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?

[enaidealukal]

Three points:

1. Your phrasing ("epistemic justification" vs. "burden of proof") is better than mine. I may keep saying it my way, since most people do, but I acknowledge that yours has clarity and precision that mine doesn't.

2. I'll probably beg off of this sub-topic (epistemic justification for withholding judgement) since I'm becoming less confident that we even have a disagreement.

3. Your phrasing ("suspend ones judgement") may be clearer than mine ("not assume it is persuasive"). But note that I said "not assume it is persuasive" rather than "assume it is not persuasive".

Fair enough, and feel free to nevertheless comment at your pleasure, but RE 1- (and this isn't pedantry, it actually has consequences for the discussion) "burden of proof" and "epistemic justification" are not simply different ways of saying the same thing, they are distinct, and have different applications. Epistemic justification is, as the name implies, an epistemological concept regarding the basis for beliefs and views- whether they are stated or not. Burden of proof is a convention in jurisprudence and debate, and pertains to one's obligation to substantiate claims, assertions (in a debate), and accusations/defenses (in a trial). They are distinct concepts, they operate differently, and apply to entirely different subject matter, which is why I'm taking some care to distinguish the two.

[wiploc]

Three points:

1. Your phrasing ("epistemic justification" vs. "burden of proof") is better than mine. I may keep saying it my way, since most people do, but I acknowledge that yours has clarity and precision that mine doesn't.

2. I'll probably beg off of this sub-topic (epistemic justification for withholding judgement) since I'm becoming less confident that we even have a disagreement.

3. Your phrasing ("suspend ones judgement") may be clearer than mine ("not assume it is persuasive"). But note that I said "not assume it is persuasive" rather than "assume it is not persuasive".

Fair enough, and feel free to nevertheless comment at your pleasure, but RE 1- (and this isn't pedantry, it actually has consequences for the discussion) "burden of proof" and "epistemic justification" are not simply different ways of saying the same thing, they are distinct, and have different applications. Epistemic justification is, as the name implies, an epistemological concept regarding the basis for beliefs and views- whether they are stated or not. Burden of proof is a convention in jurisprudence and debate, and pertains to one's obligation to substantiate claims, assertions (in a debate), and accusations/defenses (in a trial). They are distinct concepts, they operate differently, and apply to entirely different subject matter, which is why I'm taking some care to distinguish the two.

Point taken.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What is the evidence for atheism?

The inability of those who declare, "There God sits", to show he does.

Does atheism need any evidence?

See above. Whether atheism needs it some evidence or not, the claimant's inability to show he speaks truth is sufficient to think he don't.

[enaidealukal]

Okay I'm starting to see more what your point was all along, and I'm with wiploc. I'm not sure we really disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong here. You are saying that once a person hears about a religious belief, their rejection of that claim requires at least some level of justification, even if that justification is "that claim is unsupported and should not be accepted."

Pretty much, yeah- although, what counts as justification may be up for debate as well, as well as whether it varies from case to case, domain to domain, etc. But you've got the idea.

Therefore, any decision you come to regarding religion, whether it be theism or atheism (strong or weak) some form of justification is required. If this is what you are saying then ignore everything I said previously. I agree with you. I just wasn't looking at it this way before.

Fair enough. Feel free to nevertheless comment at your pleasure- I imagine the topic will move right along.

[enaidealukal]

From the OP:

What is the evidence for atheism?

The inability of those who declare, "There God sits", to show he does.

Ok, there's a start. Is this, in itself, sufficient evidence to establish the truth of atheism? Does it matter how many times corroboration of God's existence fails? Is once enough?

Does atheism need any evidence?

See above. Whether atheism needs it some evidence or not, the claimant's inability to show he speaks truth is sufficient to think he don't.

Ok. But part of the question here is, if atheism does NOT admit of sufficient evidence, can it be reasonable? Do you think so? Or does it not matter because you think atheism CAN admit of sufficient evidence?

[enaidealukal]

So this is extremely relevant, and I expected it to come up by now- can one "prove a negative"? Can one reasonably establish the non-existence of something? Can one ask for evidence for the non-existence of something?

[Wootah]

Point taken.

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
Please no one liners.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

So this is extremely relevant, and I expected it to come up by now- can one "prove a negative"? Can one reasonably establish the non-existence of something? Can one ask for evidence for the non-existence of something?

I don't think it is necessarily relevant.

There really isn't any need to prove that something doesn't exist in general. Instead, all that needs to be shown is that what is being claimed to exist would necessarily be a logical contradiction if it did exist.

Now this may not apply to an abstract concept of "God" in general because such a concept can be made to be so abstract that it doesn't offer any coherent description that could even amount to a logical contradiction.

However in the case of ancient fables of Gods that proclaim all manner of logically inconsistent properties and attributes of their Gods, things change dramatically. Now it is no longer required to prove a negative. All that needs to be shown to dismiss it from a logical point of view is that the descriptions of these gods logically contradict themselves. And in the case of the Biblical God this is indeed the case.

There is no need to disprove the exist of any imaginable abstract concept of God. All that needs to be shown to be false is the Biblical picture of God. And that doesn't require proving a negative.

[enaidealukal]

I don't think it is necessarily relevant.

There really isn't any need to prove that something doesn't exist in general. Instead, all that needs to be shown is that what is being claimed to exist would necessarily be a logical contradiction if it did exist.

Well, but showing that something entails a contradiction would constitute proof of non-existence in the strongest sense of the word "proof" (i.e. a mathematical-logical demonstration).

But again, if evidentialism is accurate, then one needs, if not proof, at least evidence that something does not exist in order for belief that that something doesn't exist to be justified and reasonable. So, if one wants to say that belief in the non-existence of some X doesn't require proof/evidence in order to be reasonable, one either needs to give some reason why belief in non-existence should be an exception, or else reject evidentialism- can't really have it both ways.

[Jashwell]

Whoops, wrong thread.
Will re-purpose post.

Are you referring to weak or strong atheism?

I don't think there's any argument about strong atheism needing justification (it obviously does).