Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Now I'm not here to say the arguments and evidence in support of theism is airtight and compelling. My familiarity with them leads me to conclude that they are at the very least, not weak. However, I think to a lot of people the issue is not of evidence, it's of an unwillingness or disinterest in rationality. Rather there are some extra-rational factors going on. To test this, you need to ask the following:

"If you found evidence that, for instance, Islam was true, would you immediately bow the knee to Allah, accept Mohammed as the prophet, and submit to the Islamic rules and regulations?"

Most people would say "Hello no!" And this is DESPITE being convinced (hypothetically) that Islam (or whatever) were true.

So obviously it's more than merely being rational. There's something emotional there. And I think it's fair to admit as much given one's own answer to this question.

Well, I think the issue is that you're conflating two questions as one, because believing something exists doesn't necessarily entail that it requires worship. The question should probably run along the lines of "if you found evidence that Islam was true, would you accept that the god of Islam exists? And would you worship him as that religion prescribes?"

My answer to the first question would be yes: I would believe in the existence of any god that provides evidence sufficient to my standards. My answer to the second would require a bit of self questioning first: do the beliefs of the Islamic god earn my respect? What are the consequences of belief vs disbelief? What actions would I be required to carry out on behalf of that belief? Is this god worthy of worship?

I don't find any god really worthy of worship based around those criteria, but who knows? Perhaps my instinct for self preservation would kick in and I'd worship to avoid punishment; I don't know, I've never been in a position to find out what I'd do. But even if I never worshiped, I would no longer be an atheist at that point; I'd be a skeptical theist.

Now given your final response, it's good that you've faced up to the whole burden of proof thing. But I think it begs the question I asked Rahul: What constitutes "sufficient evidence"? Is it a subjective measure or objective? How do you know the standard and expected nature of evidence is appropriate? Is someone being rational when they expect scientific evidence for a historical event or scientific evidence for a mathematical claim? Any thoughtful atheist relishes these questions and seeks out a coherent epistemological theory on which these evidences (and lack thereof) can hang.

There's a touch of subjectivity involved in what constitutes sufficient evidence, to my mind; some people are convinced that ghosts exist because they watch that laughable ghost hunter program, and they evidently have very low standards of evidence. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one depends on who you ask, but I will say that there's an objective framework for these things too. For example, if I was standing right in front of you and you refused to believe I was there, your standards of evidence are altogether too high; if you believed I could fly simply because I told you I could, your standards would be too low. We can zero in on a band of acceptable standards from there.

That gets modulated to the claim, too: I don't need too much evidence to accept that your name is Vinny, right now, because that's a mundane claim made without too much risk attached to it. If you claimed you were an astronaut, well, astronauts exist, so I can at least accept the premise, but to fully accept it I'd need further demonstration, like information about the job that corroborates with other sources, or pictures of you being trained, stuff like that. If you then claimed to be able to survive in space sans space suit, well, then you'll probably need to demonstrate that before it becomes fully believable, because that goes against everything we know about space and human bodies.

This process is a little bit inductive, and a little bit subjective, but it's really the best we have. Everyone has their own standard as to what counts as sufficient evidence, but we also have our own standard about whether the standards of others are adequate; that's why we're here, trying to explain our positions. We're trying to flesh out the argument so that it doesn't make us seem credulous, while at the same time judging the arguments of others for the same reason. The credibility of our argumentation relies upon this process.

What constitutes the criteria of "worthy of worship" in your opinion? That's been one of the fuzziest concepts for me. And I for one am glad there's at least one atheist here who is capable of tackling the issue with some degree of seriousness. Who knows? An atheist who ponders this question might very well discover that there is a God concept out there, which if obtains in our world is indeed worthy of worship, and would likewise take seriously the question to consider whether said religion is true. I think every atheist should tackle this question, at least for their own intellectual curiosity. The answers to this question would be very interesting.

On the question of subjective standards of evidence, a friend sent me this last night. I think you will enjoy the conversation, right up to the very end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGsisoMRs...e=youtu.be

But I'm glad you think that there are good or bad standards of evidence. They can be too low or too high. Re-evaluating one's standard of evidence might very well risk the atheist discovering that the burden of proof for some religion, or even for the existence of a deistic notion of a minimally-interventionist deity has been met!

How do you feel about my conclusion that these issues, namely "What constitutes worthiness of worship?" and "Is the standard of sufficient evidence appropriate?" serve as issues that a rational atheist cannot ignore?

Oh, and FTR, since I assume it will come up, I disagree with the beard with the man (WL Craig).

---

I personally wouldn't say atheists can say that they have not been provided evidence because this suggests no evidence has been provided. Rather they may say they haven't been provided sufficient evidence, which presumes evidence that may be too weak to warrant belief on it's own, but cumulatively with other evidences might make for an interesting case.

Hrm. Trying to think. Off the top of my head I can't even remember insufficient evidence. Only unsupportable statements. Can you provide me with any evidence as an example?

You're right about the conception of God, too. I like the philosophical concept of God, as discussed in Philosophy of Religion. Minimally featured. Omniscient, omnipotent, maybe omnibenevolent. Certainly non-physical. Are you familiar with philosophy?

I took a class on it in college. I'm not big on it though. I never found it that interesting. More annoying than anything. But I'll consider philosophical ideas some. But I've read philosophical ideas that apparently support the idea that movement is impossible so it's not something I put a lot of weight on.

Now how to we go about finding the definition for god?

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it. But the idea you might be referring to is Zeno's paradox. And I won't lie, it mystifies me too.

But you asked me about the conception of God because, IIRC we were discussing a minimally sufficient criteria of evidence in order to justify belief in said deity.