Received 5.8.2001

Hello Closet Atheist,

I'm a college philosophy student in a liberal town in the UK. Catholic priests in the local churches here preach not to take the Bible too literally, and put it into historical perspective (a 2000 year old book is fallible, after all). I am a functionalist, and a great admirer of philosophers such as David Hume and Karl Marx who against a system built to control their beliefs were able to write Godless doctrines that make sense. Thanks to a mix of my location in the world and my beliefs, I rarely meet any religious debates in real life. However, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, I am able to converse, debate, and sometimes mindlessly argue with many Christians about the matters of a Godless world.

One online friend of mine (from a Catholic town in the states) made a bold decision, spurred from a mix of highly religious parents, my own rantings, and your website, to become an atheist. He's glad he did, as he can make so much more sense of the world. However, the primary reason I write this at all is to point out one factor that all secular people seem to have in common.

They must have deep understanding and knowledge of both Christianity and Science. How is it that as soon as I declare that fundamentalist creationism is an illogical and scientifically disproven thing, that I suddenly have to become the world's expert on both creationism AND evolutionary theory and quantum physics in order to stop the opposition from just turning away with a superior smirk (or a smiley...).

In the west, where everything is neatly explained by Christianity (behind a veil of sneaky non-empiricism), why must every atheist make it their duty to explain everything. Both me, my friend, and indeed your website, show that this is not an uncommon thing. Anyone who speaks out against religion must have an equally soft cushion on their side of the argument if people are going to listen at all.

I'd just, for once, like to say, "I don't know, it's just what I strongly believe." and not have every Christian within a five-website radius leaping on me for lack of clarity and/or consistency. After all, if they have strong beliefs that they don't try to force upon people and strongly believe, I will respect them (even if I think they're wrong). What respect is there in the violent insecurity that many Christians argue with?

And for the record, when my friend told the first few people he was an atheist, the first response he got was, "What, do you worship Satan or something?" - which I found laughable.

MSK

My Reply:

You have an excellent grasp of the Christianity versus science big picture and make a good point.  Science is used by fundamentalist Christians to refute arguments, but is  conveniently discarded when it comes to explaining how all the dinosaurs fit into Noah's Ark or many other sacred mysteries.

Where does the burden of proof really lie?  Shouldn't the person making the fantastic claim without any empirical evidence be responsible for proving it true?  If I were to claim to have been visited by leprechauns and then challenged everyone to disprove it, what recourse would they have?  It makes sense that the person with the claim, in this case "God exists" should also carry the burden of providing proof because it is virtually impossible to prove the claim is false.

Christians, however, have declared the blind acceptance of the fantastic a virtue.  It is called faith.  Doubting Thomas made this lesson clear when he forever secured his spot as the New Testament whipping boy for demanding proof of Jesus' resurrection.  According to the Bible, those with enough faith can move mountains.  As far as I am aware, our mountains have remained fairly stationary, so apparently no believer's faith has ever achieved the critical mass necessary to invoke the telekinesis required.  But I have faith it will happen someday.

Thanks for the intelligent note.  Write back any time.

Reply from another reader.  Received 6.26.2001

Dear Closet Atheist,

I was very impressed with your website, especially with your politeness and tolerance toward the religious. There are atheists in the world who are as intolerant toward religion as the religious are toward atheists, and I don't think that's right. As an atheist living in a conservative community, I have a lot of respect for religious people. After all, all my friends believe in God and attend church regularly.

In any case, I wanted to share with you a few of my theories about the burden of proof of God. On your site you mention that the burden of proof is with the theists since they are the one's making an extraordinary claim (i.e., that an invisible man in the sky created the universe and is doling out reward and punishment after we die). It seems to the atheist that if he is to believe this improbable thing, he needs to see a great deal of proof. Logically, the burden of proof is obviously with the theist.

However, the belief in God is so ingrained in our society that most everyone takes it for granted that He exists. It's common knowledge. Therefore, in the perspective of theists, it is the atheist who is making the extraordinary claim (i.e., that the God nearly everyone has believed in for centuries does not really exist). Because of this, theists demand extraordinary proof of what they see as an extraordinary claim. Psychologically, for most people, the burden of proof is with the atheist. So, when atheists and theists argue, they are thinking about the issue from two contradictory stances, each thinking they are arguing from the most logically unassailable position. Because of this, it's pretty rare that anybody ever convinces anybody of anything, and arguing only creates animosity and bad feelings.

That's why I'm grateful for people like you, who seem more interested in promoting tolerance and understanding between the theists and atheists rather than sowing resentment and promoting useless arguing. Thanks very much, and keep up the good work.

-Robert M.