<< At 02:20 PM 6/11/97 EDT, you wrote:
>
>Russell writes:
>
><<And, I might add, the burden of proof rests on those who are trying to
>prove that such a standard exists.>>
>
>Why?
Because it's an affirmative claim, genius. Those are the rules, and they
always have been. You can't just pop up, say "this exists because I say
so. Prove me wrong!" and then smugly sit back and expect people to take
you seriously. Are you really that ignorant of the rules of rational
debate?
>Because you obviously can't meet your own burden, viz., to prove that God
>and objective morality do not exist?
That is not my burden, and it never has been. However, I am glad that you
have gone so far over the edge as to make this ridiculous demand. It makes
my job here a lot easier.
>>
Russell,
I do not think this issue is as simple as you are postulating. The onus of
proof does not fall on someone merely because they hold to a certain doctrine
or belief. After all, in a debate, everyone involved adheres to a certain
perspective, and with that, why would it be assumed that the burden of proof
automatically falls one way?
Ronald Nash, in his book "Faith and Reason", discusses this problem, as it
applies to the theist/atheist debate:
"For those who accept the presumption of atheism, it is always rational to
begin by disbelieving that God exists and always irrational to begin by
believing that God exists. While it is rational to presume the truth of
atheism, it is never rational to presume the truth of theism. While atheism
may be presumed innocent until proven guilty, theism should be presumed
guilty until proven otherwise. The burden of proof always rest on the
theist.
Though handicaps in such sports as golf make sense, moves like the one
atheologians make by presuming atheism are normally what we have in mind when
we say that so-and-so has pulled a fast one. Alvin Plantinga has described
this kind of thinking as a 'piece of merely arbitrary intellectual
imperialism.' One of the major themes of recent work in this area -
especially writings by such Reformed thinkers as Plantinga, Nicholas
Wolterstorff, and others - is that it is philosophically irresponsible for
theists to allow atheologians to make the rules in this way.
The responsible theist will readily shoulder the burden of proof when he has
to. In the case of positive apologetics (to offer reasons why belief in God
is rational), the burden of proof would appear to belong to the believer.
But one of the more important tasks of negative apologetics is challenging
the view that Christian belief is irrational unless it is accompanied by
supporting reasons or arguments. The sensible person will reject the claim
that theism should be presumed guilty until proven innocent."
(Faith and Reason, pp. 16-18)
We all have a particular conceptual framework by which we view the world.
Taking this into consideration would seem to be foundational in discussing
the nature of truth with someone. Because my presupposition is that God
exists, and yours is that God does not exist, in no way makes it incumbent on
me to try to "prove" this to you. Now, I may choose to do so, and if in fact
I brought the whole subject up I would surely feel the need to do this.
However, this works both ways.
I certainly do not feel an atheistic perspective is obligatory, as
philosopher Michael Scriven has stated. While you may reply that in the
absence of evidence for God's existence, this would be the only logical
choice - I would agree. But I would say that there is overwhelming evidence
for the existence of God - historically and scientifically. But even if I
elaborately laid out every bit of knowledge I had on this subject in an
attempt to show you the intellectual feasibility of God's existence, and more
specifically, the Christian faith, chances are it would not put a dent in
your armor, sort of speak. Why? The 'hard' evidence will never sway you,
because your presuppositions do not allow you to put this evidence into its
proper context. And that is where the real challenge lies, I think: to show
someone that their basic worldview, when lived out to its logical conclusion,
does not reflect life as it really is. And while I may feel confident in
knowing that my Christian perspective gives me true unified knowledge as to
the nature of reality, I realize that convincing you of this fact would not
be a simple endeavor, to say the least. And I'm sure, on your side, you are
just as convicted in your beliefs. But to assume that the burden of proof
rests upon myself simply because your presuppositions are different than mine
does not make a great deal of sense.
Respectfully,
Tony