You often hear atheists attacking the arguments for theism, but what arguments are there for atheism? If every argument for theism fails, what, if anything, provides the justification for moving from the agnostic position of “I don’t know” to atheistic position of “there is no god” (with any degree of certainty)? Over the past few years I’ve read countless books and blogs (and watched way too many youtube videos) that advocate for atheism; but as far as I can tell, there’s no reason, argument or evidence for atheism, just the insistence that atheism doesn’t have to bear the burden of proof that atheists demand all other positions bear.
On one hand, I can understand why atheists have to do this. If they admitted that they had a belief that God doesn’t exist, then all of their arguments against belief in general can be turned on their own position. But on the other hand, the stubborn refusal to admit that their belief is a belief is very telling. Atheists typically confuse atheism with agnosticism, because agnosticism escapes the burden of proof that atheism simply can’t meet. However, the burden of proof applies to all claims, not just claims about the existence of x, but also claims about the non-existence of x. If someone says “I think God exists”, someone else can ask “What do you base that on?” and put them under the burden of proof. Similarly, if someone says “I don’t think God exists”, someone else can ask “What do you base that on?” and put them under the exact same burden of proof.
This is a significant problem for atheists, because it means that their view on God’s existence can be placed under the exact same scrutiny that atheists place on everyone else. And so, instead of having to provide reason, arguments and evidence for atheism, they pretend that they don’t have a belief (when they obviously believe that there is no god), and that their position somehow wins by default. The only problem with this is that it’s demonstrably false. Atheistic worldviews (like naturalism and nihilism) are not the default worldviews, they’re reasoned and well thought out.
Comparing God to a flying spaghetti monster doesn’t help. We know quite a lot about spaghetti and about monsters, but the only way we could ever know anything about God is if he revealed himself to us. Hiding behind a courtroom analogy of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doesn’t help either. The accused are treated by the state as innocent until proven guilty, but if a member of the jury goes into the courtroom with a verdict of ‘not guilty’ before the trial, they’re recused (disqualified) from the trial. Their decision (for or against) has to be made based on the evidence during the trial, not on a position they had before the trial which remains unmoved. When it comes to shouldering the burden of proof, atheists continue to commit the logical fallacy of epistemological special pleading, but agnostics and theists alike are not amused by the hypocrisy and deceit. Mike Dobbins (an agnostic) has recently highlighted this in his published work, The Case Against Atheism:
“When an atheist says “I don’t believe in God”, indicating a disbelief in God, they have a negative belief. A negative belief is still a belief, and a belief not supported by evidence to create knowledge is a belief based on faith. If the atheist simply had an absence of belief in it wouldn’t be a belief. Absence of belief is no belief. Absence is something that isn’t there. The reality is, most atheists go beyond absence of belief to disbelieving in God or positively believing there isn’t a God. Once they’ve crossed this line, their belief becomes a faith. This is perfectly fine and simply adds to the world’s assortment of faiths, but it is difficult for atheists to acknowledge let alone embrace. Something about the word ‘faith’, for some reason, seems to scare them. From my experience reading atheist literature, debating atheists online, and actively listening to what atheists say, it is abundantly clear that most atheists want to have their cake and eat it too. They talk and debate like people who believe there is no God, literally saying ‘God doesn’t exist” or ‘There is no God”, but once you point out this is merely another faith, they rush to their dictionary and loudly proclaim ‘atheism is the absence of belief!’ Agnostics and theists alike are not amused by the hypocrisy and deceit. We know that 2 + 2 = 4, even when an atheist calls it 5. If today’s atheism continues to proclaim there is no God, without any evidence to support the belief as knowledge, then that atheism is based on faith. Theists and agnostics have every right and are correct when they label it as such. Modern atheists who try to embrace classical atheism long after they’ve abandoned the ship are in denial of their own beliefs. A long hard look in the mirror is long overdue. I know many atheists recoil at the sound of the word ‘faith’ but it’s time to face the facts. If you believe there isn’t a God you’re atheism is based on faith. It’s high time these atheists accept who they are and stop trying to sail both ships. We can see the classical atheism ship, and you’re not on it.” (Mike Dobbins, The Case Against Atheism, p30-31)
Every time I point this out to atheists, it’s caricatured and ridiculed, but Dobbins’ logic is never refuted. Some argue that the spectrum between theism and atheism is one of belief, whereas the spectrum between Gnostic and agnostic is one of knowledge, as if the two are mutually independent. But knowledge is a subset of belief, the stronger you believe something, the more likely you are to say that you “know it”. On this point, Richard Dawkins’ is brilliant and I wish more atheists would listen to him. In The God Delusion p50-51, Dawkins’ lays out a very helpful epistemological scale from strong theist (1), to strong atheist (7), with impartial agnostic in the middle (4). Drawing the line to include agnostic with the varying strengths of atheism is completely arbitrary. If we transpose the scale to be: strong atheist = -3, agnostic = 0, strong theist = 3; it would be like saying that there’s no such thing as negative numbers, only positive numbers and non-positive numbers (zero is a non-positive number, but it’s not a negative number). Theists have a positive belief about God’s existence (to varying degrees), atheists have a negative belief about God’s existence (again, to varying degrees), but the only one who has zero beliefs about God’s existence is the agnostic. If religions were TV channels, atheism would not be off, agnosticism would be. Atheism would be set to The Atheist Experience, The Unbelievers, and various youtube channels promoted by atheist groups. The unanimous refusal of atheists to accept this obvious truth is very telling. The more they insist on the confusion between atheism and agnosticism, the more I’m convinced that there is a deep intellectual dishonesty inherent to the new atheist movement.
I recently read a blog on Atheism, Agnosticism, and the Burden of Proof, that proposes another variation of this changing of the goal posts in favour of what the author calls ‘weak atheism’. Basically, the author confuses agnosticism (saying “I don’t know”) with an epistemological scepticism that says “you can’t know”, so that their personal definition of ‘weak atheism’ (which is essentially agnosticism) becomes the view that bears the lowest burden of proof. I like to think that the author is not deliberately changing the goal posts so that his team has an unfair advantage (he’s usually much more intellectually honest), but I’m finding it very difficult to see it any other way. What other reason is there for confusing the claims of epistemological scepticism with the absence of all claims? There are many self-confessed agnostics (like Mike Dobbins, the author quoted above), who don’t say anything bearing any resemblance to “you can’t know”, and who argue strongly against being counted as an atheist (regardless of how ‘weak’ the atheism is). In fact, I know many agnostics who say that they’re “seeking”, not making any claims for or against the existence of God, and certainly not suggesting that we can never find any truth about God. In what world do these people bear a higher burden of proof than a ‘weak atheist’? But more importantly, how does a ‘weak atheism’ that’s one step away from agnostic towards atheism (-1 on the transposed scale above), bear any less of a burden of proof than a ‘weak theism’ that’s one step away from agnosticism towards theism (1 on the transposed scale above)?
The more atheists try to change the goal posts so that their particular team has the advantage, the more clearly we see the inherent weakness of atheism. The only argument ever given ‘for atheism’ (as opposed to ‘against theism’), is the logical fallacy of special pleading applied to the burden of proof. If there were good reasons, arguments or evidence for their position, they wouldn’t need demand that everyone has to play by the rules that they dictate so that they have the advantage. But in the absence of reason, argument and evidence, all there is, is an insistence that everyone else has a higher standard of proof to bear, because, well, just because.
