clear about what they are describing,
then they can later add on anything they wish as "support." No critically
and logically thinking atheist should accept this. If we do not have a clear idea
of what "god" mean, then the statement "god exists" is literally
communicating nothing to us - and there will be no reason to accept
it as rational, much less true.
Atheism and Evidence
But what about atheists? What burden of proof do they hold? Well, we should first
notice that atheists aren't necessarily making any particular claims about the world.
When a person says to you "I am an atheist," all you can really assume
is that they are saying "I do not believe in any gods." That isn't much,
and unless someone wishes to argue that the atheist is mistaken or lying about their
beliefs, then they should be taken at their word. They do not believe, and that's
pretty much that.
Of course, that isn't going to be the limit of the average atheist's beliefs and
nonbeliefs. For example, an atheist might deny the existence of some gods - and that
denial is itself a claim which warrants justification and support, if it is questioned.
Other atheists might not deny outright a particular god, but will deny certain associated
claims made in relation to belief in that god. For example, an atheist might assert
that an alleged god might exist - but that if it does, it cannot be omnibenevolent.
Or an atheist might accept that, if a god exists, it certainly didn't create the
world in seven days.
Again, such assertions should be supported if questioned. Common to all is a fundamental
connection to atheism. They aren't necessary to atheism - no one
need deny any particular theistic beliefs in order to be an atheist, they only need
to not believe in any gods, whatever their reasons or attitudes. But the aforementioned
claims are clearly related to atheism, since they involve gods.
| Quote of the week: My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of innocence in the English law; [...] ...the onus of proof...is up to the theist: first, to introduce and defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application. Antony Flew, God, Freedom, and Immortality. |
Sadly, not all theists seem to recognize this. Some take an attitude that anything an atheist believes and which they do not believe must be fundamental to atheism, and, hence, must be justified by the atheist. If the atheist cannot or chooses not to, then the theist will quickly claim an unwarranted "victory" since "atheism" has not been "justified." But once we realize how and why the belief in question is not necessary to atheism, then we must also realize that no matter what happens to this belief, atheism itself need not be affected.
Atheism and Evolution
One common example of this is the issue of evolution. Religious fundamentalists
who hope to question whether or not atheism is reasonable will often and quickly
reach to one of their favorite debating points: evolution. Evolution is probably
the central defining idea at the heart of the modern biological sciences. As such,
it is probably the central target of the fundamentalist reaction to modernity and
science. For some reason, they cannot seem to get away from evolution - one could
say that many are almost preoccupied by it - and so atheists must be prepared to
deal with the common fundamentalist question: "So, where did life come from?"
The first reaction, of course, is that this question has nothing at all to do with
evolution. The theory of evolution describes how life has developed over time, not
how it originated. Few fundamentalists understand this - probably because they have
spent too much time reading creationist propaganda and zero time reading any actual
science texts. If debate gets beyond this issue and ever addresses what evolution
really is, the next reaction is: what's the point? Unless an atheist does not believe
in any gods because of evolution, the an atheist has absolutely
no need to defend evolution in order to defend atheism.
Although I personally feel that evolution is fatal to most traditional Western theistic
ideas, it is clear that evolution and belief in god(s) are separate issues for most
people. There are theists who accept the explanation of evolution, and theists who
do not. There are atheists who accept the explanation of evolution, and atheists
who do not. If evolution is incompatible with belief in any gods, it is only going
to be incompatible with very particular conceptions of god(s) - but atheism involves
not believing in any gods, not just a few.
So atheism is not inherently dependent upon evolution and, hence, no
atheist is automatically required to defend it. Evolution could be entirely wrong
without atheism being touched. Fundamentalists, however, are very theistically prejudiced
- they only ever think about their own god and totally disregard every other. They
cannot think outside of their own narrow theological box - and so if some idea is
incompatible with their belief in their god, then it must be incompatible with theism
in general. Ridiculous, but that's the way it is.
Atheism and the
Universe
Discussion might proceed to origins in general - namely, the origin of the entire
universe. Theists will commonly ask "Well, where did the universe come from?"
Like the atheist reaction to evolution, we can approach this question with: "I
don't know. So what?" Unless a person's atheism is dependent upon a particular
description of the origin of the universe, they neither need to know the answer to
the theist's question nor do they need to support any particular answer. Like evolution,
the question of the origin of the universe might have a relation to a person's atheism,
but need not support it. Both are further beliefs which go beyond simple nonbelief
in gods - but so is the belief that the Earth is round. An atheist need not support
and justify any of them in an effort to support or justify their atheism.
Just because a theist's beliefs regarding those issues are central to their theism
doesn't mean that the atheist must oblige them and make those issues central to her
atheism. If a theist wishes to make the question of the origin of the universe fundamental
to their belief in a god - fine. That will then be one more thing which they will
have to explain in their effort to support belief in their god. But that has no impact
whatsoever in any effort I might make to support my not believing in their god. The
only possible origin for the universe which is incompatible with my atheism is that
of a creation by a god. This, of course, would be for the theist to demonstrate -
and if they cannot, my atheism remains, whatever the real origin is. I do not need
to account for this "real origin" in order to account for my atheism.
Theists need to explain and account for their god, because that's what theism is:
belief in a god. Their claims of theism are about their god, so that is what they
have to talk about. I do not, as an atheist, automatically need to explain or account
for anything in particular in the universe because my atheism is not about the universe.
I hold a wide variety of beliefs - and my atheism is dependent upon just a few of
them. The rest could be absolutely wrong without automatically changing the fact
that I do not believe in any gods. So, theistic demands that I do justify them are
merely efforts to distract from the issue: whether or not their god exists and whether
or not they can support their claims.
Atheism and Disproof
Now, are atheists required to disprove theistic claims? In general,
no. If an atheist feels that she can disprove some particular theistic
claim, then she should feel free to move forward and do so - but she should not feel
that she is laboring under any obligation. At the minimum, the atheist needs to examine
whatever support is offered for theistic claims and show how and why they might be
inadequate for the job they are assigned. If the theist, however, does not offer
any support - there is little more that the atheist can do but ignore them. If they
do not wish to offer rational support for their claims, then they
have no interest in engaging in rational discussion on the issues - and what else
is left?
So the atheist committed to rational beliefs and rational discussion has a relatively
clear course before them. First, the burden of proof is on whoever
is making the claims. This is always at least the theist, since they are by definition
making at least one claim about at least one god. This is sometimes on the atheist,
if they choose to deny something specific.
Second, the justification of atheism, if required, can only proceed
from whatever is fundamental and necessary to atheism. As long as atheism is simply
nonbelief, that means that little or no justification is required, at least early
on. Only after the theist has presented coherent and rational arguments might the
atheist need to explain why she does not accept them. At that point, justification
of atheism is based upon inadequate justification for theism.
Moreover, the atheist should not be maneuvered into justifying other beliefs which
themselves are not necessary to their atheism. Just because the atheist happens to
disagree with the theist on other issues does not mean that the atheist needs to
justify these other beliefs in order to justify atheism. The atheist does not have
any more automatic need to justify acceptance of evolution than she does of justifying
acceptance that the Earth is round or that the death penalty is just.
Instead of allowing the discussion to go off on irrelevant tangents amenable to the
theists personal obsessions, the atheist must strive to keep the discussion focused.
If the discussion is about the existence of gods, then that is where it must be kept.
Since the burden of proof is primarily upon theists, diversions will primarily benefit
them - which may in fact be why so many theists go off on tangents, but I cannot
say for sure.
|
Make your opinions be heard on the Bulletin Board or Chat Room! |
