The following is an interesting brief article written by Paul Copan. I
present it "as is" since I found it fascinating and worthy of reposting.
May God bless,
Carl
website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The Presumptuousness Of Atheism
by Paul Copan
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the
theist."1 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.2 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.3 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."4
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 that the
atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not
exist"
in the same manner.5 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 exists"). Therefore, the atheist's denial
of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's
claim; the atheist must 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.
Fourth, 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 atheists 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 answers the
question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the
universe - with complexly 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 cultural,
then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality,
with
its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can
be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is
not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the
believer
is being quite rational - not presumptuous - in embracing belief in God.
Paul Copan is a Ph. D. candidate in philosophy at Marquette University and
editor of the forthcoming Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Discussion
(Word, 1997).
NOTES
1Antony Flew, The Presumption of Atheism (London: Pemberton, 1976), 14.
2Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 103.
3It is im****tant to remember that we are trying to give arguments or good
reasons for God's existence - not "proofs," which imply a mathematical
certainty. All too often the atheist's criteria of acceptability are
unreasonably high. One who is genuinely seeking plausible reasons to
believe
in God can certainly find them.
4Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.
5Alvin Plantinga, "Reason and Belief in God," in Alvin Plantinga and
Nicholas Wolterstorff, eds., Faith and Rationality (Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 27.
|
