Atheism's Burden of Proof Problem

Depths of Pentecost ^ | June 8, 2019 | Philip Cottraux

[pcottraux]

You can also subscribe by entering your email in the subscription box on the home page, read all my past blogs on the Archives page, or follow me on:

Twitter: @DepthsPentecost

YouTube: Depths of Pentecost

Thanks for reading/watching, and God bless!

[pcottraux]

My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge: Hosea 4:6.

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.

[SgtHooper]

Please add me.

[NurdlyPeon]

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.

[EternalHope]

Good article.

Please add me.

Thanks!

[YogicCowboy]

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.

[Telepathic Intruder]

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.

[Moonman62]

My concern is with what I call anti-theists:

...

I’m an anti-nihilist.

[AndyTheBear]

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.”

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.

[lasereye]

Skeptics will point to other cults allegedly predating Christianity of a god that dies and rises from the dead, including Mithras, Dionysus, and Marduk.

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.

[Tacrolimus1mg]

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.

[alexander_busek]

The controversy is puzzling to me because if atheists are right, and God doesn’t exist, why be ashamed of not believing in Him believing He doesn't exist?

My proof that this article is itself inconsistent with regards to the issue of "lack belief" versus "active disbelief."

Laughable!

Regards,

[daniel1212]

Here are my two cents:

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.

[pcottraux]

Done, thanks!

[pcottraux]

Of course, then you have to define ‘proof’, and then that’s a whole other can of worms all by itself.

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.

[pcottraux]

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).

[pcottraux]

My concern is with what I call anti-theists: militant activists who seek to destroy the First Amendment rights of 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).

[pcottraux]

I agree completely, and as I said earlier, skeptics tend to brag about how they refuse to believe something without evidence, then believe stuff like mythicism or the pagan origins nonsense, which has ZERO evidence to back it up, without question.

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.

[pcottraux]

I'm still wary of responding to you, but this was a good point that I do need to clarify better:

"(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."

[Telepathic Intruder]

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.