Charles Hawking said something that has become a cheer and a herald for atheists: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Though atheists treat this statement with as much respect and admiration as a puppy does his owner, it really does nothing to promote the cause of Atheism.
First, it does not provide any reason to reject God. It merely states (though emphatically within context) what theists already believe, that men are free to accept or reject God and His Son (i.e., the existence of a theos and the means by which Christians believe He relates to mankind). I don't think it is a stretch to say Christians actually believed the basic concept before it ever entered the thoughts of an atheist. It does not provide evidence, logical or physical, against theism. It does, however, claim there is no evidence for theism. But it does nothing to build actual evidence against theism.
Second, it does not provide support for Atheism. In fact, the exact same phrase could be used in reference to atheism from the theistic standpoint. Charles Hawking himself, when confronted with the need to provide evidence for atheism during a debate with William Lane Craig, could not provide evidence, but rather avoided the question with much stuttering. It was a perfect opportunity to muster evidence against God in a crowd of both believers and atheists, but he didn't.
Third, it implies, or should I say that the popularity of such a vague statement implies that those who honor the statement believe at some point that the absence of evidence for a theos provides evidence for absence of a theos. This is purely illogical. You cannot disprove the existence of something based on the fact that you haven't seen the proof.
Now, I do not say that the statement is illogical or wrong within the confines of it's limitations. However, I write this in response to the popularity that the statement has achieved among atheists. It is nothing but a fluff-packed pillow that an atheist can rest his weary head on after he has exerted hard labor out of his pre-determined heart. The statement does not flow out of someone seeking truth, but rather someone who has already decided.
4 comments:
I like your critique of the quote. The argument is double-edged. Atheism is asserted without evidence, therefore it can be dismissed without evidence. I'll have to watch his debate with Craig. It sounds very interesting. There is also much evidence Christianity has to show for itself, as well, both scientific and existential. Craig is a master at demonstrating this. Another quote out there right now is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This quote doesn't fare any better than the other one. The way atheists try to get out of the double-edged nature of these quotes is by defining their worldview in a purely negative way. But we've talked about the absurdity of that before.
You know I was just thinking, all of these atheists asking for God to give scientific evidence to prove to them his existence sounds an awful lot like the pharisees asking Jesus for a sign to prove that he was the Christ. Jesus had given them many signs. Eventually he even raised Lazarus from the dead! But when they asked for a sign right then, he wouldn't give them one, because their hearts' intent. Perhaps it's the same with the modern atheist who believes in scientism. They ask for a "sign" according to their tastes, but God says, I've already given massive scientific evidence to show myself (Romans 1). If they don't believe now, they won't believe after any further signs-- because their hearts are hard. Why should God acquiesce to the demands of those who hate him with all their being? Why should he have to use the means they demand, when the means he has already used is sufficient for any man? Beside that, God does not give signs to people who do not want to believe-- who do not have ears to hear. He hides truth from these kind of people. The more I think about it, the more I see the pharisaic tendencies of our atheist friends.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
You are right, Conrad. This quote does nothing for them either and is also a double edged sword in your sense. I would think it is obvious that is is an extraordinary claim to say to a world of theists to say there is actually no theos. So where is the extraordinary evidence?
Besides, the quote isn't really even logical (evidence is evidence, whether it's extraordinary or not) and is rather emotionally driven. People use this kind of logic when they don't WANT to believe something. So what are his real desires?
One specific point that could apply here is that people claim there is no historical record of the works or words of Christ. However, is not the Bible a historical record in and of itself? And a rather detailed one at that, that has support from thousands of manuscripts. It’s not like it was just written in the modern era, or is only composed of various incomplete scraps!
But yeah, I know what you mean. If people won’t accept God’s revelation of Christ, then why should we expect them to change via a miracle that they will just try to explain away anyway? They are not inclined to give God glory for anything. So why should they attribute a sign to God? When a person thinks negatively about something, they are hard pressed to accept proof as-is. There will always be an explanation as far as they are concerned.
Post a Comment