Brief Apologetics: Critique 2

If you missed the first post from this series, please click here and take a moment to read the introduction.


Critique 2:
The “burden of proof” is on religious people to show that a God or gods exist, not on atheists to prove their non-existence.

Actually, atheism is the “new kid on the block.” Humans have believed in the transcendent much longer than non-believers have questioned it. Therefore, the doubters have the obligation to prove why humans have been wrong for so many years about supernatural things.

(You may be tempted to respond to this by saying that the advent of science and technology has relieved our need for religious belief. Just hold off because that will be the next critique.)


4 thoughts on “Brief Apologetics: Critique 2

  1. league89 says:

    Perhaps adding to the scientific debate will add to your reflection on it. When I read the beginning of this post, I thought about how over the years, with paganism and monotheism, the idea of gods/God is that they/He controls specific things in nature. With science, we understand systems. As scientific theories grow and more explanations are presented for natural phenomena, how does not the burden of proof fall upon us?

    This is not to say we are charged by non-believers with an easy task; one cannot PROVE God (or gods for that matter). On the flip side, I don’t think it possible to DISprove Him either…

  2. Well, yes, the debate demands much more rigorous responses than what I’m giving here. My goal with these responses is to simply challenge the notions presented, not to give exhaustive treatments.

    This opens up the whole problem the “shotgun” debating about these big topics which is happening on blogs, Facebook comments, etc. You can read more about that in a post I wrote called ‘Guidelines for Lobbing Handgrenades’:

    Let me briefly respond to your excellent question about how the burden of proof does not fall upon us as scientific theories grow and more explanations for natural phenomena abound. The problem for me is that I don’t trust science to present absolutely correct answers. 400 years ago, it was common knowledge that the earth is flat, now we know that’s preposterous. There are things right now that science generally accepts as true which will seem foolish to future generations. How can I be sure that the things science is telling me about reality won’t change? If they may change, why should I unconditionally accept them?

    • league89 says:

      Touche, sir, very well played 😉 Really, though, that is a great point. The only constant absolute that has ever presented itself to man is not an ‘it’ at all, He is God. Though scientists do not accept this as a general rule, it is the Truth of the matter that has been presented since He created man.

      • You’re so right. The absolute isn’t information, “it” is a person. That’s why mere intellectual assent never gets us to God. We must relate to Him as a person, not a force or a theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s