Who Should Prove Their Position?
Posted by JasonS on June 30, 2008
In a recent exchange this was said:
“I’m pretty much gonna ditch everything else and focus on one key thing: “What sort of evidence-based reasoning would you expect to find in support of special revelation?”
That’s a tricky question to answer. It would take a weight of evidence. A little weight could persuade me from vitriolic atheism to reserved agnosticism, and a strong weight of evidence could then persuade me from reserved agnosticisim to theism.
So no one thing on its own would do it. It would take a combination of things, and I hope it would not be seen as evasive were I to admit that what in all likelihood such evidence would take me entirely by surprize – and as such, I can’t predict it in its entirety.
However, I can come up with a few examples.
Take prayer, for instance. If it could be proven in a double blind test that there was a statistically significant increase in the recovery rate of hospital patients who are prayed for as opposed to those who are not prayed for, that would lend serious weight to the argument that an interventionist deity exist that is capable of answering prayer.
Now, I’ll grant you that the absence of such evidence doesn’t neccesarily disproove God. But at the same time, the absence of such evidence doesn’t exactly stand out in God’s favor as opposed to the naturalistic worldview. This very absence is a prediction of the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, and the existence of such evidence would be powerfully falsifying for the atheistic/naturalistic worldview. And on the other hand, the theistic worldview makes no falsifying prediction in this case whatsoever.
Another such example would be a holy man that could, repeatedly and under the harshest testing, perform a miracle. There’s lots of ways that stage magicians can ‘magically’ pour a clear acidic substance into a glass laced with a PH sensitive chemical that will turn red, and thus turn ‘water’ into ‘wine’. But if you got a holy man that could actually turn real, drinkable water into real, drinkable wine, and that could do all that whilst being tested in a laboratory environment, that would be extremely persuasive and would probably win the researcher involved a Nobel prize. In short, a repeatable and testable miracle worker would do the trick.
Once again, the absence of a testable miracle worker doesn’t disprove God either. But this very absence is a prediction of the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, and the existence of such a miracle worker would be powerfully falsifying for the atheistic/naturalistic worldview. And on the other hand, the theistic worldview makes no falsifying prediction in this case whatsoever.”
My question is this:
Do six thousand years of theistic history count for nothing?
Why does the atheist/agnostic seek to put the burden of proof on the theist/Christian? The atheist/agnostic is the one whose system of thought is bucking the old school of thought. Now, I grant that antiquity does not make something valid. On the other hand, when there is an attempt to make a change of such sweeping proportions, it seems that the burden of proof should rest upon the one who is seeking to disprove the established ideas.
I think it all boils down to this: while theism may be a un-falsifiable idea, atheism is a non-provable theory. Why? Because, to be absolutely sure that there is no God one must be in all places at once, knowing all there is to know about all things. Otherwise the atheist may well miss a crucial piece of evidence. The only way for the atheist to be in all places at once, and to possess all knowledge is for the atheist to be god. After all, omnipresence and omniscience are Divine characteristics; they are not human attributes.
Of course, the consistent atheist/agnostic cannot be absolutely sure of anything, because there is no room for absolutes in an atheistic/agnostic thought system. Thus, their assertions against the existence of God are, to some degree, self-negating. They can never be absolutely sure that God is not there……….the very thing that hard-core atheists seek to affirm us is absolutely so.
Just some thoughts…
Samuel Skinner said
The reason the burden of proof is on the theist is they are making a claim abut reality- that there is a god in it. It is standard procedure in science that the person presenting an idea has to show it is true. Normally, it is new ideas, but given that two ideas exist concurently, the one that makes a claim has to show it is true.
Six thousand years people thought that burning other people alive was a nice way to pass the time- bring the kids! We don’t have their callusness, their science or their government- in fact, all of these are rather new- republicanism is entremely modern (democracy is old, but no one practices it except hunter gathers and city states).
Most ideas and theories in science are nonprovable because they are ALWAYS open to new evidence. That is the basis of being noprovable. You seem to think a willingness to change your position because you realize it doesn’t fit reality is a bad thing.
Atheists can be absolutists. Communists, libertarians, raelians, scientologists, etc…
Strong atheists get their certainty from logic and evidence. So, their assertions are true as long as those basis are correct. They know it. Of course, changing the basis would overthrow every single piece of science done ever so they have absolute certainty in their conclusions.
pastoralmusings said
Samuel Skinner,
Thanks for stopping by.
“The reason the burden of proof is on the theist is they are making a claim abut reality- that there is a god in it. It is standard procedure in science that the person presenting an idea has to show it is true. Normally, it is new ideas, but given that two ideas exist concurently, the one that makes a claim has to show it is true.”
What is interesting is that theism in unfalsifiable while atheism is not provable. It is also interesting that there has never been a coherent argument that will prove the non-existence of God.
Why do atheists not have to prove the non-existence of God that they uphold? Is it because it is not a statement about reality?
Do you see where we go with statements such as you have made?
“Atheists can be absolutists. Communists, libertarians, raelians, scientologists, etc…
Strong atheists get their certainty from logic and evidence. So, their assertions are true as long as those basis are correct. They know it. Of course, changing the basis would overthrow every single piece of science done ever so they have absolute certainty in their conclusions.”
What is interesting is that anyone outside of the theistic worldview can only get their idea of absolutes by borrowing from the theistic worldview.
It is odd that you feel that logic and evidence are absolute things. Yet, from where did logic come? If it evolved, is certainly isn’t absolute and will not likely tend toward becoming absolute. Evidence is something that is interpreted, so evidence in and of itself cannot be our absolute.
You state that the basis of scientific conclusions can possibly be changed. Interestingly enough, it has. Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern science, was a committed theist. Do you know why? He, and others sought through the observance of nature to learn more of nature’s God. In fact, it was because they knew there was an absolute God that they would seek to learn anything. Because there was an absolute, they knew there would be certain observable laws to nature by which they could learn science.
The atheist/agnostic is bucking many years of scientific understanding and should be the one to prove their position due to the fact that the theistic position is more coherent and has served us much better in every way.
Just some thoughts for you.
Thanks for stopping by.
Jason (The Pastor)