Posted on 06/08/2019 4:38:49 PM PDT by pcottraux
Atheism’s Burden of Proof Problem
By Philip Cottraux
An effort to redefine what “atheism” actually means started a few decades ago but is popping up everywhere in the online community. I’ve seen plenty of debates never get anywhere because people get sucked into a vortex of trying to establish what an atheist actually is. While the traditional definition of atheism is the belief that God doesn’t exist, the new subversion is that it’s a “lack of belief” in God. The amount of energy devoted to this controversy is both fascinating and instructive.
The first time I encountered the vehement denial that atheism doesn’t qualify as a “belief,” I found it, well, silly. Before long, I noticed it spreading like wildfire. I imagine hours of videos and volumes of articles and books have been devoted to this reinterpretation. Let me try to sum up the position fairly: it seems to assert “no gods” as a default position and portrays religious belief, or at least theism, as something added to that.
Not all skeptical thinkers are on-board with this, though. Watching some agnostic friends of mine on Twitter go crazy arguing with atheists about this new definition is admittedly fun to watch.
Here are my two cents: the real problem is a philosophical misunderstanding. The story of Western philosophy involves three categories: metaphysics (the study of what can’t be proven, at least with the five senses) epistemology (the study of what can be proven), and axiology (the study of ethics). Every philosopher from Socrates to today tried to juggle how these three relate to one another. Science and mathematics both fall under epistemology. However, the God question is firmly metaphysical. But most modern atheists incorrectly think “there is no God” is an epistemological claim, while it’s just as metaphysical of a statement as “there is a God.”
Agnosticism is much closer to “lack of belief” than atheism is, even though that’s still not completely accurate. “Lack of belief” about God would describe someone who’s never heard of Him. Imagine primitive jungle dwellers who’ve never made contact with the outside world. You could argue they have no opinion about the God of the Bible. But all that changes once they’ve heard about Him. You can’t know about God but then lack any belief about him; you either believe He exists, or you don’t. Even being unsure of His existence or declaring that we can never know for sure is still technically a position on the matter.
The controversy is puzzling to me because if atheists are right, and God doesn’t exist, why be ashamed of not believing in Him? Why not wear that proudly?
I have the same problem with internet atheist activism as I do with left-wing protesters; despite describing themselves as “free-thinkers” who have “escaped the bondage of religion,” there’s a tendency towards hive-minded sloganeering. Crowds of people saying the exact same thing over and over again makes me uneasy, especially when they act like they’re “sticking it” to some imaginary oppressive force, when in reality some sinister force seems to be controlling them like puppets.
The lack of belief issue has led most in the internet atheist community to insist that they don’t have to prove anything. I call this the “burden of proof” problem.
To be fair, this isn’t unique to New Atheism, but is symptomatic of the age we live in. Nowadays, few people want a nuanced, challenging debate; they’d rather “win” arguments over social media in 240 character-or-less sound bites. But the modern atheist is trying to have his cake and eat it too by shifting the burden of proof entirely on the theist. Quite frankly, it strikes me as intellectually lazy, as if they get to sit back and triumphantly dismiss any evidence placed in front of them without making any counter-arguments.
So where is the burden of proof in atheism vs. theism? I, as I theist, am not trying to get out of the burden of proof altogether. It’s not a blanket one-way-or-another problem. Few if any arguments are. The burden of proof is simply on whoever’s making what claim.
It’s fair enough that I have to present some evidence for Christianity. And if you’ve followed by blogs and videos long enough, you’ll know that I try to back up my claims with scholarly sources. There’s plenty of instances I could go over, but for time’s sake I’ll briefly sum up a few. I think a combination of the Kalam and Leibnizian Cosmological arguments makes a solid case for the Big Bang itself being the Creation event of Genesis 1:1. However, perhaps even more powerful is the extraordinary amount of cosmic fine-tuning to make a planet suitable for life. The odds against this happening were astronomically improbably, yet here we are, sentient beings on a planet thriving with complex ecosystems. Life itself, even in the most primitive form, is so overwhelmingly complicated that its very appearance was nothing short of miraculous.
But while those are good arguments for theism, they aren’t the most profound evidence for the truth of Christianity. At the very least, there had to be a historical Jesus and the four gospels are generally accurate accounts of His life and ministry; no serious scholar doubts that. The sheer volume of very early New Testament manuscripts is the shortest gap from a historical event to the first records of that event, making Jesus the most attested to figure from the ancient world. It’s not even close. But if that’s still not enough, there are extra-biblical references to Christ from historians like Josephus and Tacitus. Every archaeological discovery in the Middle East, from coins, statues, and inscriptions, has only supported environmental details in the gospels and book of Acts.
Working backward, the Dead Sea Scrolls have supported the historicity of the Old Testament, even proving that certain books predicting major world events existed centuries before those events occurred. A strong case can be made for the Exodus having occurred at the end of Egypt’s 13th Pharaonic Dynasty as well as the conquest of Jericho around 1400 BC.
Most importantly, the resurrection of Christ stands out as one of the most testable events in ancient history. And Jesus coming back to life after His crucifixion proves that He is who He claimed to be. This is especially significant when compared to other religious figures like Buddha or Muhammed. Christianity’s foundation is public witness of Christ alive after His death, while other religions require taking their central prophet’s word for their claims. Muhammed claimed Allah was giving him private revelations, and no one else was privileged to verify this. The same goes for Joseph Smith.
But my whole point is that whether they like it or not, the burden of proof is also on atheists for the claims they commonly make. Having debated enough of them, I can compile a list of some of the ones I hear more frequently:
-“Gods, angels, and devils are figments of man’s imagination.”
-“The Bible is pure fiction.”
- “Religion was invented to control people.”
Notice that these claims are more philosophical than scientific, making them difficult to test with evidence. The origin of religion in the human race and what part of our psyche it emerged from, and why, and the role it plays in the world today, is enormously more complicated than atheists are willing to admit.
In light of the evidence I submit that at least the outline of the Bible can be seen in the archaeological record, the claim that “the Bible is pure fiction” needs to be proven. You can’t tell me that the entire Old Testament, Torah included, was invented by Jewish scribes in the Babylonian exilic period without some kind of ancient documentation to back it up.
Let me tackle a few more common modern atheist claims backed up by weak or nonexistent evidence:
-Jesus mythicism: in light of all the evidence for the historical Christ, saying that Jesus never existed and the New Testament is a fabrication of later centuries is especially frustrating for historians as well as Christians. The tortured logic mythicists use demonstrates the extraordinary lengths they’ll go to “disprove” Christianity (with a clearly emotional motive). This is truly the flat-earthism of ancient Near Eastern studies.
-Atheists tend to be too quick to embrace pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about early Christianity. A host of disproven nonsense is still widely out there, thanks in no small part to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. Common myths about the canonization of the New Testament, such as certain books “that told the real story” being banned at the Nicene Council, are still circulated everywhere (the Nicene council was about condemning Aryanism and had nothing to do with the New Testament. These “banned texts” were actually either hoaxes or gnostic documents from later centuries).
-Along with Jesus mythicism is the claim that the story of Christ is a copy of pagan mythology. Skeptics will point to other cults allegedly predating Christianity of a god that dies and rises from the dead, including Mithras, Dionysus, and Marduk. This misconception was made popular by an internet documentary called Zeitgeist and Bill Maher’s movie Religious (because religion is ridiculous, get it?), and can be traced back to a German anti-Bible movement from the 19th century. However, while skeptics claim to need to see evidence before believing something, it’s amazing how much garbage like this they’ll swallow up without question. Every single claim about Christianity being a copy of earlier pagan myths has been disproven by actual archaeological discoveries. If you don’t believe me, just check the sources; nothing Jesus mythicists claim is supported by any writing earlier than the late 1800s.
To be fair, the burden of proof problem isn’t an atheist issue by nature. I wouldn’t accuse classical atheists like Nietzsche or Russell of it. It’s unique among New Atheists, following in the footsteps of Antony Flew (who eventually admitted there’s a God), Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. And as you can see, it is doing extraordinary damage to their credibility.
Twitter: @DepthsPentecost
YouTube: Depths of Pentecost
Thanks for reading/watching, and God bless!
This is the official ping list for Depths of Pentecost: I’m a Christian blogger who writes weekly Bible lessons. Topics range from Bible studies, apologetics, theology, history, and occasionally current events. Every now and then I upload sermons or classes onto YouTube.
Let me know if you’d like to added to the Depths of Pentecost ping list. New posts are up every Saturday, videos every Wednesday.
Please add me.
My two cents is that we need to distinguish between someone saying that they don’t believe there is a God and someone saying that they believe there is no God. In the former case, you have to prove it to them, in the latter case, they have to prove it to you. Of course, then you have to define ‘proof’, and then that’s a whole other can of worms all by itself.
Good article.
Please add me.
Thanks!
My concern is with what I call anti-theists: militant activists who seek to destroy the First Amendment rights of Christians.
Without a Creator, there are no Unalienable Rights: none. That means none for them either. That is how absurd their logic is.
It’s more the anti-theist than the agnostic who needs some sort of proof, because their disbelief God is supposedly absolute. As proof they’ll point out that there is no counter-proof by the other side. But from a purely scientific standpoint, lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. In other words, you can’t say with certainty that there is no life on other planets just because there is no evidence to demonstrate it.
My concern is with what I call anti-theists:
...
I’m an anti-nihilist.
I agree that the attempt to redefine Atheism to be "lack of a belief" in a god is ridiculous. However it seems to me this this summary of Western Philosophy is screwed up. A more traditional division into three parts might be:
Metaphysics: is about how things actually are, particularly on the largest most fundamental scale.
Epistemology: is about the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is acquired.
Ontology: is about the nature of different kinds of things and systems of categorizing them. For example the difference between the nature of God and the nature of everything else. Or the difference between abstract concepts and the activity in the brain of somebody thinking of the abstract concept and the abstract concept as apprehended.
It makes no sense to say science and mathematics fall under epistemology for example. Perhaps it would be right to say the "scientific method" does though, but the nature of what is studied by science is both metaphysical and ontological.
The "Jesus resurrection story came from pagan religions" claim is formed in a total vacuum, like most of the anti-Bible arguments. First, none of the alleged pagan resurrection myths remotely resemble Jesus. The idea that the Jesus resurrection story was based on them is idiotic for that reason alone. Second, there is the logical problem that the authors of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Luke, were Jewish and it's very unlikely they knew anything at all about those pagan religions, so they couldn't have been imitating them anyways. Then the idea that four different people would all choose to concoct a story based on these pagan religions is even more preposterous. When you make up theories in a vacuum though, logical problems like that are ignored.
I read that the Roman version of Mithra does bear a striking resemblance to the Biblical resurrection, however, Romans created their version of Mithra, which originated with the Persians I think, AFTER Jesus, and was obviously imitating the Bible, not the other way around.
I don’t disagree with really anything here. I’m an Atheist (in that I don’t believe in God), however, I both acknowledge that I can be entirely wrong and fully support one’s right to worship freely. I’m not opposed to religion, or someone having faith, and am aware that our nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system. Unlike the most vocal group of my Atheistic brethren, I have no qualms with any of that.
This was a very interesting read.
My proof that this article is itself inconsistent with regards to the issue of "lack belief" versus "active disbelief."
Laughable!
Regards,
An overall very good two cents this time:
However, the God question is firmly metaphysical.
"(the study of what can’t be proven, at least with the five senses)." But are you not well-arguing for it as a epistemological claim. At least as providing enough evidential warrant for excluding the God of the Bible as simply being a metaphysical claim.
perhaps even more powerful is the extraordinary amount of cosmic fine-tuning to make a planet suitable for life. The odds against this happening were astronomically improbably, yet here we are, sentient beings on a planet thriving with complex ecosystems. Life itself, even in the most primitive form, is so overwhelmingly complicated that its very appearance was nothing short of miraculous.
Indeed. I think an article just on that should be well-received.
The sheer volume of very early New Testament manuscripts is the shortest gap from a historical event to the first records of that event, making Jesus the most attested to figure from the ancient world. It’s not even close.
"the shortest gap from a historical event to the first records of that event" of such antiquity you mean.
-Atheists tend to be too quick to embrace pseudo-historical conspiracy theories about early Christianity. A host of disproven nonsense is still widely out there, thanks in no small part to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code.
Indeed .
Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.
Indeed. A satanic trinity (may God grant them repentant faith), whose railings against the God they profess disbelief in is a testimony to the reality of the devil, since they came from him.
-Along with Jesus mythicism is the claim that the story of Christ is a copy of pagan mythology.
I think you are familiar with Holding's series countering various copycat assertions.
Done, thanks!
Right, which is why I didn't delve into that further. I don't know that it's possible to "prove" God exists, and I even think God set the universe up that way intentionally (He wants our love and faith in Him rather than showing Himself and scaring us into subservience). Evidence isn't really the same as proof, but it's collecting support for something, and the more you have, the stronger of a case you can make. I think the evidence for God and the truth of Christianity is almost overwhelming, to where it's really REALLY hard to keep denying when you look at it all.
Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it. I didn’t want this to be a vicious attack on atheism but a critique on where neo-atheism is headed without demonizing anyone personally. I do have some atheist and agnostic friends who are polite and respectful that I can get along with. I don’t begrudge anyone for what they believe, it’s more the attitude people have towards others they disagree with that can turn into a problem (and believe me, I’ve made almost as many enemies out of Young Earth Creationist Christians).
It’s more the anti-theist than the agnostic who needs some sort of proof, because their disbelief God is supposedly absolute.
That's what I'm talking about when I say internet atheist activism makes me uncomfortable in the same way left-wing protests do. The community of anti-theists on Twitter and YouTube are like a bunch of vicious crybully cowards who all say the exact same things over and over, then attack you, block you, try to report you when you disagree with them or call them out for their behavior. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end of their wrath before and it's a nightmare!
(Nevertheless I won't back down).
What's also bizarre is that none of them can settle among themselves which pagan deity Christianity is allegedly copying from. Is it Mithras, or Ishtar? I've even heard of bizarre theory about Christianity being a rip-off of Buddhism.
It's a degree hypocrisy I can't overlook. You know the old saying that the simplest explanation is almost always right. There being a historical Christ is an infinitely simpler explanation than any atheist conspiracy theory involving pagan deities being copied by the early church.
"(the study of what can’t be proven, at least with the five senses)." But are you not well-arguing for it as a epistemological claim. At least as providing enough evidential warrant for excluding the God of the Bible as simply being a metaphysical claim.
Yes, but I do think philosophy is a three-legged stool with some overlap between metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. As I said to an early poster, I don't think you can prove God per se (and I think God constructed reality with Himself hidden that way on purpose, remaining mostly invisible to our five senses but leaving just enough evidence to collect to support His existence. And I think this is because He wants our faith and love in Him rather than revealing Himself undeniably, which would cause us to serve Him out of fear and blind obedience). So He did leave enough evidence (which is different from proof) to stack together to make a strong case for His existence, but then it's up to us to decide if we'll believe in Him or not. Every way God acts tends towards about not forcing Himself unwanted on us.
There are some exceptions, of course. There are prophets who have audibly heard Him or people who've had the tremendous privilege at least His back or His throne. But those are the exceptions rather than the norm.
And whether we believe that is up to us. As Abraham said to the rich man who wanted Lazarus to return from hell to warn his brothers, "They have Moses and the prophets. Let them read them."
Yes, the anti-theist atheists are the worst of the bunch. They display their intolerance, illogic, and hypocrisy like badges of honor. Can someone really have such vicious passion over something they don’t even believe in? They’re clearly trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. They use every blaspheme they can think of, pretending it amounts to some kind of evidence in their favor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.