The Fshbwl

If you happen to visit any of the online discussion forums regarding the topic of religious debate, you will discover that there is one question that an atheist or skeptic will inevitably ask. And in most cases, you will notice that the theist responds to that question as the starting point for a meaningful interchange. The theist has accepted the grounds of the debate, and has taken on the burden of proof.

The question from the atheist is stated something like the following: “I will believe in God ONLY if you can prove to me that he exists?”

Asking for evidence to a claim is justifiable, however, if this question is the foundational premise for the discussion, then the theist doesn’t stand a chance. For the atheist to refute any of the theistic arguments is merely to demonstrate that he is not persuaded.

The Problem With Proofs
A proof is essentially an argument, and an argument consists of three properties: validation, soundness, and cogency. Consider the following:

All cows eat grass
Grass is the color blue
Therefore, cows eat blue grass

This argument is valid but it is not sound, because it is not true that grass is the color blue. Consider another argument:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

This argument is both valid and sound; because both premises are true and so, therefore the conclusion is true. However, the third property to an argument is cogency, which is another word for persuasiveness. The cogency of an argument is dependent upon the convinced state of the recipient. So, to use this latest argument again, if the recipient somehow believes that Socrates is not mortal but rather immortal, then he will deny the second premise of the argument. The problem with proofs, then is that they are person-relative. Note the distinction: I am not stating that “truths” are relative or subjective, but rather that the persuasiveness of a successful argument is subjective.

Logical Certainty
When someone is asking for evidences or proofs to a claim, they are asking for certainty. It is important to note that there are two kinds of certainty. One is “logical certainty” which consists of such things as the laws of logic and mathematics. The second is “psychological certainty” which is everything else. All questions that pertain to worldviews fall into the psychological certainty category. It is my observation that the expectation to the “proof of God” question is usually held to an improbable standard of certainty.

The Right Question
Having read this far, you probably are wondering if I am opposed to giving arguments for theism. To the contrary, I am very much in favor of evidential apologetics and believe that a solid case can be made for the existence of God. The issue at hand, as explained in this article, is that the theist need not accept the burden of proof as the terms of engagement. The theist-atheist discussion is essentially a “worldview” dialog, and both positions respond to the great questions of life.

Therefore, it is better that the discussion be grounded with the following question:

“Based on what we know about reality, what worldview gives us the most coherent picture of the world in which we live?”

When the conversation is applied to reality, The atheist too, must also build a case for his/her worldview, and provide reasons for how to explain the existence of a world by strictly material causes. Atheism has answers to the big questions in life — it is not the absence of a belief system. The dialog should continue, but it should start in the right place.