"You can't prove a negative." You hear this all the time, especially from the atheist camp. But really, this is a red herring. The truth is that except in very few cases, you can't really prove a positive. What does 'proof' really mean? Certainty? Well any good philosopher, anyone who has really plumbed the depths of idea and thought, knows that certainty is almost always an illusion and/or a pretense. Even the Law of Non-Contradiction, so long considered a given certainty and treated as sacrosanct, has been well-assailed by the brilliant logician Graham Priest. I do not know that Priest is right. But he seems to make a very strong case. And if the LNC does not obtain than almost anything is up for grabs, at least to some degree.
Of course, most people don't really expect absolute certainty from any epistemological output. What they really mean by proof is 'evidence or argument so strong that it would command the ascent of ALMOST any rational agent.' This is a much lower standard of proof than the one the atheist really pretends to be burdened with when reasons are demanded for their atheism. So we've already wiped away some of the pretense, and that didn't take long and wasn't very hard. But even at this level, very few things fall under this paradigm. Only math really, and a certain very thin slice of the (generally least interesting) science. Nothing of morality, or politics, or human nature, or philosophy, and indeed nothing of theoretical sciences would remain. The proof paradigm is only operative in a very thin slice of the world.
Really, for the largest swath of what we believe, truth is a 'more or less' situation, and so is 'proof'. A person owes an account: reasons, arguments, evidence... for almost everything they believe. This is the real standard of rationality we use in almost every part of our lives. Do people have free will? Some say yes, and some say no. Both sides offer massive arguments and evidence for their position. Neither side seems close to falling away into the dust bin of history. There is no 'proof' here either at the level of absolute certainty nor at the level of near-absolute rational consent. But that doesn't mean nobody OWES an account. Just because a belief can be rationally held doesn't mean it IS rationally held. I think my belief in God has 'good enough' grounds to be considered a 'rational' belief. I don't think I am irrational for believing in God nor do I think the belief in God is irrational. But there are plenty of people who are irrational because of the WAY they believe in God, and plenty of people whose belief in God is irrational.
And even for my beliefs that are not exactly rational, that doesn't make them IRrational. They can be non-rational. A person who has cancer and has a low chance of survival may believe they will make it. This ups their odds and makes their lives better in the meantime. Their belief, then, is not irrational (counter to reason) but is not exactly rational (based on good reasons).
So does the atheist owe an account as the theist does. Yes, they do. The only reason the atheist really denies this, I think, is to avoid facing their own uncertainties (and thus the possibility they are wrong) and because they don't want to realize the actual lower standard theists themselves have to meet. Everyone owes an account for what they believe. You can offer evidence, make a case, offer arguments, in defense of atheism as you can for the denial of free will or for numerical irrealism. Most philosophers in history have been realists about numbers, believing in something like platonic forms to account for them, those philosophers who have come in and railed against this belief were not let off the hook for defending their position because it was negative, but rather had to make vigorous arguments and offer evidence, as any other person would. I don't see that the atheist is in any different position. The very fact that the problem of evil is such a big deal proves, I think, that arguments and evidence can be offered for a negative. The evil in the world stands as an evidence, not proof in the aforementioned sense but evidence, that God does not exist. A theist is bound, if they are going to remain consistent and want to claim to be rational, to deal and account for that evidence.
Everyone owes an account of what they believe. That is just good moral sense. And if you are deliberately entering into a debate on the issue, you doubly owe such an account. A philosopher WANTS the burden of proof. Not forever, nobody owes an eternal account, but still it is something to be enjoyed. You do not have to offer evidence or arguments that engender certainty or that are guaranteed to convert any rational opponent, but you should want the opportunity. "If someone offers you the burden of proof for a mile, pick it up and carry it two." That is something my friend Andrew Jeffery once said to me that stuck with me to this day. It remains true for me, and for everyone. I make my case, and have made my case, and leave it at that. Always seek to do that. To run from it is to run from the most sublime responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment