Negative Atheism
Professor Antony Flew wrote in his book God
and Philosophy that there are two kinds of atheist. The positive atheist uses evidence to
prove that there is no God. The
negative atheist does not do this but refuses to believe there is a God because
there is no evidence for God. Flew's
book is a defence of negative atheism.
It argues that since there is no proof or reason to believe in God that makes
sense we can assume there is no God and we should.
It is up to the theist to prove there is a God. There must then be positive theists who
say there is evidence for God and negative theists who say that there is a God
for there is no evidence against him.
One might think the problem with negative atheism is that its reasoning
would justify one believing that one’s long gone wife is dead because there is
no evidence that she is alive. Or
that your employee is a thief for there is no evidence that he is not. But the difference is that if there is a
God he will tell us he exists but the wife cannot for she does not know what one
thinks or if one wants to know.
She’s not all-powerful and all-knowing like God and it is the same with the
employee.
Negative theism faces the problem of Santa Claus or the seventh wife of Henry VIII. It would have to say they exist simply because there is no evidence against them. This makes no sense. Something doesn't exist just because there is no evidence for it.
Anthony Kenny wrote that it is better to presume that you don’t know something than that you do for it is easier to prove you don’t know a thing than that you know it (page 58, What is Faith?) which means that it is better to presume agnosticism. Kenny argues that it is easier and more reasonable to assume God exists in the way negative theism does it than to assume that he does not like Flew wants us to. Both Flew and Kenny agree that there is no evidence for God. If there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of the ghost upstairs then it is clearly more reasonable to believe the ghost doesn't exist. If Kenny thinks it is more reasonable and easier to believe in God for God explains things then that is a denial that there is no evidence for God. Kenny must think that it is better to presume God exists in case he does. But we can't go about honouring nature spirits we don't believe in just because they might exist.
The thinking that we should presume God just in case we do him an injustice if he doesn't exist or in case we are wrong to think he is non-existent would forbid us to believe in revelation. How? For it could only be permissible to assume God exists if you won’t let that assumption be grounds for dotty doctrines and harmful ethics. Revelation would be superfluous if God is an assumption for when God is an assumption so would accepting any alleged revelation from him be. The assumption of God is behind the acceptance. You cannot take a revelation as true in this case unless you assume that God exists first. God would just have to understand that we are not sure enough of him and give him all the reverence we can but we won’t make him the reason we do everything we do or put him first. But religion claims his wishes must be taken very seriously and if he wants us to let a mother to be die rather than let her abort he must be obeyed. If God is good he will understand why we cannot assume he exists. Kenny is wrong that the need for an assumption about whether or not God exists justifies the presumption of theism and not atheism. When God is good and understanding he will not hurt or punish us or be hurt – he is almighty – if we don’t believe in him so we don’t need to presume theism at all. Also, atheism makes more sense than belief in God so the assumption justifies atheism.
We conclude that if we are forced to presume and there is no positive evidence for atheism or agnosticism or theism then theism is the last thing we should presume. And as for agnosticism, when it says there could be a God and there is no need to believe in God it makes sense to make things simpler and just be an atheist. Reason bids us to go for simplicity. Agnosticism falls with theism for it is half-theism.
Theism is an insult to the intelligence.
BOOKS
CONSULTED
A Catechism of
Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society,
A Common Faith, John Dewey,
A Primer of
Necessary Belief, Dawson Jackson ,Victor Gollancz
Ltd,
Apologetics and
Catholic Doctrine, M H Gill and Son Ltd,
Faith and Ambiguity,
Stewart R Sutherland, SCM Press,
God
and Philosophy,
In
Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
On Being a Christian, Hans Kung, Collins/Fount Paperbacks,
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard,
Reason and Religion, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd,
The Balance of Truth, EI Watkin,
Hollis & Carter,
The Case Against
Christ, John Young, Falcon Books,
The Faith of a Subaltern, Alec de Candole,
Cambridge University Press, 1919
The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, A.C.
The Future of Belief Debate, Ed Gregory Baum, Herder and Herder,
The Student’s
Catholic Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
Unblind Faith, Michael J Langford, SCM,
What Do Existentialists
Believe? Richard Appignanesi,
Granta Books,
What is Christianity? Very Rev W Moran DD, Catholic Truth Society
of
What is
Faith? Anthony Kenny,
THE WEB
THE PROBLEMS WITH BELIEFS www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm