Faith and Reason: An objection to Anthony Flew "The Presumption of Atheism"

Jonah Wong

In this post I will object to Anthony Flew’s argument on “The Presumption of Atheism”. His argument goes something like this:

If we lack good evidence for something, then we can’t know that it’s true.
So, if we lack good evidence that theism is true, then we can’t know that theism is true. (from 1, an instance of 1)
If we can’t know that theism is true without evidence, then the burden of proof is on theism.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on theism (2&3 MP)

My objection is to premise one of Flew’s argument. My counterexample would be faith. In Christian tradition, faith is a necessary component to the belief in God. Thus, one cannot rely on “good evidence for something, to know that it is true.” In fact, if there had been indisputable evidence for the existence of God, faith would not be necessary. Thus, it is unreasonable to say that the burden of proof ought to be on the theist because “we can’t know that theism is true without evidence.” My objection would go something like this:

Faith is a necessary component to believe in God.
“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1).
If we are sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see, we are certain of something, despite lacking evidence.
Even if we lack good evidence for something, we can still know that it is true.

The problem with this objection is that the debate simply becomes whether one has faith or not. And reasonably, the theist will have faith, and the atheist will not. So, then, it becomes unclear who the burden of proof ought to be on. However, I believe this is an important distinction to make, because faith is an absolutely crucial element to the individual’s belief in God. Really, faith is what it comes down to. Not evidence, or logic, or rationality. When talking about God, faith determines the nature of one’s beliefs.

The purpose of my objection is not to say who the burden of proof ought to be on, but instead to attempt to disprove the argument made by Flew that the burden of proof ought to be on the theist.

unenlightened

The dude was my head of department in his dotage when he thought he had proved the existence of god after all.

I think the conception of religion as belief is mistaken in the first place. You continue that conception by positing faith as belief without evidence, or some such. I might say that I believe in justice, and not imagine that there is a fact that justice invariably prevails, or even usually prevails, corresponding to my belief. It is a principle to live by, a practice to seek to follow, not a fact or fantasy to believe.

One can decide to put one's faith in something, which is to hang one's life on it, as if it is a rope. One has to live for something or die for it, there has to be some centre to one's life, and that is where one has put one's faith. Flew put his faith in his own powers of argumentation, and they proved somewhat treacherous in the end.

Deleted User

If we lack good evidence for something, then we can’t know that it’s true.
So, if we lack good evidence that theism is true, then we can’t know that theism is true. (from 1, an instance of 1)
If we can’t know that theism is true without evidence, then the burden of proof is on theism.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on theism (2&3 MP) — Jonah Wong

The word "atheism" can be substituted for the word "theism".

If we lack good evidence for something, then we can’t know that it’s true.
So, if we lack good evidence that atheism is true, then we can’t know that atheism is true. (from 1, an instance of 1)
If we can’t know that atheism is true without evidence, then the burden of proof is on atheism.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on atheism (2&3 MP)

Deleted User

Unless you want to argue that atheism doesn't qualify as "something"...

god must be atheist

My objection is to premise one of Flew’s argument. My counterexample would be faith. In Christian tradition, faith is a necessary component to the belief in God. — Jonah Wong

faith and belief in god is not evidence of god; it is the evidence that some people have faith in God.

From this realization, the rest of the argument against Flew's argument fails.

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). — Jonah Wong

Faith is a belief. Faith can't bring certainty. Being sure of your faith is just that; not that the object of your faith or belief is certainly as you believe it.

Tom Storm

My objection is to premise one of Flew’s argument. My counterexample would be faith. In Christian tradition, faith is a necessary component to the belief in God. Thus, one cannot rely on “good evidence for something, to know that it is true.” In fact, if there had been indisputable evidence for the existence of God, faith would not be necessary — Jonah Wong

Faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason. It's a facile justification but we know it is very satisfying psychologically.

I was speaking with an Islamic man last week who told me that Jesus was a prophet, was not the son of God and someone else was crucified in Jesus' place. The common Islamic position. I asked how did he know this? "Faith!" came the certain response. The real problem with faith is that along with being disconnected from evidence, faith can be used to justify anything, from a belief that black people are inferior to white people, to stoning people to death for homosexuality. There is nothing that people can't justify with an appeal to faith.

Unless you want to argue that atheism doesn't qualify as "something"... — ZzzoneiroCosm

Correct. Atheism is just the absence of a belief in a god on the basis that the reasons provided are unconvincing. The atheist no more needs to disprove god than Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. A responsible atheist does not say 'there is no god" (that would require demonstration) they would say there is no good reason to accept the proposition.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪unenlightened

Flew put his faith in his own powers of argumentation, and they proved somewhat treacherous in the end. — unenlightened

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I suspect his late father being a minister may have influenced his change of heart. It is kind of poetic that the "most notorious atheist" finally found his deeply religious father was right all along.

↪ZzzoneiroCosm

The word "atheism" can be substituted for the word "theism". — ZzzoneiroCosm

Does absence of belief entail a burden of proof?

Deleted User

Does absence of belief entail a burden of proof? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Atheism is sometimes the absence, sometimes the rejection, of a belief. I mean the rejection.

Tom Storm

Atheism is sometimes the absence, sometimes the rejection, of a belief. I mean the rejection. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, rejection has no burden of proof. I reject belief in god/Bigfoot on the basis that the case has not been made.

Burden of proof applies to a positive claim: 'There is no God'. That's when the burden comes in.

Deleted User

↪Tom Storm

↪Down The Rabbit Hole

That works.

So I mean atheism as a positive claim. :smile:

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪ZzzoneiroCosm

↪Tom Storm

So I mean atheism as a positive claim. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's how they use the word in academic works apparently. Causing lots of debate over the correct definition.

baker

The purpose of my objection is not to say who the burden of proof ought to be on, but instead to attempt to disprove the argument made by Flew that the burden of proof ought to be on the theist. — Jonah Wong

Which theist? The cradle theist, or the adult convert theist?
Because cognitively/epistemically, the two are categorically different.

Secondly, what if the theist doesn't consider himself thusly burdened to provide proof?

Faith and Reason: An objection to Anthony Flew "The Presumption of Atheism"

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions