There has been something about the discussion surrounding "atheism" that has been bugging me. It only recently occurred to me (I'm a little slow) where the problem was coming from.
Here's the deal, everywhere I read, listen to, or engage an atheist on the issue of belief they tend to claim that they have no burden of proof for their position. Theists say, "God exists." Atheists say, "God does not exist." But they seem to act as if theists are the only ones who have to explain themselves.
That has always bugged me. Because here is how burden of proof works. If you make a claim, you have to provide evidence to prove your claim. Theists claim, "God," and then present arguments. Atheists tend to completely dismiss any theistic arguments as not being "evidence" (that's a future point) and then say that since there is no "evidence" therefore no God.
One day it finally clicked for me as I was considering the way a jury looks at a case (reflecting on my own experience as a juror). In American law, you are presumed "not guilty" until proven "guilty." The defense is not required to make a case at all. The burden is completely on the prosecution to prove the claim of guilt. As a juror, you are required to presume that the defendant did NOT commit the crime unless and until the prosecution convinces you otherwise.
Atheists view themselves as in the defense and the burden of proof lies completely on the theist. Most citizens are considered to not be a criminal until it is proven otherwise. Atheists seem to think most people believe there is no God until they are convinced otherwise.
They seem to believe we are born atheists and have to be convinced otherwise: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t9p5T6lbsc&feature=youtube_gdata_player).
But here's the deal. We are not naturally atheists. Indeed, left to their own devices, people tend to seek for explanations and causes beyond themselves and beyond nature.
The natural state of humanity is not atheism, but agnosticism. (Actually, Biblically we have an inherent knowledge of the Creator in whose image we were made, but I'm being generous.)
Here's how this works. Atheists tend to claim that they default to a belief that God does not exist because there is no positive evidence (in their opinion) that God does exist. That is a lack of evidence. That's the logical fallacy of argument from lack of evidence. Just because you lack evidence does not prove something is false. This is where many will say that they don't assert that God does not exist, only that they have not seen evidence to demonstrate that He does (again, by their narrow definition of evidence).
But this seems to confuse atheism with agnosticism.
A=no
theo=God
gnostos=knowledge
Atheism (a-theo) = No God
Agnosticism (a-gnostos) = No knowledge
Atheists say that since there is no evidence of God, therefore there is no God. Again, this is a logical fallacy.
I have no evidence whatsoever about what some random person 100 years ago named Frank Smith had for breakfast. That does not mean that he did not have breakfast. Only that I have no information about his breakfast. I am an agnostic when it comes to Frank's breakfast. If I were to claim that Frank did not have any breakfast, that is a positive claim to a position and requires proof.
If the "lack of belief" statement were true, at best all the atheist has done is tell you about their personal beliefs. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God is real. It just informs you about what 1 person thinks.
However, generally, atheists claim that God does not exist. That is a positive claim to a position and therefore they have a burden of proof.
The Bible says that we all know that God exists (Romans 1). That would make an atheist actually a theist in denial. At best, without evidence, the most a person can claim about God is to be an agnostic.
Do not let people fool you on this one. A lack of "evidence" means a lack of knowledge. It is not proof for anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment