Atheists like to think theists alone bear the burden of proof when it comes to the question of God’s existence. They assume atheism is the default position unless, and until sufficient evidence for God’s existence can be mustered. This is simply not true. Atheism is a worldview (or, more accurately, is a component of many worldviews), just like Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. All worldviews make truth-claims, and he who makes a truth-claim assumes the burden of proof to demonstrate the veracity of those claims, including atheists. Each worldview must stand on its own merits. The lack of evidence for other worldviews is not in itself evidence in favor of another. That’s why it is illegitimate to think a (supposed) lack of evidence for theism is itself evidence for atheism.
All worldviews are charged with explaining reality, both as it is, and as we experience it. Atheism is no exception. If anyone is to take their worldview seriously, atheists must explain the existence of the universe, free will, rationality, consciousness, and the like without reference to God. Indeed, they must show that an atheist explanation is superior, and more likely than other theistic alternatives. This project is doomed to failure. The explanatory scope and explanatory plausibility of atheism is inferior to theistic worldviews. How so?
Atheism requires that we believe the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere, caused by nothing. Theism, on the other hand, posits an eternal, intelligent agent who caused the universe to come into being. Unlike atheism, this is in line with our modal intuition that being only comes from being, not non-being.
Atheism requires that we believe free will is an illusion, because as mere physical stuff, humans are not exempt from the determinism inherent to purely physical systems. Theism, on the other hand, posits the existence of an immaterial entity within man, allowing him to transcend physical determinism, to freely choose among options undetermined by external physical constraints. Unlike atheism, this is in line with our experience of genuinely choosing A rather than B.
Atheism requires that we believe rationality developed by evolutionary means, and it is by pure accident that rationality helps us to discover truth about the world. Theism, on the other hand, posits that God is a rational being. Humans are rational because we are made in God’s image, and God desired to endow us with the means to discover true propositions about our world.
Atheism requires that we believe consciousness arise from non-conscious matter. Theism, on the other hand, posits that human consciousness arises from spiritual, rather than material substances. Consciousness is a function of the soul, and is derivative of the consciousness exemplified by a personal God.
Which worldview better explains the world and our experience of it? I think the answer is simple. Theism has greater explanatory scope and explanatory power than atheism, making theism the preferred worldview. Theism does not need to deny something so intuitive as the principle that being only comes from being, that every effect requires a prior cause, or that humans have causal powers undetermined by other material processes.
For further reading see my article titled Not so Fast: There is no Presumption of Atheism.
Thinking to Believe 
October 7, 2008 at 3:13 am
You’re only half right. It’s true that atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all worldviews – but atheism is not exactly like Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism because atheism on its own contains no positive content; only a single, negative proposition: Gods Are Not.
You can never really prove a negative: However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the nonexistence of an entity is more likely than its existence. After all, the sum of all that does exist is significantly smaller than the sum of everything that could exist, so if we really don’t know in which of these two camps a speculative entity resides, it really is the more probable that it does not exist than if it does.
The burden of proof remains on the proponents that God exists. Until the proponents can provide sufficient evidence to show that the nonexistence of God is significantly more improbable than His existence, the skeptics will be right to be skeptical.
If anyone is to take their worldview seriously, atheists must explain the existence of the universe, free will, rationality, consciousness, and the like without reference to God.
Actually, no.
All an atheist has to do to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. The answer to all your points can be ‘I don’t know’ and atheism will still remain an internally consistent (though unsatisfactory) worldview. ‘I don’t know’ is a permitted answer – in many cases, it is the only honest answer we can give.
Even if we had no idea how the universe works, that ignorance alone is not enough to suggest the God Hypothesis is correct. What is needed for that is a weight of objective evidence that the God Hypothesis is correct.
Atheism requires that we believe the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere, caused by nothing.
Once again, no, it doesn’t. All atheism requires is for us to say ‘I don’t know how the universe started, but that doesn’t provide any direct evidence that a God must have done it’.
No it doesn’t. There’s good reason to think that the universe might not be deterministic. We don’t really know if the universe is deterministic or not, and it’s very likely that we never will.
Incidentally, I do reject the concept of free will, but my reasons for this has everything to do with submitting the observable workings of ‘my’ mind to careful attention. It has nothing to do with my atheism. Even if I were a theist, I would still reject the concept of free will. Actually, I’d probably reject free will all the harder on Calvin-esque grounds.
Two things wrong with this. First off, that’s naturalism. Naturalism is a kind of atheism, but the two are not synonymous. For example, atheism alone own is entirely compatible with solipsism. In fact, it’s compatible with any worldview that is not explicitly theistic. That’s kind of what it means.
The other thing is this: Even if you really meant naturalism, you’re still wrong. ‘Evolutionary means’ is not the same thing as ‘random chance’. It starts from random chance mutations, this is true. But it then imposes evolutionary pressures (natural selection, genetic drift, migration, sexual selection, etc) on those mutations. As such, the mutations that are passed on are no longer random. The generation of possibilities is random – the selection of successful possibilities is explicitly not. That’s kind of the whole point.
Firstly, that’s a false dichotomy.
Secondly, it’s the wrong question: You should be asking which worldview is best supported by all the available evidence. A bad explanation can still be true – what counts is the evidence.
Thirdly, the God Hypothesis just replaces one mystery with an even bigger mystery. It is a profoundly bad explanation. Note that this alone doesn’t make it false. We could have some very strong evidence that it is correct despite its being such a bad explanation. But the fact remains that we do not.
LikeLike
October 7, 2008 at 7:08 am
Yeah atheism has no particular written faith belief system to follow , its not out of faith in belief in no gods that we are called atheist its through no proof of gods being given.
It might be becoming a worldview ,but its not a faith.Its contents are where is any proof of gods, just because we cannot prove gods or no god or know everything about our world and the skies around us isnt good enough reason to have faith and believe that that must then be the answer.
If its not right to expect proof from the faithful then surely we would expect some real proof to be forthcoming from these gods by now.
Would you expect me to find proof of some fish at the bottom of the sea that time had long suggested there was no real evidence of its existence be enough that it was still quite possible, or in my persistence consisting of only faith in this fish that it existed would you suggest i first find some real evidence that there was any good reason to hold some real faith and belief in it.
Surely without any evidence the most intelligent thought for now would be to conclude that it was non existant .Without using this equation the thought of unicorns could still also be considered to be highly possible .
LikeLike
October 7, 2008 at 7:26 am
Atheism requires that we believe the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere, caused by nothing. Theism, on the other hand, posits an eternal, intelligent agent who caused the universe to come into being. Unlike atheism, this is in line with our modal intuition that being only comes from being, not non-being.
Atheism says nothing about where the Universe came from. Physics as a science has a lot to say on the matter (although it still doesn’t say that the Universe came ‘from nothing’ – this is a common misconception), but ‘atheism’ in itself doesn’t say anything about it.
It’s tempting to claim that God is a more viable explanation for Big Bang, but is it really? With no real evidence to go on that God actually exists what is the more sensible option – essentially hazard a guess and say ‘God’ or simply admit that you don’t know?
LikeLike
October 8, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Just a comment to the one who wrote that “I don’t know” is a permitted answer to how the Universe came to be, free will etc…That is an honest answer and I commend that because I think Atheists who try to give naturalistic answers for these questions are intellectually dishonest. In other words, they’re just trying to win an argument because that is what they want to believe. That said, why would anyone want to believe in a purposeless universe and a futile existence ? I would much rather spend my time trying to seek and find proof of a purpose and a plan to our existence. By saying “I don’t know” is and honest but unsatisfying answer.
I suppose it’s like admitting that you’re lost and not knowing where you came from and where you’re going….what a terrible prospect.
LikeLike
October 9, 2008 at 8:31 am
Sir Ubiquitous Che,
Interesting response. But I must ask, what atheist takes such a position? What atheist stands forth and says, “There are no gods and no, I don’t know about all those other big questions.” Would you find such a position truly respectable? Does anyone with a single negative proposition stand alone with no “burden of proof”?
What I find is that many atheists attempt to do what you did. You made the claim that atheists don’t have to provide answers to all these other big questions and then you turned around and started heartily providing answers (about free-will and naturalism). You’ve proved Jason’s claim. You, and none of us, can avoid the big questions or totally disconnect them from the question of God. I’m amazed that you can’t take your own advice and simply live with the “fact” that there is no god and you don’t have any answers. But you can’t, I can’t, Jason can’t, and you need to account for that!
What you need to do is set forth your case rather than simply make a negative assertion and demand that the rest of us fall at your feet. Provide your evidence, sir! Confidence is not proof. Make a case. Why are YOU an atheist?
LikeLike
October 9, 2008 at 8:36 pm
@Naz:
Thanks for the commendation. 😀
There’s some other interesting points you raised, but I think I’m going to wind up touching on them in my response to Chad. We’ll see how it goes – I don’t usually know what it is I’m going to write until my fingers hit the keys.
@Chad Moore:
Ha! Sir? Little old me? A Sir? 😛
I appreciate the sentiment, but Sir is an honorific that just doesn’t fit me. I’m no Sir. I’m barely even a Hey You.
Anyway, digressions aside, let’s get to the meat of it.
I get where you’re coming from – however, I think you’ve missed the point of what I was trying to say – which is probably my fault, actually. Clarity is a problem with a lot of the stuff I write.
Here’s the problem. Jasondulle was arguing something like this: “Atheists believe X, Y and Z. X, Y and Z are flawed in some way. Therefore, all atheists are wrong and by default, theists must be right.”
The main point I was trying to make is that you can’t do this, because, no matter what you substitute in for X, Y or Z, atheists don’t have to believe it. Atheists only have to believe that Gods Are Not. They don’t have to believe anything else.
Atheism is extremely open like that. Some strains of atheism are, in my opinion, totally insane. For example, a committed atheistic nihilist would be someone I would have some pretty extreme disagreement with on almost everything.
Most theists, when trying to discredit atheism, pick one particular strain of atheism and then pick holes in it. That itself is okay – certain strains of atheism do have holes in them, and I’m all for critical analysis.
The problem comes in when a theist picks holes in one strain of atheism, then declares ‘all atheism is thereby refuted’. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t prove all forms of atheism wrong by picking at the frilly bits around the edges, because there is literally an infinite number of forms atheism can take, each with its own frilly bits. If you want to tackle atheism head on, you have to tackle the one element that they have in common: Gods Are Not. I was trying to illustrate this by concrete example rather than this kind abstract argument-about-an-argument, because this kind of thing tends to be boring and unconvincing, even when it’s right.
Another problem comes in when a theist then goes a step further – which jasondulle did – and tells us that ‘because all atheism is thereby refuted, theism must be correct’. It doesn’t work that way – you don’t get to prove theism correct without actually providing direct evidence for it that can stand critical analysis. You have to tackle the God Hypothesis head on. Muttering about free will and purpose and such is just avoiding the issue.
As I was trying to demonstrate all this by example, I couldn’t resist injecting some of my own personal stances while I was at it. In hindsight, this was a mistake, and you and Naz have both rightfully jumped on me for it. I don’t really think everything through as I type it, y’see, and injecting my position like that was at confusing at best and erroneous at worst, so you’ve got me on that one.
So I hope this clarifies where I was coming from a little bit. I think that this might address most of your concerns… There’s a few things that you (and Naz) touched on that I haven’t addressed here, but it feels like they fall outside the scope of my response to jasondulle. If you want me to follow up on anything either of you said that I’ve left out, just say so.
I need to get back to work.
LikeLike
October 10, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Hey You Mr. Ubiquitous Che,
I am glad you have repented of your tactical errors! I have only two (more!) responses to make:
1. Your reduction of atheism is granted. Of course, what defines atheism is the direct assertions: gods are not, as you say. That’s simply a given but that doesn’t strengthen one’s argument and it is not argument in anyway, it is a claim in need of an argument. Your presumption is that a negative assertion is somehow stronger than a positive one and that is supposed to be some sort of argument in itself. You state more specifically that:
“the nonexistence of an entity is more likely than its existence.” Is that supposed to be a law of the universe? Do we do science that way? It’s just a principle of doubt and skepticism that’s it and sometimes it’s right and sometimes it’s wrong – do you actually have a probability chart on that? The history of science is a long story of upset apple carts – favorite theories and “facts” overturned. Ever heard of a black swan? The presumption has no bearing on the actual truth and it is not an argument, just another claim in need of an argument.
2. The real problem is that your main assertion just doesn’t work. Your claim is that an atheist simply has to deny one thing: there are no gods and does not have to provide answers for the various facets of reality. The simple fact is that no one does this. Sure, that simple assertion makes one an atheist but certainly a very unfulfilled atheist. From my point of view, the danger for the atheist would be that once she opens her eyes, the many facets of reality and human experience might just change her mind! In other words, atheism doesn’t really work unless it provides good answers to both the facts of the universe around us AND human experience.
Which leads me to final assertions in this comment: A) no atheist is satisfied to be an atheist as you’ve described and proven, they MUST interact with larger questions and the answers to those questions inevitably relate to the question of God; and B) an atheist as you’ve described has zero basis for his extremely bold assertion: if he has no answers for any other specific questions of human knowledge how can he be so confident of his one negative claim? What a leap from universal ignorance to absolute certainty! Would he not be better off to claim “I just don’t know” in this case as well? Of course, that would be reasonable but you are hunting for a “get out of debate” free card – the permission to make absolute truth claims with no need to defend them.
My final claim: your theoretical ideal atheist is a myth. He does not and cannot exist. I am an a-atheist in this case.
LikeLike
October 11, 2008 at 3:31 am
At what point did it seem like a good idea to leap from ‘atheists cannot answer certain fundamental questions with certainty’ to ‘atheists cannot answer any question about any aspect of reality’?
LikeLike
October 12, 2008 at 6:03 am
Atheism requires that we believe the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere, caused by nothing. Theism, on the other hand, posits an eternal, intelligent agent who caused the universe to come into being. Unlike atheism, this is in line with our modal intuition that being only comes from being, not non-being.
Theism does nothing to solve the dilemma, it just shift the problem back a step. Theism requires us to believe that God simply popped into being, or that God (but not the universe) always existed. Not only does it solve nothing, it adds nothing.
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 9:16 am
forknowledge:
Who is your question directed to? Are you responding to a specific comment?
As far as my responses to Ubiquitous Che, I was simply responding to his claim that an atheist, by reduction, vis-a-vis a theist, is defined by merely a single negative proposition: “gods are not.” My point is that it isn’t that simple, other questions about reality impinge directly and indirectly on the question of God’s existence.
It was Mr. Ubiquitous Che that made the claim that an atheist need not have answers to other questions of reality to claim there is no god. That’s true, I responded, but not what really happens. The only thing I claimed that an atheist cannot do is ignore the many fundamental questions of reality. So, I was responding to the “theoretical atheist” Che described.
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 9:25 am
forknowledge:
“Atheism says nothing about where the Universe came from. Physics as a science has a lot to say on the matter (although it still doesn’t say that the Universe came ‘from nothing’ – this is a common misconception), but ‘atheism’ in itself doesn’t say anything about it.”
Perhaps. But a physicist / scientist / philosopher with a basic atheistic orientation is going to put the “big picture” together very differently from someone operating with a theist perspective. Furthermore, this ignores the fact that atheism, as theism, freely plunders many scientific and humanities disciplines to make its case. In the realm of human knowledge, all of these areas are related and few other worldview questions relate to so many other questions as the question of God’s existence. It relates to and changes everything.
And let’s examine your first statement: “Atheism says nothing about where the Universe came from.” Really? Atheism is claiming with confidence that it did NOT come from a Creator God. Again, that belief is going to affect one’s work in all other disciplines.
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 9:36 am
forknowledge:
“It’s tempting to claim that God is a more viable explanation for Big Bang, but is it really? With no real evidence to go on that God actually exists what is the more sensible option – essentially hazard a guess and say ‘God’ or simply admit that you don’t know?”
This statement points to a fundamental divide between most theists and atheists. For the theist, the very existence of something (rather than nothing) is evidence. There happens to be this massive universe with billions of galaxies, stars, and at least one planet teeming with life of vast diversity. And apparently from what we know about the universe and life, it’s all contingent and had a beginning. “No real evidence?” Your claim of “no real evidence” is more a judicial or rhetorical move to decide what is and is not evidence. If you can write off the whole natural world – the universe, no less – it sort of works out in your favor! What evidence are you looking for? A GODtm trademark on DNA molecules and atomic nuclei? That was sarcastic, but more seriously, what would you consider potential “real evidence” of God’s existence – evidence so compelling that you would change your position?
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ubiquitous Che,
Of course an atheistic worldview contains positive content. If it didn’t, it couldn’t be a worldview. It says X is true, and -X is not. That is positive content. You seem to be focused on a very narrow issue: who shoulders the burden of proof regarding God’s existence. I grant you that theists have the burden of proof to give evidence for God’s existence. In response, atheists need show that the theist’s arguments for God’s existence are mistaken.
But even on the question of God’s existence, atheism makes a positive affirmation that God does not exist, or that it is extremely improbable that He exists. The latter bears its own burden of proof, showing why it is improbably that He exists. But this was not the point of my post. The point of the post is that atheism is a worldview, and like all worldviews, it needs to be able to explain the world and our experience of it. It has to have explanatory power. My observation is that atheism has less explanatory power than theism in the points I mentioned (as as Chad pointed out, you illustrated this beautifully with your response).
Furthermore, atheism makes a lot of positive assertions about reality apart from the question of God’s existence. They positively assert that material reality exhausts reality. That is positive content that must be defended against anyone who claims otherwise. Why should we think material reality exhausts reality? This requires some philosophical justification.
From your response, it sounds like you are confusing agnosticism with atheism. Secondly, I find it ironic that you think the “I don’t know” answer is superior to the theistic answer. And don’t give me theism is just a God of the gaps answer. It’s not. It’s the result of effect-to-cause reasoning. We look at the effect (the existence of the universe, free will, moral consciousness, etc.), and reason backwards to an adequate cause. And God is the most adequate cause.
Would you freely reject the concept of free will, or would you be determined to reject it? If there truly is no free will as you believe, then you are determined to reject it, but you are not doing so for rational reasons per se. You are doing so because prior physical causes and effects necessitate it. Atheism undermines rationality.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Don,
No one said atheism was a faith. Having said that, I do think some of the things a materialist must commit himself to require huge amounts of faith.
The part we would disagree on is whether there is any evidence for God’s existence. I think there is plenty of evidence. Are you familiar with the evidences put forth for God’s existence by Christian apologists?
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Forknowledge,
You are mistaken. Cosmogenists do claim the universe popped into existence from nothing, as in the sense of “non-existence.” Existence just emerged. If you need me to, I’ll give you quotes of scientists and philosophers who are quite explicit that this is the implication of the Standard model.
What do you accept as evidence? If you are looking for physical evidence to satisfy the now-dead philosophy of verificationism, you’re out of luck. But if you consider philosophical considerations as evidence, there are plenty of argumetns for God’s existence. And given the type of being God is (an immaterial vs. material being), it would be stupid to expect physical evidence for His existence (although a case can be made for His existence based on the physical things He created).
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Ubiquitous Che,
No, I was not reasoning that if atheists cannot explain X,Y and Z that theism must be right. I was showing how theism has greater explanatory power than atheism. I was not attempting to provide a rational argument for theism in thos post, but I have written plenty of them elsewhere if you care to look.
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Arthur,
It’s not true that theism just pushes the buck back a step. It posits an eternal being, and for good reason (so it’s not ad hoc). Here goes:
We know from cosmogony that the universe—including time, space, and matter—emerged at the singularity at a finite point in the past (philosophical reasoning itself shows the universe cannot be past-eternal). In other words, it began to exist. But why? Well, whatever begins to exist has a cause, so if the universe began to exist, it needs a cause. It could not be caused by a natural law, because natural laws originated with the universe. It could not be self-caused, because that would require its existence before its existence, which is incoherent. It must be a cause that is external to the universe. Whatever this external cause was that brought time, space, and matter into existence could not itself be temporal, spatial, or material. It must eternal. And remember, only that which has a beginning needs a cause. Things that are eternal are uncaused—what philosophers call necessary beings.
So using principles of rationality we end up with a necessary and eternal cause of the universe. We’re not just positing God as the cause because it suits our fancy. And we’re not saying the buck stops with Him because we would rather have it stop with Him than we would with the universe. The universe is not, and cannot be eternal, and thus one has to look beyond it for the cause. But the cause of the universe, by definition, must be eternal, and things which are eternal are uncaused. That’s why the buck stops with God. See my blog entry here: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/a-cosmological-argument-based-on-the-necessity-of-something-existing-for-eternity/
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 4:50 pm
To reinforce what Chad is saying, when you reject the existence of God, you cannot shirk your responsibility to provide a positive account for why the world is the way it is. The fact of the matter is that we experience what seems like free will, morality, etc. We live in a universe that began to exist a finite time ago, and that appears to be designed. If one rejects the existence of God, then they must explain these features of the universe using the tools of materialism. What I tried showing in my post is that using the tools of materialism to explain these features of our world, we come to intellectually unsatisfactory answers. Theism provides much more intellectually satisfying answers, and thus has greater explanatory scope. I am not arguing that we should adopt theism because atheists cannot answer X,Y, or Z. I am arguing that we should adopt theism because that is where the evidence points, and it is much more intellectually satisfying, and does a better job of explaining the universe and our experience of it.
Jason
LikeLike