PRESUMPTION OF ATHEISM?
Is there evidence for the existence of God?
Antony Flew told us to assume that the proposition that God exists is false
until arguments are developed to show that the proposition is true. So if there
is no evidence for God that means you assume that he does not exist. Like
the presumption that a person is innocent when accused even when there is
evidence pointing to their guilt until you get strong unassailable proof you
make a presumption of atheism.
It has been suggested that Flew has gone too far.
Brian Davies says if you meet Brian Davies at a party and he says he is Brian
Davies then you are not being irrational if you believe him without developing
arguments as to why you think he is telling the truth (page 32, The Reality of
God and the Problem of Evil). He adds that if we need arguments before we
believe signs telling us where London is or what people or books or anything say
we won’t be able to live at all.
I have four responses to this.
1 – If you meet somebody saying his name is Brian Davies at a party and believe
him that is fine. If you meet a stranger at a party who claims to be the king of
Spain then the claim is outrageous and you would be entitled to look for
verification first. It would be reasonable to. God is an outrageous claim so you
need outrageous evidence before you can believe in him.
2 - The arguments are still being used. You believe him that he is Brian Davies
because your argument is that you can't see why he would lie to you. You believe
many things because you have the arguments all done for yourself long ago. When
you were a child you might have found yourself sceptical about a lot of things
that you later saw you shouldn’t have been sceptical about. This led you to
believe that most signs are correct and most people give their real names at
parties. So you did believe Brian Davies was his name because of arguments after
all. You had the arguments at the back of your mind. We always use arguments
whether we realise it or not.
3 – Even if it is true that we cannot live if we look for arguments all the time
that has nothing to do with the question of, “Should we look for arguments all
the time?” It is reasonable to believe that Brian Davies is his name because we
are unable to look for arguments all the time. In other words, it is only
reasonable because we are stuck. It is reasonable to believe a notorious liar
who claims to be directing you to the fire escape in a burning building for it
is an emergency and his testimony is all you have got. Back to the man claiming
he is Brian Davies at a party. If he is not Brian Davies then we are
unreasonable in another sense – we made an assumption that what was untrue was
true. In that case, it is an issue of logic not practicality. Flew is discussing
logic not the practicalities of believing in God.
4 - It might be reasonable yes to take his word for it that he is Brian Davies.
But it is obvious that it is far more reasonable to look for reasons that he is
telling the truth!
Innocent until proven guilty means you cannot accuse atheists of neglecting
God and thus not respecting the one being who matters until you prove God.
It is that simple.
Flew has not been proven wrong. Flew was right.