Why must theists prove god exists?

[steve_bank]

I had a philosophy professor who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII.

He told a story about the Soviet occupation. A Soviet political officer was giving the town an indoctrination lecture. One of the people stood up and said 'If god does not exist why must you prove it?' The Soviet shot him.

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Christianity above all others is obsessed with arguments to prove god. To me it seems it is not us atheists they are trying to convince, they are really tying to convince themselves.

 

[DBT]

I guess that believers want to feel that their belief is justified.

If evidence is absent it becomes a matter of numbers...the more people that can be convinced that the belief is true, the greater the feeling of justification.

"All these people believe that it is true, so it must be true."

 

[James Brown]

A former Christian apologist (who retained his Christian faith--he just stopped being an outspoken apologist) told me: "You defend God the way you defend a lion--you get out of his way."

The message was clear: God's a big boy and can demonstrate his own existence. Apologists are not needed.

It's certainly a high-minded position to take, especially if apologia has been a source of income or group esteem for you.

During my deconversion period, I entered a phase where I said, "I still believe in God, but I can't properly defend him, so I'm going to stop trying." That phase lasted only a couple of months before I admitted my atheism.

 

[Politesse]

I had a philosophy professor who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII.

He told a story about the Soviet occupation. A Soviet political officer was giving the town an indoctrination lecture. One of the people stood up and said 'If god does not exist why must you prove it?' The Soviet shot him.

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Christianity above all others is obsessed with arguments to prove god. To me it seems it is not us atheists they are trying to convince, they are really tying to convince themselves.

I note that most believers don't give two shits about proving that God exists, especially outside of the context of being obliged to take a introductory philosophy class in college where it is always the central topic. And in that class, they mention the, like, five theologians over the past two thousand years who've written meaningfully on the subject, most of them centuries ago. I mean, how often do you actually meet someone who cares about philosophically proving the existence of God? A lot of people believe in God, but that's not what you're asking. I'd say atheists are, on the whole, a lot more obsessed with the issue of "proof", insisting that it should be the only rational basis for belief, quibbling about where the burden of it lies like it's some grand court case, etc. The issue of "atheism vs theism" etc came up a heck of a lot more often in my secular education than in my religious schooling, and more explicitly in terms of "proof" when it did.

 

[James Brown]

I had a philosophy professor who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII.

He told a story about the Soviet occupation. A Soviet political officer was giving the town an indoctrination lecture. One of the people stood up and said 'If god does not exist why must you prove it?' The Soviet shot him.

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Christianity above all others is obsessed with arguments to prove god. To me it seems it is not us atheists they are trying to convince, they are really tying to convince themselves.

I note that most believers don't give two shits about proving that God exists, especially outside of the context of being obliged to take a introductory philosophy class in college where it is always the central topic. And in that class, they mention the, like, five theologians over the past two thousand years who've written meaningfully on the subject, most of them centuries ago. I mean, how often do you actually meet someone who cares about philosophically proving the existence of God? A lot of people believe in God, but that's not what you're asking. I'd say atheists are, on the whole, a lot more obsessed with the issue of "proof", insisting that it should be the only rational basis for belief, quibbling about where the burden of it lies like it's some grand court case, etc. The issue of "atheism vs theism" etc came up a heck of a lot more often in my secular education than in my religious schooling, and more explicitly in terms of "proof" when it did.

Clearly we didn't attend the same religious schools. I received regular instruction in defending my faith. The apostles Paul, Peter, and James all wrote about defending one's faith.

Heck, if miracles is a proof of the existence of God, then the entire Bible is filled with evidence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The issue of "atheism vs theism" etc came up a heck of a lot more often in my secular education than in my religious schooling, and more explicitly in terms of "proof" when it did.

That makes sense because the whole notion of such magical creatures does not lend itself to proving something. If someone claims to have a god that is an axiomatic statement for all intents and purposes. Such alleged entities are just irrational claims and these claims can only be disputed on evidentiary terms, never proven or disproven 100%.

I could claim to be Bill Gates's brother and that my DNA was mysteriously changed to protect my identity.

For me the best way to understand these strange, irrational claims is to appreciate the attraction of conspiracy thinking, something that affects us all to some degree. For those of us who once subscribed to some incorrect, conspiratorial explanation of events but then took the time to actually understand the evidence we were prepared when the next outrageous claim came along and we wanted to see the evidence, not dwell so much on the woo. If one has ever sat on a jury and heard diametrically opposing testimony but was forced to think it through and render a verdict, outrageous claims are easier to dismiss.

These god claims are at their basis just like emotionally charged conspiracy theories. Eventually one gets to those claimed unexplainable elements that are just too mysterious, think woo.

 

[Politesse]

I had a philosophy professor who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII.

He told a story about the Soviet occupation. A Soviet political officer was giving the town an indoctrination lecture. One of the people stood up and said 'If god does not exist why must you prove it?' The Soviet shot him.

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Christianity above all others is obsessed with arguments to prove god. To me it seems it is not us atheists they are trying to convince, they are really tying to convince themselves.

I note that most believers don't give two shits about proving that God exists, especially outside of the context of being obliged to take a introductory philosophy class in college where it is always the central topic. And in that class, they mention the, like, five theologians over the past two thousand years who've written meaningfully on the subject, most of them centuries ago. I mean, how often do you actually meet someone who cares about philosophically proving the existence of God? A lot of people believe in God, but that's not what you're asking. I'd say atheists are, on the whole, a lot more obsessed with the issue of "proof", insisting that it should be the only rational basis for belief, quibbling about where the burden of it lies like it's some grand court case, etc. The issue of "atheism vs theism" etc came up a heck of a lot more often in my secular education than in my religious schooling, and more explicitly in terms of "proof" when it did.

Clearly we didn't attend the same religious schools. I received regular instruction in defending my faith. The apostles Paul, Peter, and James all wrote about defending one's faith.

Heck, if miracles is a proof of the existence of God, then the entire Bible is filled with evidence.

When did Paul, Peter, or James write one word about "proving God's existence"?

 

[Politesse]

The issue of "atheism vs theism" etc came up a heck of a lot more often in my secular education than in my religious schooling, and more explicitly in terms of "proof" when it did.

That makes sense because the whole notion of such magical creatures does not lend itself to proving something. If someone claims to have a god that is an axiomatic statement for all intents and purposes. Such alleged entities are just irrational claims and these claims can only be disputed on evidentiary terms, never proven or disproven 100%.

I could claim to be Bill Gates's brother and that my DNA was mysteriously changed to protect my identity.

For me the best way to understand these strange, irrational claims is to appreciate the attraction of conspiracy thinking, something that affects us all to some degree. For those of us who once subscribed to some incorrect, conspiratorial explanation of events but then took the time to actually understand the evidence we were prepared when the next outrageous claim came along and we wanted to see the evidence, not dwell so much on the woo. If one has ever sat on a jury and heard diametrically opposing testimony but was forced to think it through and render a verdict, outrageous claims are easier to dismiss.

These god claims are at their basis just like emotionally charged conspiracy theories. Eventually one gets to those claimed unexplainable elements that are just too mysterious, think woo.

Well, sure. But the complaint in the OP is that theists themselves, and Christians in particular, are "obsessed" with this subject.

 

[ruby sparks]

I note that most believers don't give two shits about proving that God exists.....

Watch out folks, poli is on the defensive........again.

 

[ruby sparks]

To me it seems it is not us atheists they are trying to convince, they are really tying to convince themselves.

Imo, this may be true in some cases to some extent. Depends on the Christian, and the context. The early church apologists, for example, may well have had as a priority the establishing of the credentials and respectability of their own particular and quite new woo-god formulation, to others I mean, not themselves.

As to who is more interested/obsessed these days, I don't know. Both atheists and theists seem to be involved. I guess that when god's existence started to become widely questioned, both 'sides' took a big interest.

 

[Rhea]

God's a big boy and can demonstrate his own existence. Apologists are not needed.

I would go so far as to say apologists reveal the paucity of any evidence by the fact of their trying.

These are people who want to believe VERY MUCH but the evidence even they see is not enough to set them at ease. They keep searching for more and for validation.

They cannot be accused of rejecting or avoiding or praying wrong - they want to believe very very much. But they demonstrate that they are not at peace and content with their belief. Very anxious to get a reason to believe.

 

[ruby sparks]

I guess that believers want to feel that their belief is justified.

If evidence is absent it becomes a matter of numbers...the more people that can be convinced that the belief is true, the greater the feeling of justification.

"All these people believe that it is true, so it must be true."

Yes. I mean, if we restrict the meaning of the word 'prove' in the OP to what we might call formal philosophical proof, then there may indeed be no particular widespread obsession among religious people for that. That particular obsession might be more of an atheist thing, even if it's a feature of some religious approaches too.

But if we widen the definition to something less formal, something that might be described as you put it, justification (for the belief that god exists) then I think that is a widespread concern among the religious, by which I mostly mean Christians in the 'west'.

In a way, how could it not be. Their beliefs are under fairly sustained attack, culturally-speaking. People are leaving, or not subscribing, in droves. Could that many people be doing that if god's existence was not being doubted by large numbers of not-already-atheist people?

 

[Politesse]

As to who is more interested/obsessed these days, I don't know. Both atheists and theists seem to be involved. I guess that when god's existence started to become widely questioned, both 'sides' took a big interest.

This seems to me like a much more plausible claim.

 

[ruby sparks]

To me it seems it is not us atheists they are trying to convince, they are really tying to convince themselves.

Imo, this may be true in some cases to some extent. Depends on the Christian, and the context. The early church apologists, for example, may well have had as a priority the establishing of the credentials and respectability of their own particular and quite new woo-god formulation, to others I mean, not themselves.

As to who is more interested/obsessed these days, I don't know. Both atheists and theists seem to be involved. I guess that when god's existence started to become widely questioned, both 'sides' took a big interest.

This seems to me like a much more plausible claim.

Online atheists do appear to be somewhat obsessed about it. I'll give you that. Possibly more than the average believer.

 

[Politesse]

I note that most believers don't give two shits about proving that God exists.....

Watch out folks, poli is on the defensive........again.

Oh? What, pray tell, am I defending? I don't agree with the OP, certainly. But neither do you, so the criticism seems a bit odd...

 

[ruby sparks]

A litmus test for this might be a survey (informal or otherwise) of topics on an online religious discussion forum. It's been a while since I was on one, but from memory I don't think the question of, let alone proofs for, god's existence, came up as a topic anywhere near as often as on the atheist forums I've been on.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh? What, pray tell, am I defending?

I don't pray.

But, what I was implying was that you were relying on a slightly narrow and formal definition of the word proof. Widen it a bit and I think your point would not be so true. See what I said to DBT just above.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is to correct a Freudian slip I made a few posts ago:

This seems to me like a much more plausible claim.

Online atheists do appear to be somewhat obsessed about it. I'll give you that. Possibly more than the average believer.

 

[Politesse]

This seems to me like a much more plausible claim.

Online atheists do appear to be somewhat obsessed about it. I'll give you that. Possibly less than the average believer.

I realized long ago that online atheist communities, like any other sort of online religious community, are not a good populational representation. But I suspect the question of "proof" or lack thereof is pretty important to most people who self-identify as atheists. Would you agree?

 

[Politesse]

Oh? What, pray tell, am I defending?

I don't pray.

But, what I was implying was that you were relying on a slightly narrow and formal definition of the word proof. Widen it a bit and I think your point would not be so true. See what I said to DBT just above.

The OP is very specific though. They did not ask "Why do people, in general, defend their faiths?" Probably because that would sound stupid.