Many atheists claim, “It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa.”[1] Such misguided claims are designed to gloss over two important facts. First, atheists have a difficult if not impossible task in providing support that God does not exist (if they could you can be sure that they would). Second, atheists often use a double standard in holding theistic claims to the scrutiny of logic and support (which is acceptable) while failing to do so with atheism (which is unacceptable).
Failing to be consistent, many atheists attempt to abandon their intellectual responsibility of supporting their view. But this is unacceptable and they must be able and willing to support their view too. Here are several reasons why.
The need to justify atheism
- Stand alone: Like theism, atheism must rise or fall on its own. Contrary to what many atheists seem to hold, atheism is not right if the arguments for theism are proven wrong. Some atheists hold that if theistic arguments fail atheism should be presumed true. This was espoused by former atheist Antony Flew.[2] In Flew’s words, “…the presumption of atheism stipulates that it is up to believers in the existence and activities of the gods or of God to provide good reason for believing rather than to unbelievers to provide positive reasons for not believing.”[3]
However, this is simply wrong. For example, let’s say Bob claimed the Yankees won the 2002 World Series and Frank claimed the winner was the Giants. If Bob finds out that the Angles beat the Yankees in the postseason, knocking them out before the World Series, this would not mean that Frank was correct. Frank’s claim rises and falls on its own. This is evident when we realize that it was the Angels who won the 2002 World Series.
As philosopher William Rowe says, “…one must give reasons that would be sufficient to justify disbelief in God if they constituted the only reasons we have that bear on the question of God’s existence.”[4] Atheism is not right by default. Atheism simply cannot be presumed true.
- Rejection of theistic arguments: Simply rejecting or even refuting theistic arguments does not prove atheism nor disprove theism. Such a suggestion is absurd. Even if every argument for God’s existence is logically invalid it does not follow that theism is false (or that atheism is true). What follows is an unsupported theism not a disproved theism or a proven atheism. The distinction between a belief being unsupported versus disproved is significant. For instance, years ago, prior to the development of human flight, many people believed that it was possible for people to fly. Yet there was no support for this belief (those who set out to prove it scientifically believed it was possible before their conclusion enjoyed support). Thus, their conclusion was unsupported though correct. A wrong conclusion is one that is contrary to fact. Until the conclusion is shwon to be contrary to fact, it may still be true no matter how poorly it is supported (or any support at all). Theism has not been shown to be contrary to fact. Simply lacking support would not be sufficient to show that theism is wrong. Fortunately, theism enjoys a wide range of support.
- Other alternatives: A third reason atheism needs to have positive support is because even if theistic arguments are rejected or even demonstrated to be wrong atheism is not the only alternative. Agnosticism is a legitimate option to theism. Thus, one must be justified in becoming an atheist (believing that God does not exist) instead of an agnostic (not knowing if God does or does not exist).
Due to the three previous reasons atheism bears its own burden of proof. If the atheist is unable to provide a valid reason(s) supporting atheism, then atheism falls into the category of blind faith and agnosticism remains a legitimate option (to say nothing of theism).
[1] Smith, George H. Atheism : The Case against God (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989), 27.
[2] Antony Flew recently went public with his philosophical change from embracing atheism to embracing theism. While he is not a theist in the Christian tradition, his renunciation of atheism and endorsement of theism is significant. It is interestingto note that atheists have been less than kind in their response to Flew's theistic conversion. One wonders if other atheistswill champion the presumption of atheism view. If atheists do not defend Flew’s presumption of atheism, then onewonders why this view was accepted by them in the frist place. If atheists do not embrace this opinion, then theists await thearrival of justification for atheism. More information on Flew’s change to theism can be acquired from the Winter 2005 issue of “Philosophia Christi” the journal of the Evangelical Philosophy Society (see www.biola.edu/philchristi for more information).
[3] Philip L. Quinn ed. and Charles Taliaferro ed., “The Presumption of Atheism,” A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Malden: Blackwell, 2000.
[4] Rowe, William L. (1998). Atheism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/K002SECT1.
