Atheism and the Burden of Proof

In a formal debate, one side usually has the burden of proof. What does that mean? It depends on what is being debated. What about God's existence? Well, it depends on how it is phrased. If the debate is entitled simply "Does God exist?", then where does the burden of proof lie? It lies on both sides. Why? The theist has the burden to give us good reasons to accept God's existence; and the atheist has the burden to give us good reasons to not accept God's existence.

Well, atheists try to free themselves from this burden by re-defining atheism. Traditionally, atheism has been the metaphysical thesis that there is no God, gods, or godesses. Now, some philosophers are defining it to mean "lack of belief in such God(s)". Why? If atheism is mere lack of belief, then they don't have the burden of proving anything. They claim that they don't assert anything, so they have no assertions to prove. Whereas, the theist asserts the positive claim that God does exist. In sum, atheists redefine atheism in order to have the burden of proof shifted from their shoulders to the theist's.

What is wrong with this tactic? Do only positive claims bear the burden of proof? Let's look at where the word 'atheism' comes from. It's Greek - a (meaning 'no', or 'without') and theos (meaning 'God'). How is the 'a' being used? What is it negating? Is it used in the same way as 'amoral', which would mean 'without morality'? Does it negate a 'belief', or the 'existence of something'? Philosopher Antony Flew (recent convert to Deism) wants to define 'atheist' along the lines of 'atypical', 'amoral', etc . . . Under this definition, 'atheism' is simply someone who's not a theist. But, theists respond, 'atypical' doesn't mean 'someone who is not a typicalist', or 'someone who is not a moralist'. The 'a' in those instances negate the term itself. If you're 'amoral', you're someone where there is no morality, and the same for 'typicality'. To be consistent, Flew would have to say that 'atheist' means to be someone claiming to be in a state where there is no God.

Philosopher Michael Martin agrees with atheism's Greek origins, but then says that these origins entail 'lack of belief in God'. Hmmmm. It seems 'belief' just sneaks into the definition. Where did it come from? What reason do we have to import it? It seems 'a' merely negates God, not 'belief in God'.

Is this new definition just a 'weak atheism' of sorts? Well, if you reduce it to that, it seems no different than agnosticism. Thomas Huxely, who coined the word, has this to say: "Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence . . . It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

We might call this 'weak atheism', then, 'soft agnosticism'. Huxely might be a 'hard agnostic'.

What about the burden of proof? Does it always rest on the shoulders of those who make a positive claim? It doesn't seem so. What about this negative claim: Death does not exist. That seems like a negative claim that requires the burden of proof. Plus, this only confuses things, because when you think about it, every single claim one can make can be either postive or negative. I can make 'God exists' say 'It's not the case that God doesn't exist.' And I can make the atheist say 'It IS the case that God does not exist.' Here is the key to determining where the burden should fall - given our background knowledge (given all that we know or that common sense teaches us), what is the most plausible?

Another condition might be whether or not the position entails something momentous or life-changing. In this case, both theism and atheism shoulder the burden, since either position entail something drastic. But the atheist doesn't shoulder his burden if he just points out there are no good reasons for theism - absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. But this condition only applies to non-obvious examples - and the existence/non-existence of God certainly falls in this category. For example, if I said 'There is no Hippo.' in the room we are both in, then if my reason for this is that I don't have a reason, then I haven't violated a 'burden of proof' rule. It's obvious there is no Hippo.

But if I said, 'There is a flea on the ground.' in that same room, we couldn't dismiss it so quickly. It's not obvious. Thus, I'd shoulder the burden of proof of demonstrating it.

Also, it seems atheists commit the fallacy of 'appeal to ignorance'. If you commit this fallacy, you deny X because there is no good reason to believe X. This is a fallacy, because you haven't gone the whole way. In other words, just because you have no good reason to believe X, doesn't mean you're justified in disbelieving X. You ALSO need good reasons to disbelieve X.

If the atheist still persists in their definition, we can revise Theism along the same lines. We could say, "Well I don't make the positive claim that God does exist; I just lack a belief in the non-existence of God.' So, it just seems like the atheist is playing word-games. The absurdity also follows that if the atheist definition is right, then animals and babies are officially soft-agnostics, since they lack belief in God. So, it just seems like atheists have consciously warped the definition in order to avert the burden of proof in formal discussions on the topic of God's existence.

Exploring Faith: Part 1

Faith has different senses. In one sense, it means loyalty or trust, as toward a person or persons. In a second sense, it is mere belief, based on evidence - the Greek word here is 'pistis', a legal term used in Athenian tribunals. In a third sense, it is a noun, denoting a system of belief: for example, we can say things like, "Disbelieving in the Trinity doesn't seem to be a part of the Christian Faith."

In sense two, it's a theological virtue, along with hope and love. And it's important to remember that we should never take them apart. They are an organic unity, holding together like the root (faith), stem (hope), and flower (love) of a rose. But it's okay to abstract Faith in our intellects. So, how is Faith a virtue? What's so admirable and note-worthy about holding on to beliefs?

Over here in the West, and in popular imagination, we reason very simply about this. If the evidence is good, hold the belief; if bad, discard it. If I had a belief with little evidence, I'd be dumb, and maybe morally blameworthy, depending of the circumstances. If I was a ship inspector, and there wasn't evidence of the ship's being sea-worthy, what if I believed the ship was sea-worthy, and the crew trusted me, and they went out to sea to their deaths? I ought to lose my post as a ship-inspector. On the other hand, if I didn't believe something, but I had good evidence, I'm not very bright either.

But does this really reflect reality? Are we so ruled by Reason on all occasions? Before I learned to swim, I was afraid to dive in the deep-end. I was afraid I'd sink. But I knew that I wouldn't. I saw others go in the deep-end, and they were afloat - their unsupported bodies hovered there at the surface with little effort. I knew all this; but if you left me alone in the water, I'd panic. What's going on here? My behavior wasn't ruled by Reason. I lost my faith in how I knew my body would behave in a body of water. So, Reason isn't Faith's enemy, but Emotion and Imagination.

On this basis, why might someone lose his Faith? If he is honest, is it really because the evidence is against it? There have been times when I've struggled. But what was happening? It was - and still is - incredible. An unfamiliar place was enough to make wonder about it all. I'd look up at the stars and feel small and almost laugh that this Faith could come from the planetary speck that is Earth. I'd hear a joke at Christianity's expense, or be too long in the company of unbelievers, a bar, a club, or I'd hear that I have cancer, or that a family member has died, or that someone I thought was a warrior in Christianity has lost his faith. Taken as Reasons against Christianity, they are always very weak. But they appeal to the Imagination and Emotions.

And here we arrive at a good definition of Faith as a virtue. It is the capacity to keep beliefs, once sanctioned by Reason, even though the tides of Imagination and Emotion rise. This happens all the time. On a simple level, sometimes Atheists feel like Christianity is true; and sometimes Christians feel like Atheism is true. It goes both ways. What is important for Christians is to think about your beliefs everday, contemplating Christian doctrine, and talking to God through prayer. If you don't, your Emotions will slowly, and imperceptibly, affect your Faith, and you'll find yourself wondering why you're enshrouded by the feeling that 'the whole show' might be an elaborate, clever, but elegant, lie. Very little leave the faith for Reasons, but more often because they simply 'drift away', says Lewis.

And we cannot do this on our own. Through prayer, we ask God for it! And He gives it. We realize this when we try to get it on our own and fail, as we are bound to do. Lewis says something very interesting. If we do try our hardest, and fail, we not only go to Him, but we find out we know more about ourselves. And that's why evil people don't know themselves; because they haven't spent their lives trying to be good. We feel the strenth of a current when we go against it; we experience the strength of an army when we fight in battle. Evil people just go with the flow of their passions.

Why is God not outside of Time?

What are some reasons God might be in time? If God was outside time, He wouldn't know everything. What wouldn't He know? He wouldn't know what's going on 'now'. Why not? Because that is a tensed fact. What is a tensed fact? A tensed fact is a fact that is true at one time, but not at other times. For example, "Matt graduates from Coastal." is true in 2007, but false every other year. Why can't God know this if He's timeless? Because in order to know tensed facts, you have to be related to time, and therefore temporal. Why do you have to be related to time to know tensed facts? Because if you're not related to time, all you know is tenseless facts. What are tenseless facts? Tenseless facts are true at all times. For example, "The Allied Forces invade Normandy in 1944.' has always been true, was true in 1944, and will always be true. If God only knows this tensless fact, then He wouldn't know that this fact is 'now' happening, even if He does know that it will happen in 1944. He just does not know when 1944 is 'now'. So, in order to preserve God's omniscience, we must say God is temporal, even though He might have been timeless before Creation. Here's an analogy. Suppose I knew every part of a movie by heart. Let's say that in the next room, a friend puts the DVD in and presses play. Now that the movie is playing, there are parts that are 'now' happening. Even if I knew every part of the movie, I wouldn't know what was 'now' happening unless I came into the room to see what part that was. My being in the room is analogous to God being related to time in order to know what's now happening.

To be continued . . .

Thoughts on Time

Time is a wonder-filled concept. Is God related to it? Is He timeless? What is it? St. Augustine thought it was one of those things that if you didn't ask him about it, he knew what it was; but that if you did ask him, he didn't know. Some have said that it is that thing which keeps everything from happening at once. Does the past still exist, along with the future? Or is the present the only thing that exists? Is there a flow to time? Is time 'out there', interwoven with space, as the Big Bang model theorizes? Or is it just a property of our minds? Is it just a part of our psychology? Kant thought it was a category of thought we imposed on the world. So he would say that time isn't 'out there' in the world. But if God is timeless, it's hard to see how this might mean merely independent of our psychology, which He is. But by that, theologians probably mean He stands outside the flow of time.

Is time-travel possible? What would happen if I went back in time and killed someone? Hitler? Or my grandfather? Would I disappear? Would an alternative universe spontaneously emerge? In Back to the Future, we saw that this could happen. Is there a future to even go to? Some theories of time say no; so, if that's true, time-travel 'forwards' is metaphysically impossible. But those same theorists say the past doesn't exist either. So there's another problem for going backwards as well.

There is Kronos, which is clock-time; and then there's Kairos (part of the name of this blog), which is qualitative time. What does that mean? What does it mean for Christ to say things like 'the fullness of time'? What did Solomon mean when he said that there's a time for war, and a time for peace, etc . . . As opposed to being merely quantitative, this is a spiritual time, the time that seems to have no duration. To give a spatial metaphor, Kronos is like any diameter around a circle; but Kairos gives the circle width and dimension, thus making it a sphere. We speak of the 'time' we had a reunion with a long-lost family member, the 'time' we graduated from College, the 'time' we retired after life-long dedication to a cause, the 'time' for this, or the 'time' for that. This time seems to be a gate through which we get further 'In' life itself; it is a divine hall-way leading to a door, on the other side of which lies Eternity: that door is death. Kronos measures movement toward the future; Kairos measures movement toward 'the Good'.

Can time have thickness? Are there places where time doesn't seem to pass? What happens when we do more than one thing at once? Why do people in Near-Death Experiences see people in Heaven that - at the same time - are old and young? A child will say he saw his grandfather old, middle-aged, and young!

What about our bodies? Right now, we are in time; we grow older, and one day we'll die. Being in time, we are bound to go forward to the future, with the same duration as everything else. But could Spirit be differently related to time? Paul talks about our Spiritual bodies, the architype of which is Christ's resurrection body. Christ 'appeared in a room'; but He could be touched; and yet he also could defy gravity, and ascend upward, until he 'disappeared' somewhere in the atmosphere. Paul said our future bodies would resemble Christ's in terms of these abilities in 1 Corinthians 15. What could all this mean? If we are differently related to time, how are we? Some say our bodies will have the same power as our imagination. In our minds, we can go back in time using our memory. Lewis thinks there might come a time when I can actually take you to a memory in my life; and you can do the same for me. All events will be completely understood; every tear will be wiped away. We might be able to find the 'presence' in the past, in the present. Perhaps this is why movies appeal to us so much. Perhaps we can review our life and the lives of others in terms of a movie directed by no less than God Himself. And just as we can rewind and fastforward on demand, we can do the same with our lives. I don't know how this could be; but it's possible; and it's valid speculation based on inferences from various verses in the Bible.

Could salvation and damnation be retroactive? Retroactive causation is impossible in space/time; but what about in Spirit? Can Spirit change, not events, but the meaning of the events? To the saved, retrospect reveals that they were always in Heaven; and the same for the damned.

How is Heaven and Hell eternal? Is there no time? Perhaps there is: it will be 'sown for a new crop', says Lewis. In Heaven, time will be different; we don't desire timelessness. We don't want to be unclothed, but re-clothed, says Paul. What about Hell? How can we be happy in Heaven if we know people are in Hell? But do Heaven and Hell exist during the same linear time; in Heaven, can we say that the people in Hell are 'now' suffering? Maybe not. There might not be duration; it is often spoken of in its finality. Eternity is not mere endless duration (a growing line: length, not width); it is like a plane, a flat surface, eternally fixed in its rigid shape: just as width isn't more Space, but a different dimension of Space, so eternity isn't More time, but another dimension of time, and so another dimension of existence. And yet both are 'eternal'. Could Heaven and Hell be the same place? The fires of Hell may be the love of God. What is beautiful to one, may be unbearable to the other. William Wallace, who is a savior for the Scots, is a nightmare for the English.

And yet here we are in time . . . As soon as a pleasure consumes us, it is over before we know it. But one day time will be redeemed in Eternity, and we can - without being rushed - bathe in pleasure, enter into it, become one with it.

To be continued . . .