Atheism, Worldviews, and the Burden of Proof
The Cambridge Dictionary of philosophy defines a worldview as “an overall perspective on life that sums up what we know about the world, how we evaluate it emotionally, and how we respond to it volitionally” (Audi, 236). Another quotable source puts it: “A worldview is a philosophical system that attempts to explain how the facts of reality relate and fit together….a worldview shapes or colors the way we think and furnishes the interpretive condition for understanding and explaining the facts of our experience” (Geisler and Bocchino, 55).
The basic questions addressed by any worldview concern the nature and/or existence of God or gods, the nature and origin of the universe, the origin, nature, and destiny of mankind, the source of and solution to evil, and the basis and nature of ethics and morality. Based upon these criteria, it is safe to say, nuances aside, that there are three major and opposing worldviews colliding in the world today: theism, pantheism, and atheism. Put simply, theism says that God brought the universe into existence some finite time in the past, that man is the special creation of God who is morally accountable to his Creator, that moral evil is the result of the corrupt use of freewill, and that ethics are ultimately rooted in the nature of God. Pantheism teaches that God is impersonal and metaphysically indistinct from the universe, that man’s true self is God, that evil is an illusion caused by the errors of the mind, and that ethics are relative inasmuch as they transcend the illusion of good and evil. Atheism asserts that there is no God or gods at all and that the universe is all that is, that man is a product of evolution, ultimately reducible to matter, that evil is caused by human ignorance (especially religion), and that ethics are grounded in humanity alone.
Though this is of course a thumb nail sketch, I think it fairly treats the major worldviews in at least rough outline. Recently, however, the supposition was brought to my attention that atheism allegedly is not a worldview. This attempt to deny the “worldviewness” of atheism, I believe is fueled by what I call the atheist via negativa. That is, despite all appearances to the contrary, some atheists claim that they are not making any metaphysical assertions and therefore need not provide any proof of their beliefs.
Atheism, as supposed, is the rational default position. The burden of proof is always on the non-atheist who posits anything other than the atheism that is supposed to be plainly obvious to any reasonable person. Antony Flew popularized this debate tactic of transferring the entire burden of proof to the theist. Perhaps in his case this ploy was a good thing: theists took up the challenge and eventually convinced the famed philosopher to reject atheism and embrace theism (though not Christianity as yet). It was largely through the apologetic efforts of Dr. Gary Habermas that the “burden of proof” was satisfactorily met for Professor Flew. But in spite of the success of Dr. Habermas and others at meeting and even exceeding the burden of proof, it should still be noted that Flew’s original presumption of atheism was a highly suspect debate tactic. In other words, Flew tried to rig the case so that he could not NOT win.
Philosopher Scott Shalkowski, however, points out how the burden of proof, rather than automatically being on the theist, is really a context-sensitive issue. For example, one who denies an apparently well-established claim of science holds the burden of proof. Thus, in the context of our day and age, a claimant holding to a flat earth or denying the existence of electrons has the burden of proof. Similarly, a person who denies the existence of trees, and thereby contradicts the context of ordinary experience, is the one on whom the burden of proof falls. In the context of the debate between atheism and theism, however, there is no presumption or automatic default position. Considering that there is in reality strong and varied evidence for the existence of God, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of adults still affirm the existence of God, it would seem that if anything, the presumption should be in favor of theism (or even pantheism), but definitely not atheism, a worldview embraced by only a small percentage of the population.
Thus, a few points in closing: First, theists are more than willing to share the burden of proof with atheists. Reasonable Christians will accept the responsibility for providing evidence for the faith that we hold. That is why there is a “Christian apologetics” section in the book stores. We just refuse the silly notion that atheists do not also share a burden of proof for their own materialist assumptions about the nature of reality. Second, having to rig the debate in such a way that your side cannot lose is a somewhat revealing admission of the overall weakness of the position. Third, even if every atheist defeated every theist in a fair fought debate, that would not in and of itself prove the non-existence of God, something honest atheists duly recognize. Faith is still justifiable even where final, conclusive proof is lacking. Atheists, to be sure, have just as much if not more faith than Christians themselves. Strategically, many atheists deny they have faith by denying that there is any object “out there” in which to place their faith. But the reality (and lavishness) of atheistic faith is most candidly revealed when atheists are forced to contemplate the question of origins and source of the moral law they routinely invoke against corrupt Christianity.
Fourth, atheists just fool themselves if they really believe that what they believe does not amount to a worldview. I won’t belabor this point for now, but will instead quote from a man well-acquainted with an authentic atheism if there ever was one. Nicholas Zernov wrote this about the institutionalized atheism of the Soviet Union: “[the atheistic propaganda] claims to have answered such questions as whether God exists, what the origin of the universe is, what happens to men after their death, where the source of their happiness lies, and how they can be liberated from misery and pain.” That, my friends, is a worldview. And a very deadly one at that, as fifty million causalities of its militant enforcement would testify – if they in fact could. Ideas, including worldviews, do indeed have consequences. Atheism, of course, is no exception. Therefore, atheism shares a common burden to demonstrate its metaphysical, epistemological, and moral explanatory power.
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20437/Americans-Little-Doubt-God-Exists.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0410fea2.asp
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_existence_of_God
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed., ed. Robert Audi (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Unshakeable Foundations, Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001).