The burden of proof has nothing to do with consensus bc consensus is not inherently rooted in evidence. Anything which cannot be reliably verified by each person who looks for evidence is not verified by replicable evidence and that means it is indistinguishable from fiction unless and until the weight of evidence changes. The weight of evidence for god hasn't charged in thousands of years, quite the contrary. Every time new evidence for god is claimed,! it fails. This on top of the fact that the evidence for a naturalistic world view continuously mounts , showing it to be necessary and sufficient to explain all things without god.
I agree that the evidence for naturalism, and thus for atheism, is incredibly strong—especially so when compared to the case for supernaturalism. So why then haven't more people changed worldviews?
My experience is that the religious people I meet do not understand what my naturalistic beliefs are. In fact, they have no idea what I believe (only that I don't believe in God) or why I believe as I do, and as a consequence they are wholly incapable of summarizing my position in a manner I would recognize (much less agree with). They only know my top-end conclusions: no God, no afterlife.
The same applies to every thoughtful article I've read over the past 50 years intended to debunk atheism or naturalism. The level of ignorance theists have of their opposition's thought process (at least, my thought process) is incredible.
Why is this? It is because most atheists long ago satisfied themselves that the burden of proof is on theists, and therefore atheists don't have to present a positive case for atheism. The result is that the summary of what theists perceive in their atheist opponents is doubt, and this doubt is carried (from their point of view) unreasonably too far.
It is a mistake to associate burden of proof with level of evidence. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to convince the other side to change their outlook. You can have all the evidence in the world, but if the other side isn't exposed to that evidence, doesn't understand the fundamental issues the evidence addresses, doesn't know why those issues are in fact fundamental, then no intellectual progress on their part will ever occur.
It's not even their fault. If we don't present the case for our natural worldview, then they will always filter every argument and every bit of evidence through their supernatural worldview, and they will never learn of a viable alternative which needs to be taken into consideration, an alternative based on non-supernatural premises.
To be clear, Preface to Atheism is not focused on presenting the evidence for naturalism. Rather, it's focused on identifying the fundamental issues, and on explaining why they are fundamental. I have an older blog, https://atheology.com, which is more generally focused on making the case for naturalism versus supernaturalism.
Also worth reading: https://atheology.com/2010/09/16/antony-flew-is-dead/
For a detailed example of how logical arguments for God's existence presume what they need to prove, see https://atheology.com/2010/06/24/cosmological-arguments/
The burden of proof has nothing to do with consensus bc consensus is not inherently rooted in evidence. Anything which cannot be reliably verified by each person who looks for evidence is not verified by replicable evidence and that means it is indistinguishable from fiction unless and until the weight of evidence changes. The weight of evidence for god hasn't charged in thousands of years, quite the contrary. Every time new evidence for god is claimed,! it fails. This on top of the fact that the evidence for a naturalistic world view continuously mounts , showing it to be necessary and sufficient to explain all things without god.
I agree that the evidence for naturalism, and thus for atheism, is incredibly strong—especially so when compared to the case for supernaturalism. So why then haven't more people changed worldviews?
My experience is that the religious people I meet do not understand what my naturalistic beliefs are. In fact, they have no idea what I believe (only that I don't believe in God) or why I believe as I do, and as a consequence they are wholly incapable of summarizing my position in a manner I would recognize (much less agree with). They only know my top-end conclusions: no God, no afterlife.
The same applies to every thoughtful article I've read over the past 50 years intended to debunk atheism or naturalism. The level of ignorance theists have of their opposition's thought process (at least, my thought process) is incredible.
Why is this? It is because most atheists long ago satisfied themselves that the burden of proof is on theists, and therefore atheists don't have to present a positive case for atheism. The result is that the summary of what theists perceive in their atheist opponents is doubt, and this doubt is carried (from their point of view) unreasonably too far.
It is a mistake to associate burden of proof with level of evidence. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to convince the other side to change their outlook. You can have all the evidence in the world, but if the other side isn't exposed to that evidence, doesn't understand the fundamental issues the evidence addresses, doesn't know why those issues are in fact fundamental, then no intellectual progress on their part will ever occur.
It's not even their fault. If we don't present the case for our natural worldview, then they will always filter every argument and every bit of evidence through their supernatural worldview, and they will never learn of a viable alternative which needs to be taken into consideration, an alternative based on non-supernatural premises.
To be clear, Preface to Atheism is not focused on presenting the evidence for naturalism. Rather, it's focused on identifying the fundamental issues, and on explaining why they are fundamental. I have an older blog, https://atheology.com, which is more generally focused on making the case for naturalism versus supernaturalism.