ah rmps - presumption of atheism

atheism definition

atheism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural i.e. god

dawkins - an atheist is “somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creator lurking outside the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body”

contrastingly, a theist is someone who believes a single god as the transcendent creator of the universe.

this god is portrayed as omnibenevolent, omniscient.

some atheists firmly believe religion should be rejected - marx - religion is the “opium of the people” and convinces the poor to accept their situation.

arguments for atheism attempt to prove that god there is no way god can exist, such as arguing the very concept of god is incoherent

dawkins quote on what an atheist is

an atheist is “somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creator lurking outside the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body”

marx quote and view on religion

“religion is the opium of the people” - believes we should reject religion since it teachers the poor to accept their situation and live at peace

nicholas everitt quote on proving god does not exist

“if gods characteristics can be shown to be incoherent, then such a god can not exist”.

anthony flew on atheism x4

-flew believes in “negative atheism” - he does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert that there are none

believes the burden of proof should lie with theists to prove that god does exist. he calls this the presumption of atheism.

presume god does not exist unless otherwise proven

therefore, negative atheism should be the default

how does presumption of atheism link to the presumption of innocence/burden of proof

presumption of atheism can be compared to the presumption of innocence to further the argument

in uk courts, everyone taken to court is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

it is the role of the prosecutor and the accuser to provide the evidence, since they provided the claim.

the same should therefore stand with atheism - “he who asserts must prove and provide a convincing argument”

annie besant quote on presumption of atheism

“if you claimed there were people on jupiter, you would need to provide evidence” y

highlights evidence-based theory is more reliable - hypothesis, reliable conclusion, makes convincing argument.

this is stronger than atheists just trying to assert that god does not exist.

therefore presumption of atheism

WK clifford quote on presumption of atheism

his “ethics of belief” states that we should not believe any claim without evidence

this arguably works both ways: theists should not be believed without evidence, but atheists also should not just be allowed to claim god does not exist without proof, again leading to the presumption of atheism.

objection to WK Clifford

• Clifford’s points do not obey their own rules

• there is no evidence for the claim that we should only believe evidence

• therefore this makes this a flawed argument; implies inference and reasoning is enough instead

objection to WK Clifford

his point does not obey his own rules; there is no evidence for the claim that we should only believe the evidence.

this makes his entire argument weaker.

WK Clifford response to objection that points don’t obey rules AND counter counter

the statement “don’t believe anything without evidence” can be seen as a principle for evaluating claims and promoting critical thinking, rather than an assertion itself that requires evidence to stand up

counter counter: however even if this is true, the main idea of needing evidence can still be questioned e.g. by lane craig

william lane craig quote on evidence + analysis/ev

“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

demonstrates that just because a claim does not have full evidence, does not mean the claim is suddenly unreasonable.

i agree - lane craigs statement recognises the limitations of our current knowledge; just because we haven’t found evidence yet does not mean it doesn’t exist. therefore the atheist is not always justified in the belief that “unless the theist can provide convincing argument he is justified in his beliefs”. therefore we should not presume atheism.

explain: parable of the invisible gardener

the parable is a story of two explorers who come across a garden.

one believes there is a gardener and the other believes there isn’t.

they set up many tests to discover if there is a gardener, such as an electric fence in case the gardener is invisible.

no evidence is found, and so the believer suggests the gardener must be invisible, intangible, and elusive.

however, the main point of this is to highlight that by now the original assertion has changed so much.

what is the difference between an invisible, intangible gardener and an imaginary gardener or one that doesn’t exist at all?

consequently, this raises questions about belief and evidence.

what does parable of the invisible gardener suggest about religion?

- flew suggests that the Believer’s earlier statement had been so eroded by qualification that it was no longer an assertion at all.

-this suggests that if we keep adjusting the original assertion then after a while you are changing its overall meaning; therefore, after a certain point, you cannot keep asserting there is a gardener (god) if you have to keep changing it’s the qualities for it to exist

- for example, things like bone cancer in children exist.

- some theists can justify this with the qualification that gods love is an “inscrutable" love”

- how far do we have to go before a disproof of god’s love is believed??

- therefore atheists cannot be the ones to have to prove god’s existence, when more qualifications can be added to keep the assertion true.

-this leads to the presumption of atheism.

john hick quote on theists experience of the world (x2 quotes)

“the religious man no more infers the existence of god than the existence of the visible world around us”

“if we regard him as a rational person we must acknowledge that he is rational in believing what, given his experiences, he cannot help believing”

john hick on presumption of atheism

“the religious man no more infers the existence of god than the existence of the visible world around us”

suggests that the religious experience of theists is a compelling account that can prove gods existence, as they witnessed or felt it first hand.

“if we regard him as a rational person we must acknowledge that he is rational in believing what, given his experiences, he cannot help believing”

we have to believe theists since they have the most compelling grounds for belief.

e.g. the man who sees something with his own eyes or feels it in his hands is in the most perfect position to believe it exists.

same goes for god; hick says theists are in such a perfect position that there is no need for evidence or inference when we have experience.

problem with john hicks view that theists have most compelling grounds since they have experience

the idea of the best evidence being experience only goes to prove the point that having proper evidence is needed to reassure a claim.

having external evidence beyond personal experience can provide a more compelling argument than experience of one perspective

john hick quote on unfounded belief versus rational/irrational belief (reply to problem with his beliefs)

“it is one thing to say that a belief is unfounded or well founded; and another to say it is rational or irrational to hold or reject that belief”

it is reasonable to belief some things without hard evidence; yes we can acknowledge it is less founded but that does not make it irrational or redundant.

tim keller on evidence for claims

there are many things we agree on without evidence

ethical beliefs are one of these things (e.g. human rights, dignity) that show we are not always able to provide evidence.

just because a belief is not well-founded does not make it irrational - or else we wouldn’t believe that murder is bad!

explain pascals wager

- pascals wager offers a reason why we should believe in god as a default.

- we should live behaving as if he does exist since this is in one’s best interest.

-the possibility of eternal punishment outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise

- if god exists, we could be rewarded with eternal happiness.

-if god doesn’t, then it makes no difference and at least you have lived a good life with moral principles.

-therefore potential gain outweighs potential loss

objections to pascals wager x2

1.pascals wager assumes belief is simply a voluntary choice, yet generally you can’t believe something without conviction. this suggests not presuming atheism is not that simple.

2. pascals wager does not provide evidence for the existence of god but just suggests it may be advantageous to act like there is one; this is a less compelling reason to not presume atheism.

evaluation of pascals wager

1.yes belief may not be a voluntary choice but individuals can still act as if they believe.

pascal - an individual, through sufficient practice, could acclimatise to a religion and develop genuine belief.

2.pascals wager does not attempt to provide evidence to prove gods existence. it just offers a reason to believe in theism based on the best potential outcome, rather than presume atheism and end up with eternal punishment.

objection to presumption of atheism: who should have the burden of proof - the atheist should still have to prove to an extent. x4

-the negative atheist is still making a claim (theists must provide sufficient evidence for existence of god to be believable) so arguably they should also shoulder burden of proof. why should we automatically believe that we need evidence for everything?

-alistair mcgrath furthers this: “neither can be proved, neither can be disproved, both must provide evidence.” highlights that when there’s so much doubt/debate, you need even proof from both sides, not one-sided.

-lane craig: “it is the agnostic that makes the no knowledge claim, both atheism and theism require evidence” implies atheist is still asserting no god.

-could even go further and say: the atheist is making the stronger claim, as the atheist is rejecting all go