Dr. Retard

This applies to the recent "What would it take?" thread.

Here is a hypothetical. Thomas has read in philosophy of religion and has discovered that he can't take a position on whether God exists or not -- there seem to be good arguments on both sides, none of which are thoroughly conclusive. Consequently, he doesn't believe in God. All the same, he begs to differ with those atheists who say "There is no evidence for God's existence" or "The evidence is against God's existence." He suspects that there is evidence for God's existence and it's about as good as the evidence against God's existence. Finally, because he is a novice who doubts his own wisdom compared with great thinkers like Aquinas and Hume, he holds these beliefs very tentatively -- he's likely to say "it seems to me that" rather than "it is most reasonable to believe that".

Q1. Is Thomas required to support his nonbelief in God? Suppose his theist friend Samuel says, "Thomas, do you believe in God?" Thomas says, "No" and Samuel says, "Oh really? Well, prove it." Thomas replies, "Hold on, I don't have to prove anything. I just don't believe in God. You're the one who believes in God; you're the one with a burden of proof." Is Thomas wrong?

Q2. Is Thomas an atheist? Suppose Thomas's grandmother hears about his interest in philosophy and starts talking with him about religious issues. After mounting suspicions, she asks, "Are you an atheist?" Thomas says, "Well, it's not that I believe God doesn't exist, it's just that I don't believe in God." Thomas's grandmother replies, "Well, hold on, do you believe that God exists?" Thomas says, "No." His grandmother concludes, "Then you're an atheist." Is she right?

Discussion of Q1. I think the answer is "No, Thomas is not required to support his nonbelief." After all, Thomas is not making any claims about whether God exists; he can't make up his mind and so he doesn't even lean one way or the other on God's existence. Samuel, having made up his mind and making a claim as to God's existence, is required to support his belief. And the same would go for their friend Richard, who has also made up his mind, who believes that God does not exist. Samuel and Richard both have claims to support. But Thomas is exempt from this duty.

Some people answer Yes. I think these people are making the following error: They think that anyone that doesn't believe in God is like Richard. So, since Thomas doesn't believe in God, he's like Richard. And since Richard has a claim to support, so should Thomas. But Thomas is not like Richard, even though he doesn't believe in God. One has made up his mind and one hasn't -- one is willing to defend a side on God's existence and the other thinks both sides are about equally good. Consequently, when it comes to the question of God's existence, Thomas has nothing to support, even though Richard does.

Discussion of Q2. I think the answer is "Yes, Thomas is an atheist, in an acceptable sense of the term." I had a similar conversation with my grandmother in which the same exchange occurred, and my grandmother is not wont to producing artifical definitions of terms to score semantic victories. In other words, the sense of 'atheist' as "one who does not believe that God exists" is not a contrived sense -- it is a customary one. To be sure, the sense of 'atheist' as "one who believes that God does not exist" is also widely used. But anyone who insists that the former definition is unacceptable is either ignorant or the stupidest kind of pedant. The meanings of words aren't written in the sky -- they develop according to human linguistic behavior.

Some people answer No. One argument says that any term ending in "ism" must refer to a stance on an issue. Then "atheism" would have to refer to a stance on God's existence, a stance Thomas is unable to take. But the premise is false. Terms ending in "ism" often refer to states, conditions, or attitudes that people can exemplify -- for instance, provincialism, sexism, barbarianism, alcoholism. Moreover, the premise is directly refuted by the facts of "atheism" -- people actually use the term to refer to pick out those who do not believe in God.

Another argument for the No answer appeals to the fact that some atheists use the strong, positive definition. But many words have more than one meaning, especially philosophical terms. Half of philosophy consists of disambiguating terms. The existence of one meaning doesn't entail the nonexistence of others.

Any questions or dissent?

Panta Pei

Please define "God".

Jayhawker Soule

I rather enjoyed reading ...<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html" target="_blank">Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism</a>

Dr. Retard

I imagine that most people mean something like "the personal and perfect creator and sustainer of the universe." Of course, there are other acceptable senses of the term, but this one is extremely popular.

Tercel

I'd call the person a weak agnostic.
My scale:
When asked "Do you think God exists?":
Strong Theist - I'm sure he does
Weak Theist - I think he might well do
Weak Agnostic - I don't really know
Strong Agnostic - Nobody can know
Weak Atheist - I think he most likely doesn't
Strong Atheist - I'm sure he doesn't

Tercel

jj

Personally, I find the implication that one must prove a disbelief specious, offensive, and purely propaganda.

Simply put, someone who insists that others prove the negative is asking for something impossible.

What's more, the argument "well prove it" leads to exhaustion. "Prove there is no god"... 'Prove there is no green cheese on the moon", "prove that John Edward never talked to a dead person" (But did he reply, I ask in all innocence ) , etc.

An assertion of something's existance requires some evidence in my mind. A claim that the existance isn't proven is just that, a statement that the proof is not accepted. While you can argue the validity of the lack of proof, you can't reverse the demand for proof.

(fixed spelling. I span't cell at all)

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: jj ]</p>

tyrrho

You are only required to provide evidence for your viewpoint if you are trying to persuade someone to adopt that viewpoint.

"Do you believe God exists?"

"Absolutely not."

"Prove it."

"I don't feel like it."

Tell Samuel to take a hike.

Detached9

The only way the atheist would carry the burden of proof would be if (s)he said, "There is no God," which would usually follow up with "Prove to me there is no God."

Whoever is making the initial assertion has the burden of proof. I heard that you can't prove a negative, but it's not that difficult to prove a square-circle can't exist, just like if someone supplies a definition for God where the attributes are logically incoherent, you can disprove that definition of God.

MassAtheist

I tend to disagree with this. This is kind of like someone saying "There is no Santa". You are saying that this person would be required to prove that santa does not exist.

It is quite possible to prove negative by using proof by contradiction. You have to assume the inverse of the hypothesis and then prove that a contradiction exists. Since there is a contradiction, the hypothesis must be false. So here, to prove god does not exist, you would assume that god does exist and demonstrate a contradiction.

The problem is that almost everyone has a different definition of 'god'.

Jayhawker Soule

No, the problem is that almost everyone defines god, in part, as being unbound by the rules of logic or physical law and, therefore, not subject to 'contradiction'. They assert that god created the domain where 'proof' has meaning and, therefore, is not governed by its rules. Attempting to 'prove' the non-existence of god is a fools errand right up there with attempting to argue what triangles taste like.

Accept the burden of proof and you'll soon be arguing semantics with Humpty Dumpty.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>