Burden of Proof?

An increasingly common ploy (not to insinuate bad motives) by atheists is to claim that atheism isn't a negative statement about God, it's a suspension of belief.  So they have nothing to defend.  Of course, this puts them in the cat bird seat of only making criticisms of theism.  It can be maddening to deal with this approach.

Keith Plummer at The Christian Mind carries on a lot of dialogs with non-Christians, and today he draws on his experience with one such atheist who took this position about his atheism.  Keith makes this fundamental point and then goes into a dialog demonstrating how to deal with this challenge.

One of those dialogue partners frequently engaged Christians in debate yet was reluctant to offer an argument in support of his own position. His rationale for this was that since he was a negative atheist (one who lacks a belief in God but does not assert that God does not exist), he was making no assertion and therefore was under no obligation to offer a defense.

This is a very common ploy but I think it's flawed. Objections to Christianity are not acontextual. They arise from alternative systems of belief which have their own presuppositions about the nature and limits of reality and human knowing, and how it is we should live. What's often needed is for the Christian to unearth the implicit worldview from which objections arise rather than simply responding as though the atheist's starting point is neutral or the default position that does not stand in need of defense.

Comments

[Scott Klusendorf]

Ya, I've seen this before from atheists, but it's hardly persuasive. Look, even if one is a negative atheist, he must still defend his skepticism like I must defend my theism. Meanwhile, those who make stronger claims for atheism don't win be default either. The claim "God does not exist" is just as much a claim to know something as saying "God does exist." Both are knowledge claims and both should be argued for.

[Justin]

Negative atheism sounds a lot like "soft atheism," which is basically agnosticism.

[Henry]

A lot of these disputes get messed up in debate over the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. But what really matters here is the position, not the label (to state the manifestly obvious).

If some is saying they lack belief in God, and are merely offering this as autobiographical material, then there's really nothing to say but, "Okay." But if the person is offering her lack of belief as a position we all should take, then this is more substantial and must be defended. If no position is offered as something all should adopt, then that person is not contributing to the conversation, but merely telling us about herself.

You'll notice a lot of talk about the existence of God collapses into epistemology--is it rational to believe in God. Many atheists today (with notable exceptions; William Rowe may be one) no longer argue that God doesn't exist, but that it is irrational to believe in God. Many use the evidential argument that the arguments for God's existence don't work, and therefore it is irrational to believe in God. Christians have responded in two ways--some have said the arguments do work (Doug Geivett), and some have said that belief in God is rational even without arguments (Alvin Plantinga).

I am more attracted to Plantinga's position, which (if I understand correctly) says that for someone to say that belief in God is irrational, that person must assume Christian theism is false. Plantinga has argued that if Christian theism is true, it is likely that our minds are designed by God such that when they are functioning properly and in the right environment they will produce belief in God upon certain stimuli (a beautiful scene, song, or whatever). If this is the case, then Christians are rational in believing in God whether or not they have arguments or not.

[Sam]

One response to an atheist who says, "I have a lack of belief in God," might be to ask, "Do you also have a lack of belief in the non-existence of God?"

If they say "yes" then they don't have an opinion about God's existence either way, and they're agnostic, not atheist.

If they say "no" then they DO have a belief in the non-existence of God, not just a LACK of belief in the existence of God.