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?

[wiploc]

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).

When enaidealukal says "atheism," he means strong atheism. He thinks you should mean that too. He'll explain over and over that his way is better---but you shouldn't respond to that, because he doesn't want to argue about it.

He thinks "agnosticism" (explicit weak atheism) also needs justification.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 17 by enaidealukal]

So, according to evidentialism, atheism, in the relevant sense, would need to be justified.
If by "evidence" you mean the weighing of or determining the value of another's argument or evidence, then sure. I'll agree with that. But what's the point?

I assert that there are Leprechauns in my garden. My evidence is that my garden is blossoming. Let's say you choose to place no value in my argument. Does your decision to disbelieve qualify as evidence or are you judging my evidence?

If you consider "the act of judging" evidence, then this debate seems to me to be just about semantics and I fail to see the point.

All the best,

[wiploc]

enaidealukal, what is your justification of atheism?

[Star]

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.

This isn't the way logic works. Claims without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

As you said, the claimant bears the burden of evidence. But a soft, agnostic-atheist is a skeptic, not a claimant. A hard atheist might be a claimant, but as many smart people tried explaining to you in the other thread on this subject, there are different types of atheists. Semantics aside, these are actual people with fundamentally different viewpoints. You refuse to recognize these distinctions, which is why I think you struggle so much with this.

Atheism is generally the default position, or null hypothesis. If there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, the alternative is rejected, and the null is accepted. This can change if new evidence is presented.