I've been encountering the same logically flawed objection to atheism a lot lately, and I feel the need to at least attempt to put this objection to bed. The objection usually runs as follows:
"How can you be sure that there is no god? Do you have any proof that there is no god?"
This is an attempt at reversing the long-time atheist argument that "claims require supporting evidence", by saying that an atheists denial of the existence of deities is a also claim that must be supported by evidence. While this may initially seem like a decent argument, it's logic is actually terribly flawed.
Let's say that you are in court, charged with first-degree murder. The prosecutor is up there regaling the jury with this horrid tale of murder, but suddenly you and your defense attorney notice something: the prosecutor has no evidence! He has no finger prints, no DNA, no crime scene photographs, no witnesses, no body, not even a name or a missing persons report! He doesn't even have any kind of circumstantial evidence! He has nothing except this story. So your defense gets up when it's his turn and simply says "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the Prosecution has this lovely tale, but he has provided no evidence that my client has committed a murder! For that matter, he's provided no evidence that a murder occurred in the first place! Since he has no evidence to support his claims, you must find my client not guilty!" The jury retires, comes back, and declares that you are not guilty of murder! Happy Days! Then suddenly, the prosecutor stands up and says "Prove it!" When asked to explain, the prosecutor says "Well, the jury just made a claim that he's not guilty! So now they have to prove their claim!" Obviously it doesn't work like that. The jury didn't make a claim, they simply acknowledged that, in the absence of evidence, they have no reason to believe that the prosecutor's claims were true.
In the same way, atheism doesn't have to prove or disprove any claim about the existence of Yhwh, or any other deity. Christians make the claim that their deity exists, but, when pressed for evidence, can present none (and sometimes even complain that they're being "persecuted" when people demand evidence), but still they insist that they should be believed because they have this story (the Bible). Atheists and freethinkers then decide that, because there is no evidence, they must reject the Christians' claims about the existence of their deity. Christians then, like the prosecutor in our example, try to hound the jury to prove that there is no Yhwh. This is nothing more than a dishonest, underhanded attempt to wrongfully "shift the burden of proof". (For more information on shifting the burden of proof, check out Russell's Teapot).
When an atheists says "there is no such thing as a god" it is in the same capacity as a Jury who says "not guilty". Is it hypothetically possible that the atheist position is incorrect? Sure. Just like it's hypothetically possible that the Earth is flat, it's hypothetically possible that gravity didn't exist until the apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, and it's hypothetically possible that penguins actually didn't exist until Morgan Freeman narrated "March of the Penguins". But is there any evidence to support any of these claims? Is there any reason to suggest that any of these claims are actually correct? The answer is, naturally, "Of course not!" It would be ludicrous for anyone to demand that those people who dismiss these nonsense claims, must be able to prove them false. Unless there is some evidence to support the idea that they might be true, it is not even necessary to provide any evidence to the contrary.
2. Yes Virginia, You CAN Prove a Negative.
I must now shift gears for a moment and take atheists to task. There is a common myth among many atheists (among others) that "you cannot prove a negative". This is patently false. (I freely confess that I have used this same argument in the past, but I have since learned better.) You see, disproving the existence of the Christian savior deity "Jesus", is actually very easy and can be done in dozens of different ways. If I may make just one example: according to the Bible (which is our sole source of information about the supposed deity called "Jesus"), "You can ask for anything in [Jesus'] name, and [he] will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father." ~ John 14:13. From that verse, all by itself, we can construct the following proof:
[As an aside: Many Christians try to sidestep this issue by claiming that an "historical Jesus" clearly existed. This is actually a very debatable opinion; however, even if we assume the existence of an "historical Jesus" that still does not prove the existence of Jesus the deity. For a Christian to invoke the existence of a person named "Jesus" to prove their theology is no different than if I were to attempt to prove the existence of the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, by invoking the existence of Stan Rice upon whom Lestat's character was based. In both cases invoking the existence of an ordinary person does not prove the existence of the superhuman character that was based on them. Similarly, it would be insufficient to say "Jesus exists, but he was lying." Since a key attribute of the deity Jesus, is his supposed moral perfection, to say that he is a liar would essentially be to create a new deity who shares his name and presumably has some commonalities in background story, but clearly cannot be the same deity spoken of in the Bible.]
1. Shifting The Burden of Proof.
The first problem with this argument is that it is working on a false assumption. The simple fact of the matter is that atheists do not have to prove that no deity exists, because (under ordinary circumstances) atheists do not make any sort of claim. Let me use an example to help illustrate this:
The first problem with this argument is that it is working on a false assumption. The simple fact of the matter is that atheists do not have to prove that no deity exists, because (under ordinary circumstances) atheists do not make any sort of claim. Let me use an example to help illustrate this:
Let's say that you are in court, charged with first-degree murder. The prosecutor is up there regaling the jury with this horrid tale of murder, but suddenly you and your defense attorney notice something: the prosecutor has no evidence! He has no finger prints, no DNA, no crime scene photographs, no witnesses, no body, not even a name or a missing persons report! He doesn't even have any kind of circumstantial evidence! He has nothing except this story. So your defense gets up when it's his turn and simply says "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the Prosecution has this lovely tale, but he has provided no evidence that my client has committed a murder! For that matter, he's provided no evidence that a murder occurred in the first place! Since he has no evidence to support his claims, you must find my client not guilty!" The jury retires, comes back, and declares that you are not guilty of murder! Happy Days! Then suddenly, the prosecutor stands up and says "Prove it!" When asked to explain, the prosecutor says "Well, the jury just made a claim that he's not guilty! So now they have to prove their claim!" Obviously it doesn't work like that. The jury didn't make a claim, they simply acknowledged that, in the absence of evidence, they have no reason to believe that the prosecutor's claims were true.In the same way, atheism doesn't have to prove or disprove any claim about the existence of Yhwh, or any other deity. Christians make the claim that their deity exists, but, when pressed for evidence, can present none (and sometimes even complain that they're being "persecuted" when people demand evidence), but still they insist that they should be believed because they have this story (the Bible). Atheists and freethinkers then decide that, because there is no evidence, they must reject the Christians' claims about the existence of their deity. Christians then, like the prosecutor in our example, try to hound the jury to prove that there is no Yhwh. This is nothing more than a dishonest, underhanded attempt to wrongfully "shift the burden of proof". (For more information on shifting the burden of proof, check out Russell's Teapot).
When an atheists says "there is no such thing as a god" it is in the same capacity as a Jury who says "not guilty". Is it hypothetically possible that the atheist position is incorrect? Sure. Just like it's hypothetically possible that the Earth is flat, it's hypothetically possible that gravity didn't exist until the apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, and it's hypothetically possible that penguins actually didn't exist until Morgan Freeman narrated "March of the Penguins". But is there any evidence to support any of these claims? Is there any reason to suggest that any of these claims are actually correct? The answer is, naturally, "Of course not!" It would be ludicrous for anyone to demand that those people who dismiss these nonsense claims, must be able to prove them false. Unless there is some evidence to support the idea that they might be true, it is not even necessary to provide any evidence to the contrary.
2. Yes Virginia, You CAN Prove a Negative.
I must now shift gears for a moment and take atheists to task. There is a common myth among many atheists (among others) that "you cannot prove a negative". This is patently false. (I freely confess that I have used this same argument in the past, but I have since learned better.) You see, disproving the existence of the Christian savior deity "Jesus", is actually very easy and can be done in dozens of different ways. If I may make just one example: according to the Bible (which is our sole source of information about the supposed deity called "Jesus"), "You can ask for anything in [Jesus'] name, and [he] will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father." ~ John 14:13. From that verse, all by itself, we can construct the following proof:
If Jesus exists, then prayer must have the desired effect. Prayer has no effect. Therefore Jesus does not exist.In two sentences, and only nineteen words, I have constructed a simple, modus tollens proof that Jesus does not exist. From this simple proof any theology that bases itself on the existence of this savior deity must therefore be false based on the following modus tollens proof:
Any theology that is based on the existence of Jesus can be true only if Jesus exists. Jesus doesn't exist. Therefore such theologies are not true.A virtually identical proof could be created for any deity whose scriptures claim that the deity will answer prayers, or any deity whose holy book makes the claim that the deity is omniscient, yet also contains a prophecy that did not come to pass.
[As an aside: Many Christians try to sidestep this issue by claiming that an "historical Jesus" clearly existed. This is actually a very debatable opinion; however, even if we assume the existence of an "historical Jesus" that still does not prove the existence of Jesus the deity. For a Christian to invoke the existence of a person named "Jesus" to prove their theology is no different than if I were to attempt to prove the existence of the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, by invoking the existence of Stan Rice upon whom Lestat's character was based. In both cases invoking the existence of an ordinary person does not prove the existence of the superhuman character that was based on them. Similarly, it would be insufficient to say "Jesus exists, but he was lying." Since a key attribute of the deity Jesus, is his supposed moral perfection, to say that he is a liar would essentially be to create a new deity who shares his name and presumably has some commonalities in background story, but clearly cannot be the same deity spoken of in the Bible.]
3. Disproving "Blarg".
We have now established that the problem with proving that "god" does not exist - in this case - is not that one "cannot prove a negative". One can absolutely prove a negative, given the proper premises. The problem with proving that "god" does not exist is that - when a theist demands that an atheist disprove the existence of "god" - the theist typically shifts the goal posts. Towards the beginning of the argument, the theist is typically defending their own deity of choice, but by the end of the discussion they are typically demanding than an atheist disprove an utterance that has no definition at all!
To illustrate this let's consider an argument that I have seen play out over and over again in debates between atheists and people who claim to be "spiritual but not religious" (Some may be deists or even claim to be moderates of various religions). After the atheist points out all of the flaws of major world religions, and explains why they cannot be true, this spiritual person comes back with an argument as follows:
"Well, just because all of our religions are fraudulent doesn't mean that there's no god! There could still be a god even if it has never contacted humans! You can't disprove the existence of god just because all of the religions got it wrong!"While each of these sentences are grammatically correct, they are each of them, semantically nonsensical. In the same way, the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." is grammatically flawless but also completely meaningless.
It may be easier to see that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a nonsense statement, than it is to see that "You can't disprove the existence of god" is nonsensical, so let me ask you this: What does our "spiritual" friend, mean by "god"? Are they using "god" as a pantheistic euphemism for nature? Are they referring to some sort of deistic "prime-mover"? Could they possibly be referring to some sort of "primal" energy? Perhaps they are a devoted servant of the Abominable Snowman, and is referring to the "Bumble Snowmonster of the North" every time they say "god". The problem is that - in this context - the term "god" is left completely undefined, and this renders the entire sentence meaningless.
Our "spiritual" friend is asking us to disprove a position that is utterly devoid of content. They are essentially saying that, somewhere out there in the universe, there may be someone or something, that may or may not be conscious, may or may not have some degree of "miraculous" power, may or may not have some degree of clairvoyance... etc. If that is to be our definition of "god" then it is quite correct that I cannot disprove the existence of "god", but this is only because I'm being asked to disprove the existence of something that has no attributes. It is the theological equivalent of arguing that "blarg" might exist and asserting that one cannot disprove the existence of "blarg". Since "blarg" is a nonsense term, and it has no definition, one cannot even begin to speak of "blarg" in terms of "existence" or "nonexistence" until it has been adequately defined. As such, the only reasonable response to a demand to disprove "blarg" (or "god" in this context) should be "I award you no points, and may blarg have mercy on your soul".
If our "spiritual" friend were to try to refine this definition to make "god" more like the traditional definition of a deity, then of course, our courtroom analogy still holds true (this is especially useful when the definition of "god" is carefully constructed to make its existence completely unfalsifiable); and if they define this new deity with enough precision, it may very well be susceptible to a proof of its non-existence just as we did with Jesus, above.
So you see, insofar as there is no evidence to support the idea that any deity exists, an atheist is by no means obliged to disprove the existence of the deity prior to dismissing the notion as being as nonsensical as a claim about the Earth being flat. That said, in many cases it is quite easy to prove that the deity in question does not exist, and in those cases where you cannot, it is usually because the definition is unfalsifiable (which essentially equates the god in question with "random chance") and/or no coherent definition of the term "god" has been established.
This has been your Sunday Sermon, go without blarg... err... I mean... "god".
No comments:
Post a Comment