Atheism, Theism, Evidence and Justification.

[enaidealukal]

What is the evidence for atheism? Does atheism need any evidence?

It is customary to ask someone for evidence when they've presented a claim or position. Scientists seek evidence to support or discredit competing hypotheses. Investigators look for evidence to incriminate or exonerate a suspect. Why? According to certainly theories in philosophy, evidence is what distinguishes rational belief from irrational belief- according to the view known as "evidentialism", a belief or claim is epistemically justified if and only if it is supported by sufficient evidence. If a belief or claim is supported by sufficient evidence, one is justified in believing or claiming it- it is reasonable. In turn, epistemic justification is (part of) what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief (again, at least according to certain philosophers)-that, and the provision that the belief is true; suppose, for instance, that I guess that it is raining in London, and it turns out that it is. Did I know that it was raining? Clearly not, I was just guessing- my belief was true, but not justified. But suppose I had checked weather.com and saw that it was raining- in that case, I know it is raining; my belief is true, and it is justified (it is held for good reason).

Now, obviously its not unusual to see someone on these forums ask "what is the evidence for God"? Or, "what is the evidence for Christianity?". It is less common to see someone ask what the evidence for atheism is, and when they do, it is probably as common (if not more) to see people respond by saying something like "atheism doesn't need evidence" as it is to see people actually giving any evidence. Atheism is the default position, they will tell you- atheism isn't a claim, they may say. It is a "negative" position. The theist has the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative. And so on. Or so the story often goes. But is this correct?

I'll put the question to the posters before I say what I think (partly because after writing this OP, and a relatively long post on another thread, I need a break)- does atheism need evidence? Does it need to be epistemically justified? If no, why not? If yes, what is the evidence for atheism? Can it be epistemically justified- is atheism reasonable?

[Zzyzx]

.

Does atheism need any evidence?

Why would anyone suggest that "I don't believe you" needed evidence?

As a Non-Theist it would be foolish for someone to demand or expect that I show evidence that I am not a Theist.

In fact, my position is that ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or idolized by humans MAY exist. So I occasionally wave at all of them that might be "up there" in case one or more should happen to be more than imaginary.

Those who STATE that "god's do not exist" can be expected to defend their statement with evidence. Many or most Atheists of my acquaintance do not take that position -- or any position regarding "gods."

[enaidealukal]

Why would anyone suggest that "I don't believe you" needed evidence?

Well, because rejection or disbelief is still a doxatic attitude, and if your rejection is not based on evidence then, at least according to evidentialism, your rejection is groundless, arbitrary- unjustified. It is not reasonable.

As a Non-Theist it would be foolish for someone to demand or expect that I show evidence that I am not a Theist.

Not evidence that you are a not a theist, evidence for your rejection of theism.

In fact, my position is that ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or idolized by humans MAY exist. So I occasionally wave at all of them that might be "up there" in case one or more should happen to be more than imaginary.

Those who STATE that "god's do not exist" can be expected to defend their statement with evidence. Many or most Atheists of my acquaintance do not take that position -- or any position regarding "gods."

Sure. And a word of clarification- by "atheism" I do not include the unthinking absence of theistic belief, for instance, as in infants/non-linguistic humans or cultures/persons that lack familiarity with god-concepts in the first place. I mean atheism in the sense of a view or position (i.e. the rejection of theistic belief, rather than its mere absence). For our purposes here, the mere absence of theistic belief is denoted by "non-theism".

[Zzyzx]

.

Why would anyone suggest that "I don't believe you" needed evidence?

Well, because rejection or disbelief is still a doxatic attitude, and if your rejection is not based on evidence then, at least according to evidentialism, your rejection is groundless, arbitrary- unjustified. It is not reasonable.

According to that "reasoning" one MUST believe everything they are told unless they possess (or cite?) evidence to the contrary.

As a Non-Theist it would be foolish for someone to demand or expect that I show evidence that I am not a Theist.

Not evidence that you are a not a theist, evidence for your rejection of theism.

Who, exactly, is entitled to request or demand evidence regarding my personal position?

In fact, my position is that ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or idolized by humans MAY exist. So I occasionally wave at all of them that might be "up there" in case one or more should happen to be more than imaginary.

Those who STATE that "god's do not exist" can be expected to defend their statement with evidence. Many or most Atheists of my acquaintance do not take that position -- or any position regarding "gods."

Sure. And a word of clarification- by "atheism" I do not include the unthinking absence of theistic belief, for instance, as in infants/non-linguistic humans or cultures/persons that lack familiarity with god-concepts in the first place. I mean atheism in the sense of a view or position (i.e. the rejection of theistic belief, rather than its mere absence). For our purposes here, the mere absence of theistic belief is denoted by "non-theism".

As a Non-Theist I appreciate someone making that distinction.

However, the above statements appear to be back to "You must show evidence of why you disbelieve." If someone does not believe there are pink unicorns on the back side of the moon, are they expected / required to cite evidence to justify or explain their non-belief?

If they state that there are no pink unicorns there, however, it would be reasonable to ask for evidence to support the claim. Unless they make the claim there is no requirement for evidence.

[Divine Insight]

What is the evidence for atheism? Does atheism need any evidence?

I would say that in general atheism does not need evidence since it is not a belief about a specific deity but rather a position that one has no specific beliefs in any deities.

does atheism need evidence? Does it need to be epistemically justified? If no, why not? If yes, what is the evidence for atheism? Can it be epistemically justified- is atheism reasonable?

As I stated above, the only time that atheism would need to be justified is when it is specifically rejecting a specific theism.

For example most people justify being atheistic toward Greek mythology for several of the following reasons:

1. There do not appear to be any Gods living on Mt. Olympus.
2. Greek mythologies contain a lot of absurdities.
3. There seems to be popular academic agreement that the Greek Gods are indeed mythological.

I'm not sure if #3 is a valid argument, but #1, and #2 are probably why #3 is so widely held to be true.

If I were asked to justify "Biblical Atheism" and specifically a disbelief in the Bible I would offer the following:

1. The Bible contains extreme contradictions that cannot be rationally justified.
2. The Bible describes a God whose character is far from what the Bible demands that it should be.
3. The Bible teaches behaviors that most sane people today would deem to be immoral, yet it is suppose to be the commands and directives of a moral God.

Of course, I could get into the details, but that could result in a very huge post.

I think the reasons I've given above are more than sufficient epistemological justification for rejecting the Biblical portrait of God as being anything more than superstitious mythology.

So I claim that my "Biblical Atheism" is indeed justified with sufficient epistemological evidence.

There is no question in my mind at all that the Biblical God cannot exist verbatim as literally described in the Biblical literature.

Could some alternative God exist that is actually quite different from the verbatim literal description of the biblical God? Sure, but that would be a whole different issue.

[Jashwell]

Since you indicated you wanted a discussion of proving falsehood;

Proving falsity is done by absence of expected evidence.
Expected evidence is that which reasonably follows from the proposition.
For example, if I say, "There is an elephant in my living room", then I would expect to see it, if I go to the living room (as it would cover a significant portion of the room).
Were it to move, I would expect to hear it.
If I go downstairs and do not see nor hear an elephant, it is reasonable for me to conclude that one is not there.

The issue comes when the supernatural are involved.
If I say that an ellyphant is an invisible, unhearable, untouchable elephant, there are much fewer tests I can perform.
Where I to be told that "it is a supernatural ellyphant", by definition, no tests can be sufficient.
How am I to know that it is not there?

The only argument (other than logical contradiction) that I am aware can be given against such a belief is an argument against the rationality or reasonableness of the belief not the truthfulness or falsity of it. This would be an argument from simplicity or Occam's razor - that it is not reasonable to believe something so unparsimonious.

Though that is itself not often a convincing argument, and it certainly isn't a logically conclusive one against the actual proposition.

(You may be able to argue that the properties are what's important; the object merely being an abstraction; and positing an object described by it's lack of properties is no different to not positing an object at all)

[wiploc]

What is the evidence for atheism? Does atheism need any evidence?

We are born atheists. We don't need any evidence to not have an opinion on something. What you'd need evidence for is to change your opinion.

It is customary to ask someone for evidence when they've presented a claim or position.

You don't need evidence to support I-don't-have-an-opinion.

Now, if you think you can make a prima facie case, and want to know why we don't find it persuasive, you have to go ahead and make that prima facie case. Don't ask us to guess what your case is.

In the absence of you presenting a case, the weak atheists are perfectly justified to remain as they are without evidence.

a belief or claim is epistemically justified if and only if it is supported by sufficient evidence.

Atheism is not a belief or a claim. Theism is, however. How about you present your case and let us see whether it is epistemically justified?

Don't think that this is an example of strong atheists hiding behind a new definition of atheism. This may be a case of strong atheists (at least I am one) being put in a position where they have to first defend their use of language. As I explained in the other thread, if you want to avoid us defending our terminology, don't challenge our terminology. Instead, ask the question you really want answered. Ask how strong atheists justify their position. (You can phrase it differently if you want, just don't lead, as you do here, by challenging what we mean by "atheist.")

If a belief or claim is supported by sufficient evidence, one is justified in believing or claiming it- it is reasonable.

So, if you're a theist, show us how that is rational. If theists can't do that, atheism is the way to go.

...I know it is raining; my belief is true, and it is justified (it is held for good reason).

If there is no good reason for theism, then atheism is justified.

Now, obviously its not unusual to see someone on these forums ask "what is the evidence for God"? Or, "what is the evidence for Christianity?". It is less common to see someone ask what the evidence for atheism is,

Atheism doesn't need evidence.

and when they do, it is probably as common (if not more) to see people respond by saying something like "atheism doesn't need evidence" as it is to see people actually giving any evidence.

You don't need to give evidence for atheism. Atheism is the default position. You need evidence to not be an atheist.

Atheism is the default position, they will tell you- atheism isn't a claim, they may say

And they're telling it true.

. It is a "negative" position. The theist has the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative. And so on. Or so the story often goes. But is this correct?

Eh. It glances off of the truth. Weak atheism isn't all of atheism. Strong atheists have just as much burden of proof as theists. But atheism as a whole doesn't need evidence, because, as you said, it is just not believing in gods. You don't need evidence to not believe something.

I'll put the question to the posters before I say what I think (partly because after writing this OP, and a relatively long post on another thread, I need a break)- does atheism need evidence?

No.

Does it need to be epistemically justified?

No, because it includes weak atheism.

If no, why not?

Atheism includes weak atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief either way. Lack of belief doesn't need justification in the absence of a persuasive reason to have a belief. If a theist or strong atheist wants to challenge the weak atheist, we have to make a case for them to refute. We can't just demand a justification for not believing an argument which we haven't presented.

If yes, what is the evidence for atheism? Can it be epistemically justified- is atheism reasonable?

Sure, it's reasonable. The theists present gibberish, self-contradiction, and absurdities, until it's obvious that they don't have a case. If they had good arguments, they wouldn't be using bad arguments. Therefore, it is fair expect that they'll never produce a good argument. They've had thousands of years to get their act together, and they're still using stuff that shouldn't fool a twelve year old.

It is fair to believe that they've got nothing.

... rejection or disbelief is still a doxatic attitude, and if your rejection is not based on evidence then, at least according to evidentialism, your rejection is groundless, arbitrary- unjustified. It is not reasonable.

So everybody has the burden of proof on every topic? That's going to be hard to sell.

Not evidence that you are a not a theist, evidence for your rejection of theism.

You don't need evidence to reject an argument that hasn't been presented. If you think there is a good argument for theism, present it. Don't try to shift the burden of proof.

Don't hide behind epistemic slyness like you accuse the atheists of doing. Tell us what your case is. If you've got a case, you can make converts. If your case is hollow, we can disabuse you. But there's no point in making us guess what your case for theism is.

We are atheists because we don't know of any case for theism that is better than the cases against it. There, that's your generic justification for atheism. We can get more specific when you do. We can tell you what's wrong with your specific case after you make that case. Or maybe you'll have a good case, and we'll be persuaded.

But we're never going to be persuaded by an argument that you don't present.

Sure. And a word of clarification- by "atheism" I do not include the unthinking absence of theistic belief, for instance, as in infants/non-linguistic humans or cultures/persons that lack familiarity with god-concepts in the first place. I mean atheism in the sense of a view or position (i.e. the rejection of theistic belief, rather than its mere absence). For our purposes here, the mere absence of theistic belief is denoted by "non-theism".

Not really, no.

[instantc]

You don't need evidence to reject an argument that hasn't been presented. If you think there is a good argument for theism, present it. Don't try to shift the burden of proof.

I wouldn't be so much interested in determining who has the burden of proof. Rather, I think a more interesting question is what the implications are, in case there are no arguments for or against something? You may say that in those circumstances one should 'reject' the claim, but what does it mean to reject a claim? What are the epistemological implications? Can we then say anything about the claim, such as that it is 'probably false' or something else?

[wiploc]

You don't need evidence to reject an argument that hasn't been presented. If you think there is a good argument for theism, present it. Don't try to shift the burden of proof.

I wouldn't be so much interested in determining who has the burden of proof.

It seems to be what the OP wants to discuss in this thread.

Rather, I think a more interesting question is what the implications are, in case there are no arguments for or against something?

"I have an invisible friend. He's stronger than anything, can lift a mountain with his little finger, but he can't defeat iron chariots. He is perfectly just, but punishes infinitely for imaginary crimes. He can be seen but he can't be seen. He knows absolutely everything, but can't find the kids in the garden."

Do you really think there are no arguments against that?

You may say that in those circumstances one should 'reject' the claim, but what does it mean to reject a claim?

Reasonable people do not believe nonsense. The doctrine of the trinity is true even though it has no meaning? That's nuts. It cannot be correct. It is wrong to believe it.

What are the epistemological implications?

If you want to have epistemology, you don't go around believing nonsense. You only get to believe things that are warranted by evidence or logic.

Can we then say anything about the claim, such as that it is 'probably false' or something else?

We can say that all of the arguments for believing in god, at least the ones that don't involve polonium halos (I don't understand polonium halos) are bad. They tend to be (always are?) based on equivocation and special pleading. If theists had good arguments, they would use them, and we would have heard of them by now.

[FarWanderer]

If there is no evidence for or against something, then its truth value is inscrutable. Whether there exists a first cause to reality would be an example of such a question.

However, there is plenty of evidence when it comes to other religious questions, like whether scripture is an infallible message from a deity.