If I were to walk up to you tomorrow and tell you that you could no longer drink your favorite cola, or coffee because it would cause cancer and kill you in two years… would you stop drinking it? Chances are the first thing most of you would ask me if I asked you to stop drinking would be the following question: prove it. You would never stop drinking that sweet nectar unless I presented hard evidence that it was going to end your life, nor would you take it on faith and stop drinking merely because I ‘beleive’ that it might cause cancer. Unless I presented hard evidence, backed up with some pretty reputable science no one would ever stop drinking anything, period.

So why do some people get their knickers in a knot when someone applies this standard to organized religion?

The issue is actually this simple: whether God does or does not exist is not a question that inherently exists in nature. The burden of proof is on those who claim that God exists. Ancient texts don’t prove it, and they don’t put the burden of proof on the skeptics. Sounds rather simple doesn’t it? If someone is making wild claims about an almighty being that lives in the sky and controls the entire universe and everything that goes on around us, wouldn’t the burden to prove that lie with them and not the people who don’t believe these stories?

And for the record, Atheism is not a belief. That’s a cop out, because it’s a denial of religion, not a belief. Atheism is a rejection of faith and reigion based on the absence of evidence. A refusal to believe in something that is no more believable than fairy tales. We don’t beleive in Sleeping Beauty, Seven Dwarves, One Ring that Rules them all, or a Galaxy Far, Far Away… but the followers of organized religion expect us to blindly accept the over the top ficticous mythology of the bible without a single shred of evidence? I’m sorry, no way! To deny it isn’t a belief, it’s common sense.

Getting back to the burden of proof; let’s try a different approach. If I told you there was an invisable flying spagetti monster in my garage, would you believe me because you cannot prove otherwise? What if I demanded you prove to me that I don’t have an invisible flying spagetti monster in my garage? If you failed to do so, would such a failure constitute a proof of my invisible spagetti monster? Ridiculous, right?

This is the same argument thesists would have us apply to God, and it is not any argument that could be made using science. Using this example, the scientific method demands that I would have to prove that I have an invisible flying spagetti monster in my garage. You would not be required to prove that I don’t. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

When applying this metaphor to theism, if you attempt to claim God or any other higher being exists, and you base a belief structure on this claim, it is up to you to prove it, especially when you want others to agree with the beliefs you derived from your theism. Until such extraordinary evidence exists to prove extraordinary claims as Carl Sagan once said, there is no reason believe that God exists. The burden to prove this existence should always lie with organized reilgion and their followers, not with those who reject the pomposity of their claims.

Peter

(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)

 Loading ...