Since atheists are making the claim that God does not exist, then they need to offer evidence for that claim. As you can see above, atheism is not the “lack of a belief in God.” This is agnosticism. Instead, atheism is the positive assertion that God does not exist. If atheism is merely a “lack of belief in God,” then on this redefinition, babies are atheists because technically they lack a belief in God! Or as philosopher William Lane Craig has argued, his cat is technically an atheist on this definition. The same would be true for infants and the mentally disabled. But is this really what we mean when we use the term “atheist”? Of course not. Atheism is not merely a psychological state of mind; it is a philosophical position that is defensible. Consider the various ways that philosophers have defined “atheism” in the philosophical literature: Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995): “[Atheism is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.”2023. [1]https://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/truth/the-burden-of-proof/ In lue of proof we have warrant, That says despite not being able to prove absolutely we still have good reason to believe in this position, [1]James M. Rochfordm "the Burden of Proof,: Evidence Unseen
Thursday, December 07, 2023
On Burden of Proof in God Talk
Atheists are fond of saying the believer has the burden of proof (BOP) because we believe in the positive existence of something. I think that is true in so far as it goes. Of course the atheist who simley doesn't believe has noburdenif proof, He/she is really advocating at that point, ;but I real dust up with a board full of atheists who suggested that the moment athestss proclaim as a fact "there is no God" they take ona BOP.
The board exploded with angry insults and statmemts about how stupid I am. No one this stupid would be in graduate school, spoken by people who have never been in graduate school. They kept reiterating that you can't prove a negative so they have no burden of proof. But they are mistaken about what is a negative and what is a positive statement; They think a positive statement is one that affirdmd=s the existence of something. But the proclamation "there is no God" is a positive statement because it asserts as a positive fact a certain condition (ie no God) as the nature of thngs.They never did really grasp the concept,I quoted a logician but they just go by the atheist party line.
Does the BOP really matter? Logically it does and yet I think it's unfair to impose the term "Proof" or to insist that God must be proven. They think that is only logical given the advocacy of a positive existence. But proof is not possible, not because there is no God but because there is an epistemological gap imposed by the transcendent.
How would one go about proving something that is not given in sense data? How would one prove the existence of something removed totally from physical presence? Speaking of actual proof is unfair. If we use the term there should be an understanding that it's in a practical sense and means belief is warranted not that it is absolutely demontrated.It's unfair to expect religion to embody the kind of hard proof demanded in science.Science deals in tangibility,God is transcendent.Proving God would be like proving the laws of physics. Where are they? can we go to the place they are kept? they are spread throughout reality, they are too basic and tangible. But they are real, as is God.
Of course atheists will argue this is a real come down. It's not. God does not want to be turned on and off like a light switch or demonstrated as though he were an artifact.God wants to enter into a reationship with us.At least accordimg to standard Christian theology.Thus under the right circumstances God will reveal himself to us.
The real burden of faith is that the payoff comes after we are all gone from this life. we can't be justified to critics in any absolute sense until later, i can well imagine that will be satisfying and scarry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Many, I suspect most, atheists think there is probably no god or gods given the lack of evidence. You want to call that agnostic, but that is just a labelling issue; it does not address the validity of the position or who has the burden of proof.
There was a thread of CARM about the atheist/agnostic labelling issue, which I mention only to point out it comes up a lot, and not to suggest anyone should bother reading it.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/atheist-or-agnostic.16313/
Pix
I don't buy that, Pix. They are shown evidence, and they think it's not enough. Atheists keep moving the goalposts.
If you want to discuss the evidence, we can do that.
As far as I can see the evidence for the risen Jesus walking around Jerusalem in his original body comes down to what the authors of the four gospels claim. Mark, the earliest, only supports the claim in a later revision. Matthew and Luke are clearly based on Mark with added embellishments, while John was written even later, perhaps as much as seventy years after the event.
Against that, you have the letters of Paul, which indicate he believed Jesus was raised in a new body, and the original version of Mark, which has the risen Jesus seen in Galilee.
Are you really going to tell me the evidence for the risen Jesus walking around Jerusalem is so good we can be sure it really happened?
Pix
Atheists focus on when these documents were finished. What about the material in them? It was written not long after the event.
there is a pre Mark redaction, Before Mark was written there was Gospel we don't have now and is used by all four and GPet.
JAB128: Atheists focus on when these documents were finished. What about the material in them? It was written not long after the event.
We do that because we do not know what was in the earlier accounts.
We can compare Mark and Matthew, and we can see how much the mythologising had progressed in that time. This is - to me - proof that the story was undergoing revision.
All those stories of the risen Jesus walking around Jerusalem look very much like later embellishments. For one thing, Mark reads as though the author had never heard of them. The second gospel, Matthew, has an embryonic form, Mat 28:9-10, but it is the later gospels that go all the way.
In some cases the gospel writers even tell us why something was invented; the guard on the tomb to counter claims the body was stolen, Jesus eating fish to counter claims it was just a ghost, the spear in the side to counter claims Jesus was not really dead.
Joe: there is a pre Mark redaction, Before Mark was written there was Gospel we don't have now and is used by all four and GPet.
But what was in that earlier work? Was there just one? Was it subject to revision?
The very earliest version was likely the creed in 1 Cor 15, which is thought to date to just a few years after the crucifixion. Notably it has no mention of the empty tomb.
I would suggest that that went through multiple revisions before Mark got his hands on it.
Pix
>>"atheism is the positive assertion that God does not exist. If atheism is merely a “lack of belief in God,” then on this redefinition, babies are atheists because technically they lack a belief in God!"
Actually, babies are atheists, since they have not yet become believers. And, yes, atheism IS a lack of belief in God or gods. But this kind of points out that there may be more than one way of defining it. It can be about what we believe or what we don't believe. It can be an assertion about the existence of God. It can also be a philosophical position. It may be ridiculous to call a baby an atheist on the grounds that the baby has no philosophical stance. But it is not ridiculous to say that the baby has no belief in God. None of those things are a "redefinition" of the word, and Rochford doesn't get to say that only his chosen definition is valid.
That said, if an assertion is made, that entails a burden of proof. Most atheists are not making assertion that requires proof.
JAB128: Atheists focus on when these documents were finished. What about the material in them? It was written not long after the event.
How do we know that this is the case? Even if they were written a week after the alleged events that wouldn't make them true.
I've heard before that the "earliest version was likely the creed in 1 Cor 15". I've yet to see evidence that this was in fact a creed, and any support for when it originated.
As to the burden of proof? It lies with the one making the claim.
Cuttlebones: I've heard before that the "earliest version was likely the creed in 1 Cor 15". I've yet to see evidence that this was in fact a creed, and any support for when it originated.
That does seem to be evidence that the creed does date from just a few years later. What is notable is that there is no empty tomb, implying that was made up later, and no indication of what they actually (thought they) saw. Was it Jesus in his original body, walking around Jerusalem? Or was it Jesus in a new heavenly body that shone like the brightest star in Galilee?
All we can really say is the disciples believed Jesus was raised in some sense from with a year or so of the crucifixion.
Pix
A little more claims and burden of proof. In general, theists make the claim that God exists. That is an assertion that entails a burden of proof. You say it right here in this article, with your assertion that God is real. In general, atheists say "I don't believe your claims about the existence of God." But then you avoid assuming the burden of proof by saying that it can't be proven. And you liken that to the laws of physics: "Proving God would be like proving the laws of physics. Where are they? can we go to the place they are kept?"
But this is a fallacious comparison. Of course we can't see or touch the laws of physics. Why? Because they are conceptual. They exist in the mind. They are not objects or entities that have ontic existence. But your assertion is that God is a being or entity some kind that exists independent of the mind. You are certainly not saying that God exists only in the mind. You are saying that God is something real.
I understand that there may be some dispute about the existence of conceptual things. Let me explain a little about the conceptual nature of physical laws. We observe the behavior of physical things, and we see patterns in that behavior. We then formulate rules that describe the observed behavior. These are abstractions. We call them the laws of physics. But we understand that these rules may not be entirely correct. As we gather more information, we often find that the law we had formulated doesn't work under new conditions or with more precise measurements. So we change our concept of what the rules are. We revise the laws. If the laws were real things out there somewhere (as you describe it), we couldn't simply change them. What we can change is our concept - the abstraction that we have in our mind. But whatever we think the laws of physics are, that doesn't govern how things actually behave in nature.
Nobody is trying to prove that the laws of physics are entities that exist. Many theists try to prove that God exists. Even if you can't prove it, you are still making an existential claim.
Post a Comment