Atheism Automatically Justified?

While reading an article about atheism I came across this line:

if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational.

Please excuse the grammar (singular “theist” coupled with the plural “their”).

For the purposes of this post, “atheism” refers to weak atheism, more commonly known as agnosticism. That must be said because the broader definition of atheism (used in the quote) makes the term confusing. The atheist’s argument is that since it is the theist who claims that God exists, then it is up to him to prove his claim. If he cannot, then one is justified in refraining from accepting his claim and remaining an atheist.

That sounds reasonable, except for this: where’s the answer? There are two possibilities to the god question: either there is a god, or there isn’t a god. One of those possibilities is true. Those of us who are interested in such things want to know which. Atheism doesn’t tell us. Atheism doesn’t offer an answer. So, how can (weak) atheism be automatically justified when it doesn’t offer an answer to the biggest question any of us will ever ask? Can we really construct a worldview around an unanswered question? That is not a rhetorical question, I would really like an answer.

Without any answers to these questions, I am forced to say that not only is atheism not automatically credible and rational, but also dishonest in the sense that atheists often attack theists’ “irrational” claims (something that is common on that website) but offer no alternative claims of their own.

–J.E. Heath

See reply to recent criticisms.

Encouraged by my wisdom? Get more at per-fidem.org.
Comments? Email us.

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath