The "Presumptuousness" of atheism
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist". Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism". Another atheist Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."
Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues tha the atheist does not treat the statements "God exist" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist- whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exist"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist mus give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.
Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.
Forth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheist fail to see.
Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe- in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death)- demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answeres the question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe- with complexity balanced conditions that seem tailored for life- points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.
The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just culteral, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness", on strictly nateralistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply culteral). These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational- not presumptuous- in embracing belief in God.
Quote from Guardian Angel:
It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.
IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?
Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
