The debate between atheism and Christian theism has such a stereotypical form that it's easy to overlook the radical disparity: when you think about it, there is no positive evidence for atheism. The case for atheism boils down to an argument from silence.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with an argument from silence, but that's a very vulnerable argument. Atheists don't really present any positive evidence for atheism; rather, they argue against theism.
The case for atheism boils down to the alleged lack of evidence for an interventionist God. Claiming that we can explain the origin of the universe naturalistically. We can explain the origin of life naturalistically. We can explain every illness and recovery naturalistically.
Or take the claim that answers to prayer are random. Likewise, the argument from evil is an appeal to randomness. The distribution of weal and woe seems to be random. By the same token, mass extinction seems to be random. What species survive or perish seems to be random.
Some atheists allege that biological organisms exhibit design flaws. Suboptimal adaptations. That allegation is refutable on different grounds, but in any event, it's not a positive argument for atheism.
A few atheists say God-talk is meaningless. That poses a bit of a dilemma inasmuch as it is no longer clear what the atheist is denying. In any event, that's not a positive argument for atheism.
Some ambitious atheists say the existence of God is not merely improbable but impossible: the very idea of God is incoherent (e.g. "paradoxes of omnipotence"). That generally depends on arbitrary, stimulative definitions of the divine attributes, or dubious postulates about a best possible world. And in any event, that's not a positive argument for atheism.
Many atheists find the Bible is morally repugnant. Of course, many atheists reject moral realism. In any event, that's not a positive argument for atheism.
If you go down the list, atheists don't offer any evidence for atheism except in the roundabout sense that if there's no evidence for God, then atheism wins by default.
In some respects, the argument for atheism is decidedly odd. Once again, take the argument from evil. How does evil undercut Christian theism? After all, Christian theism is predicated on the existence of evil, so how can evil be inconsistent with Christian theism? It's not the presence of evil, but the absence of evil, that would falsify Christian theism. At best, the argument from evil might undercut "mere theism" or philosophical theism.
By the same token, how can the argument from evil disprove or even undercut biblical theism when biblical theism grants the existence of evil? It's not as if the Bible depicts a utopian world. The Bible is a chronicle of evil.
So there really is no direct evidence for atheism. By contrast, Christian scholars and philosophers marshall reams of evidence for Christianity. And it's important to keep our eye on the burden of proof. If the case for atheism is an argument from silence, then it takes next to nothing to overthrow it. Suppose 99% of the ostensible evidence for an interventionist God is naturally explicable. If just 1% (indeed, even less than 1%) gets through, then atheism is false. Atheism can't permit a single counterexample to slip through its sieve.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteNice Article, Brother Steve. Of course, the stock standard response from your typical atheist is that atheism doesn't have a burden of proof because it's not a belief that God doesn't exist but simply the lack of belief that God exists. But for atheists to suggest that a burden of proof rests upon the Christian presupposes an "ought" which atheism cannot account for.
ReplyDeleteSarcasm aside, that has to be the most prolixous, circular argument pieces of work I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the premise is just stupid - "they cannot prove that "nothing" exists".
No kidding!
"There is no direct evidence for athiesm"
That is a government quality oxymoron statement.
You are literally calling for proof of "nothing".
I could walk up to you and hold out an empty hand and say "there is nothing in my hand", and you would ask me to prove it?
It's mind boggling that anyone with a shred of sense could accept that as a valid argument.
Am I the only one who recognizes the lunacy of that?
If there are two sides of an argument about the existence of a thing, the burden of proof is on the side that is arguing for the thing's existence.
Flipping it around to say "oh yeah, prove it's not there" is grade school logic, at best.
Of course, there is no room for logic in religion (or free thinking, or self actualization, or common sense), so I guess it would make sense to a religious person to accept the argument in the article as valid?
Eric. You say there is no room for logic in religion. That's quite a statement. I'd like you to tell us how atheism can account for logic if we are all simply just matter in motion.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, why do you speak of a burden of proof as an atheist in the first place? You are pretending that "oughts" exist in a meaningless universe again where all we are is matter in motion.
Thirdly, you fail to recognise that the definition of atheism is not uniform. There are atheists who would define it as the belief that no God exists. Not merely as the non-belief in the existence of any God.
Fourthly, to compare the affirmation of the existence of God to the affirmation of the existence of another thing is a categorical fallacy, since the former is the necessary being upon which all things depend. The latter would not. So in order for you to continue proudly waving your flag of logic and sensibility, would you mind doing me a favour and tell me which non-circular argument you're going to use to demonstrate the existence of the unchanging, omnipresent laws of logic in your fantasy atheistic universe in order to even launch a rebuttal in the first place?
1) how would one "account for logic"? It is just there. The device you are reading this on is based on rules of logic of some kind, as is every other scientific and technological method or device in existence.
ReplyDelete2) you evade the point, much as the author of the article - if a person is going to argue for the existence of something, then they need proof to support their argument. Otherwise, it's just hot air.
3)atheism - there is no god
Agnosticism - I don't know if there is or not, but I have no belief that there is.
Those are two separately defined things.
4) self serving argument. Also, illogical. Defining and demonstrating (proving) the existence of something is no different, whether a person,place or thing.
Limestone does or does not exist.
Apples do or do not exist.
Santa Clause does or does not exist.
A god does or does not exist. (of course, there are any number of believed "gods" to choose from)
The statement "the former is the necessary being upon which all things deoend" is a self serving argument that cannot be backed up by fact.
That is the same as saying "I'm right because I'm right".
That cannot be accepted in a serious debate.
"The validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content."
Please refer to the section titled "Logical Systems" for further reading:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
eric
ReplyDelete"You are literally calling for proof of 'nothing'."
Suppose atheism is more like a person arguing there is nothing when it's evident to anyone with any sense there is something.
For example, suppose we are in a cozy mountain village tucked away in hills of yesteryear. Suppose all the villagers look up into the clear night sky, and see the sky is filled with beautiful twinkling stars.
However, suppose the village idiot happens by.
Let's call him "Eric".
Suppose Eric looks up in the same sky, and guffaws in his simpleton manner: "Whatch'all lookin' at? There ain't nothin' in the sky! Not a gosh darn thang! What, y'all don't think so? Y'all want some proof? I cain't do that. Ain't no proof for nothin'!"
Asking atheists to prove God doesn't exist isn't asking for an argument in a vacuum. For starters, we live in a finely-tuned universe. That's virtually beyond question. Many if not most atheist scholars would agree. However, the question is what the fine-tuning is due to (e.g. random chance, physical necessity, design).
Of course, a sensible atheist could disagree with my premise. But that's the point: the burden of proof cuts both ways. That's something Eric fails to recognize.
"I could walk up to you and hold out an empty hand and say 'there is nothing in my hand', and you would ask me to prove it?"
I could walk up to you and hold out a hand with something in it and say "there is something in my hand", and you would ask me to prove it?
"If there are two sides of an argument about the existence of a thing, the burden of proof is on the side that is arguing for the thing's existence."
If it's true "the burden of proof is on the side that is arguing for the thing's existence," then that means you need positive proof to believe a proposition. Otherwise the negative is the default position.
Given this, how would Eric argue he has a physical body and is not a brain in a vat? Or stuck inside the Matrix or a similar virtual reality which simulates all his thoughts and experiences as if they were reality? What positive proof can Eric bring to bear that he has a physical body that is not consistent with being a brain in a vat?
If Eric doesn't have any positive proof that he has a physical body, then according to his dictum, he has to accept the negative proposition that he doesn't necessarily have a physical body. He could very well be a brain in a vat.
That whole spill makes the original post almost look intelligent.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that your argument is invalid, it's just that it is stupid.
Supposition proves nothing. Evidence does.
Yes, you are, in fact, asking for an argument in a vacuum.
The universe is literally full or randomness and chaos.
If you say "X exists" and I say "you cannot prove X"; YOU are the one making a claim of the existence.
Responding to my request of proof with "X exists because you cannot prove that it doesn't " is just completely stupid, circular and illogical.
How can you people not grasp this?
Yes, you need proof positive to accept a proposition. Good grief, of course the default position is negative without some kind of proof!
If you have a different take on this, then I do have some sea-front property in Arizona that I would like to sell to you at a discount.
There is a well documented process called "the scientific method":
Ask a question: does an omnipotent deity exist.
Do Research: this could take a while; which of the dozens of deities accepted around the world are we going to research? What material other than some bastardized versions of supposed ancient texts do we have to research with?
Form a hypothesis: it seems the religious people do this step first, instead of basing it on research, they base it on chosen beliefs.
Perform experiments: well, this is really the step where your argument falls completely apart. Let's accept that your hypothesis of the existence of a god is in place How are we going to experiment with this? There is literally nothing there to experiment with!
Analyze the data and draw a conclusion: again, this cannot be done, since there was nothing to experiment with.
(However, the religious people produce a conclusion anyways.)
I suppose it's easy to believe we could be stuck in a system like the matrix, if you already believe in something as fanciful as a god.
However, for those of us grounded in reality, your statements are no less than asinine.
But, thanks for the thinly veiled personal attack. That seems to be the default fallback position for religious people and grade school children.
"I'm right"
"can you prove it? "
"you're the village idiot and you can't prove I'm not right."
Still no solid argument for your position. No evidence.
Just circular argument,asenine statements, and personal attacks.
eric
Delete"You are literally calling for proof of 'nothing'".
Funny how you unwittingly corroborate my argument. You are asserting the nonexistence of God. So you are making a truth-claim. Moreover, you are begging the question.
"Am I the only one who recognizes the lunacy of that?"
Perhaps your fellow inmates in the mental ward share your perception of reality.
"If there are two sides of an argument about the existence of a thing, the burden of proof is on the side that is arguing for the thing's existence. Flipping it around to say "oh yeah, prove it's not there" is grade school logic, at best."
So if someone says Abraham Lincoln didn't exist, the burden of proof is on the other side. If someone says the lunar landings never happened, the burden of proof is on the other side.
Thanks for illustrating your dazzling command of logic.
"It is just there. The device you are reading this on is based on rules of logic of some kind."
And what, if anything, makes the "rules of logic" necessary and universal?
"Please refer to the section titled "Logical Systems" for further reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic"
Because Wikipedia represents the apogee of scholarship for atheists.
"There is a well documented process called 'the scientific method'"
Actually, that's the legend of a single, universal scientific method:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
eric
ReplyDelete"That whole spill makes the original post almost look intelligent."
1. Hm, let's see. Eric, the village atheist, has some dismissive words for my "spill". Why should I (or anyone else for that matter) bother to take a village atheist like Eric seriously?
2. Not to mention Eric's replies have been filled with "asenine [sic] statements" and "personal attacks," yet he somehow doesn't seem to have a problem calling others out for "asenine [sic] statements" and "personal attacks". What's that about the pot calling the kettle black?
"It's not that your argument is invalid, it's just that it is stupid."
1. More invective from Eric. But anyway notice Eric doesn't show my argument is invalid. He just asserts it.
2. Besides, my "argument" wasn't an "argument" so much as answering Eric on his own grounds. But that sails right over his head.
"Supposition proves nothing. Evidence does."
Tell that to scientists who engage in thought experiments to develop their own theories (e.g. Einstein).
"Yes, you are, in fact, asking for an argument in a vacuum."
No, I'm not, in fact, asking for an argument in a vacuum. See how easy it is to make assertions without backing them up, Eric?
"The universe is literally full or randomness and chaos."
1. Did I deny randomness or chaos in the universe? No.
2. Again, you're missing the fact that I'm responding to what you yourself brought up. But you're not exactly the village atheist with the pointiest pitchfork, are you?
3. If this was part of the equation, a superior question to ask would be whether the randomness or chaos is better undergirded within an atheistic framework or a (classical) theistic one.
"If you say 'X exists' and I say 'you cannot prove X'; YOU are the one making a claim of the existence."
If you say "X doesn't exist" and I say "you cannot prove X doesn't exist," YOU are the one making a claim of the non-existence. So what now, Eric the Knave?
"Responding to my request of proof with 'X exists because you cannot prove that it doesn't' is just completely stupid, circular and illogical. How can you people not grasp this?"
1. For one thing, you didn't make any "request of proof". No need to try to revise history. Rather, you just came here acting utterly gobsmacked anyone would say what was in the post. You said how "stupid" the post was, that it has to be "the most prolixous, circular argument pieces of work I have ever read," that "It's mind boggling that anyone with a shred of sense could accept that as a valid argument. Am I the only one who recognizes the lunacy of that?", etc.
2. Also, since when did I ever make the argument "X exists because you cannot prove that it doesn't"? At best, that's a terribly wrong-headed misreading of what I actually said. You're tilting at windmills.
"Yes, you need proof positive to accept a proposition. Good grief, of course the default position is negative without some kind of proof!"
Again, you obviously and entirely missed my response to you.
Moreover, you don't even attempt to challenge my response to you, which was perfectly valid, even if you don't grasp it.
It must be nice to have such an impenetrable skull. Yup, just blink and nod, blink and nod, Eric.
"If you have a different take on this, then I do have some sea-front property in Arizona that I would like to sell to you at a discount."
Nice to see how open-minded atheists like Eric are.
"There is a well documented process called 'the scientific method':"
DeleteGo ahead and define what you mean by "scientific method" then.
Your outline below seems to be closer to what's taught in elementary schools rather than what's actually practiced by many if not most professional scientists. At the very least your "scientific method" is too coarsely grained to be applicable to many scientific disciplines.
"Ask a question: does an omnipotent deity exist."
Ask a question: does Eric exist.
"Do Research: this could take a while; which of the dozens of deities accepted around the world are we going to research?"
Do research: this could take a while; which of the dozens of Erics accepted around the world are we going to research?
"What material other than some bastardized versions of supposed ancient texts do we have to research with?"
Such a vague statement. Why don't you be more specific and spell out which "ancient texts" you're referring to?
"Form a hypothesis: it seems the religious people do this step first, instead of basing it on research, they base it on chosen beliefs."
Form a hypothesis: it seems the irreligious people do this step first, instead of basing it on research, they base it on chosen disbeliefs.
"Perform experiments: well, this is really the step where your argument falls completely apart. Let's accept that your hypothesis of the existence of a god is in place How are we going to experiment with this? There is literally nothing there to experiment with!"
Perform experiments: well, this is really the step where your argument falls completely apart. Let's accept that your hypothesis of the non-existence of Eric is in place. How are we going to experiment with this? There is literally nothing there to experiment with!
"Analyze the data and draw a conclusion: again, this cannot be done, since there was nothing to experiment with."
Analyze the data and draw a conclusion: again, this cannot be done, since there was no Eric to experiment with.
"(However, the religious people produce a conclusion anyways.)"
(However, the irreligious people produce a conclusion anyways.)
"I suppose it's easy to believe we could be stuck in a system like the matrix, if you already believe in something as fanciful as a god. However, for those of us grounded in reality, your statements are no less than asinine."
If so, then Eric thinks atheists and agnostics like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Nick Bostrum, among many others, are making "asinine" statements when they say things like "I think the likelihood may be very high [that we live in a computer or virtual simulation]" (e.g. see here).
"But, thanks for the thinly veiled personal attack."
DeleteJust returning the favor. Thanks for starting the trend!
"That seems to be the default fallback position for religious people and grade school children."
Since you have made personal attacks, this must mean you're in this group too.
"'I'm right' 'can you prove it?' 'you're the village idiot and you can't prove I'm not right.'"
This is just evidence of your lack of basic reading comprehension since I never made this argument. But keep piling on the evidence if you like. It doesn't hurt anyone but yourself.
"Still no solid argument for your position. No evidence."
Saying so doesn't make it so. You haven't so much as lifted a finger in an attempt to respond to my argumentation against your original position.
"Just circular argument,asenine statements, and personal attacks."
So says Eric who can't so much as follow a simple argument well enough to respond to it.
If only you had an intelligent opinion to offer here, Eric, then your opinion might matter to me. But since it's not, it doesn't.
eric
ReplyDelete"Yes, you need proof positive to accept a proposition. Good grief, of course the default position is negative without some kind of proof!"
Besides the fact that Steve Hays and I have already responded to Eric's main point here, I've actually mentioned fine-tuning to Eric as possible evidence for God's existence. It's not "proof" in a deductive or mathematical sense, but arguments from design (including arguments from fine-tuning) are certainly "positive" arguments for (Christian) theism.
By contrast, where's Eric's argument for atheism?
In addition to what I've already said above, the best scientists often come up with their own "scientific method" to address a hypothesis or resolve problem or the like.
ReplyDeleteRockingwithhawking - Excellent points. I found quite a number of things with Eric to be puzzling:
ReplyDeleteHe acts as though "insulting" is a bad thing, as though there are objective morals and truths.
He acts as though laws of logic are just a given and we can assume them because we "observe" them, yet to conclude their existence through "observation", one must assume them in the first place.
He talks about burden of proof as if such a thing exists in a mere materialistic universe.
He complains about circular arguments yet doesn't see how he uses them with the laws of logic.
Good points, Royal Son!
DeleteAtheism is the belief in the absence of God or God does not exist. If all truth is God, then no truth is the absence of God. God is the Father of Truth, which is manifested as the Son, Jesus. Jesus, the Truth, called Satan the father of lies, a murderer from the beginning. The goal of satan is to destroy Truth, and set himself up in place of it. If this would be the outcome of the war between Truth and the Lie, then Atheism becomes reality. However, the achilles heal of Satan and Atheism is that the 'creation can never be greater than the Creator'. Therefor, atheism was born out of Theism at the creation of Lucifer. This is the iniquity found in him. He then chose the darkness, absence of God, as his kingdom. His followers don't live in the light, they choose to live in the absence of God. So there is quite a lot of evidence for Atheism. However, the Lie cannot perpetuate itself but the Truth is eternal.
ReplyDelete