The Burden of Proof

I run across a lot of interesting stuff while browsing the web. Yesterday I found a this poster on an Athiest perspective.

It's an interesting perspective. For one thing, it makes a point that not all Athiests disbelieve in the same way or for the same reason. For some, the problem of human suffering is the issue. I can see how an honest person with a conscience could have a hard time believing in a just and loving God. I think the problem of suffering is something that both believers and non-believers of conscience are bound to struggle with.

For some Athiests, I think it is the coolness factor. When you look at some of the mocking statements New Athiests make about how believers are stupid, delusional, superstitious, immoral, etc. the temptation is right there. Just declare yourself an Athiest and you can claim that you are smarter than the great majority of the human race. It's the flip side of people who become Christians thinking that will make them superior to everyone else. IMO, it's the shallowest reason to believe or disbelieve in anything.

Then there are some who just don't get believing. I've known a few folks in this category who aren't necessarily hostile to believers, but they don't see any logical reason to believe and don't feel any deep urge to believe. Without anything rational or irrational pushing them, the whole idea of believing in God just seems strange to them, and it's easy to see why.

The poster picks up on that, though it takes it in an angry direction. It implies that it is unfair to tell people that they should have to justify themselves by disproving the existence of God.

This is true. I can't make you believe and you're under no obligation to justify your disbelief. I completely agree with the poster to that point.

It's when you take the saying on the poster a little further that I disagree. If you take the "burden of proof" argument to suggest that believers should have to prove God's existence to justify our beliefs, I have to disagree.

I believe deeply and fully in God, but it's never been a matter of evidence. Faith in God seems as natural as eating or drinking to me, and I suspect that's the case for most believers. For us, needing to justify our faith in rational scientific terms is a bizarre idea. Faith, after all, is more about a relationship than about believing an idea.

I think I can get across what it's like with the analogy of falling in love. When you fall in love, there's no difficulty in proving the existence of the other person, but the bond between the two of you is a different matter. Your feelings of love are real, true, and powerful, but impossible to demonstrate. Imagine if someone said this about your love.

If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

As wonderful and useful as the scientific method is, there are areas of life where it's the wrong tool for the job. There are many unscientific questions that it is powerless to help us understand, yet things like love, beauty, compassion, justice, and (yes) God are still meaningful and important to the majority of people.

The bottom line for me is that the argument about proving God's existence is a silly one. In the modern world we talk about God vs. science, but trying to prove God in scientific terms doesn't make any more sense than trying to prove science in the terms of faith.

Faith and science are two different tools with different uses, different strengths and different weaknesses. Just because science can't answer a question doesn't mean it's a bad question. I really think that we need both the insights of faith and of science. I think that we should stop seeing this as a war and start seeing it as a conversation where each side has a lot to learn and a lot to offer.