Atheism is obligatory in the

absence of Evidence
M. Scriven
03/06/2021
Faith and confidence

• Scriven asserts that normally, the word faith is

interchangeable with the word confidence, and that
confidence and reason must go hand in hand. 
• For instance, we have faith in a person because we have
reason to be confident. 
• Normally, if we have faith (confidence) in something without
reason to, the results can lead to calamity. 
Faith has its foundation in reason
• However, he points out that when it comes to religious
beliefs, faith is looked upon as a substitute for reason rather
than something that should have its foundation in reason
Faith alone not adequate …

• Scriven argues that faith alone is not an adequate way to

prove the truth of beliefs. 
• Doing so, he asserts, is like saying that you won a game
just by playing and by referring to playing as “winning.” 
Simply because you call it winning doesn’t mean that you
won.
There is need to provide evidence that justifies belief.
• He goes on to say that in order to prove something that one
has faith in, s/he must provide evidence that justifies the
belief. 
• In doing so, one would no longer need to believe based
upon faith, as s/he would have solid proof. 
Mere agreement not enough to prove the truth of a
belief
• Scriven also argues that the mere possibility that a person
with faith in religious beliefs might turn out to be correct does
not mean that the beliefs are automatically true. 
• He also points out that mere agreement is not enough to
prove that a belief is true, as the agreement of either
religious persons or atheists could very well be a shared
mistake.
Religious beliefs not repeatedly verified …

• Unlike scientific beliefs which are constantly verified by our

daily experiences, religious beliefs are not repeatedly
verified by constant, common religious experiences. 
• In fact, he argues, many fundamental religious beliefs vary
widely between various denominations and are open to
much criticism by others. 
Criteria fro religious truth must connect with our daily
experiences ….
• Scriven points out that the criteria for religious truth must be
connected with our everyday truths, or else these religious
criteria for truths do not have any connection with our lives. 
• Therefore, they would prove completely useless as a
method for explanation of our world or guidance for our
lives. 
Without evidence atheism is the alternative…

• Scriven argues that if there are no arguments that point to

even a slight chance of the existence of God, the only
alternative is atheism. 
• Scriven uses the analogy of the belief in Santa Clause to
illustrate his point. 
Proper alternative to belief in Santa is disbelief ….
• When we are children, we find it plausible to believe in Santa
Clause.  However, as we grow older we realize that there is not the
least bit of evidence in favor of the possibility of his existence.  We
do not, however, attempt to prove the inexistence of Santa. 
• Instead we simply come to realize that there is not the slightest
reason to believe in his existence.  In fact, belief in his supernatural
powers goes directly against the evidence. 
• Thus, the proper alternative to belief in Santa is disbelief rather than
deferment of belief.  
• Scriven maintains that beliefs are either well founded (“there is
evidence which is best explained by this claim) , provable (“the
evidence is indubitable and the claim is very clearly required ),
wholly unfounded or unsupported (“there is no evidence for it and
no general considerations in its favor”), or disprovable (“it implies
that something would be the case that definitely is not the case”). 
• He asserts that it is ridiculous to believe in either a disproved belief
or a wholly unfounded one
• Additionally, he argues that it is irrational to treat such a
wholly unfounded belief as one that merits serious
consideration. 
• Although a claim for which there is some support cannot be
dismissed, but without undoubted evidence such a claim
cannot be wholly believed either.
•   In order for one to maintain agnosticism, the belief must not
be provable or disprovable.
Is agnosticism an option?

• However, since there is not even a slight bit of evidence to

prove the existence of a supernatural being, one cannot
accept agnosticism. 
• Scriven argues that regardless of how many supposed
proofs for the existence of a God exists, if they are all
defective, they are worthless.
• Additionally, Scriven points out that although the various proofs for
the existence of God attempt to support each other, one must take a
closer look. 
• He argues that in reality, these varied proofs are often referring to
many different entities who seemingly share the same name. 
• In order for these supposedly connected proofs to work, there must
also be proof that they each refer to the same entity, which
monotheism does not provide. 
5 problems with Scriven’s claims
• The first is that he has incorrectly defined atheism.
• The late prominent philosopher Antony Flew—an atheist who came
to believe in God toward the end of his life—defined atheism as
“rejection of belief in God.”
•  Then there’s the Encyclopedia  of Philosophy (1967),  which
defines an “atheist” as one who “maintains that there is no God, that
is, that the sentence ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition.”
• Second, Scriven’s description does not allow for any distinction
between atheism and agnosticism. 
• So what is the difference? The agnostic does not know whether
God exists or not. Let’s say the agnostic believes that evidence for
God is completely lacking and that the evidence favoring atheism is
also completely lacking .
• Why not take the opposite tack of Scriven here? Why not say
instead that, in the absence of evidence for atheism (“God does not
exist”), one should become a theist?
Is agnosticism identical to atheism?
• We could add that if both the atheist and the agnostic hold that
evidence for God is lacking, how does Scriven distinguish between
these two positions?
• According to his proposal, agnosticism would turn out to
be identical to atheism.
• However, such a confusion of categories does not exist if we take
the standard understanding of atheism as disbelief in God—not
simply unbelief, which would properly describe the agnostic.
• Of course, an agnostic might—and typically does—say
that some evidence for God does exist, but that the some,
roughly equally weighty evidence against God prevents her
from belief in God.
• But this is beside the point here. Scriven’s understanding of
atheism is both uninformative and inconsistent.
• Third, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• if evidence for God is lacking, the more logical conclusion to draw
would be agnosticism.
• After all, it is possible that God exists even if evidence for God were
nowhere to be found.
• In this case, we should suspend belief, which would amount to
mere unbelief, but, as we have seen, that is different from disbelief (
i.e., atheism). Why think we are obligated to disbelieve?
• Fourth, what if belief in God is “properly basic,” even without
supporting evidence?
• Some Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and
Nicholas Wolterstorff have argued that we commonly believe
many things without evidence or arguments—for example,
that other minds exist or that the universe is older than
fifteen minutes. 
• Why could we not say the same about God’s existence—
that it is “properly basic”?
• In other words, when our minds are functioning properly and
directed toward the truth, then convincing or firm belief about
God’s existence could simply naturally arise out of this
experience.
• These philosophers— they are called “Reformed
epistemologists”—do not deny that there is evidence for
God’s existence, only that evidence is not required for belief
in God to be rational.
• we could claim that belief in other minds or a universe older than
fifteen minutes is just part of our commonsense, everyday
experience and thus is itself evidence.
• So such basic experiences serve as evidence, even if this
evidence has not been produced through rock-solid formal
arguments.
• But if these Reformed epistemologists are correct, then we can
speak of a warranted belief in God without argument or evidence.
• Fifth, to claim God and Santa Claus are on the same level is
a flawed comparison.
• We have strong evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.
We know where Christmas gifts come from. We know that
humans—let alone, elves—do not live at the North Pole. We
can be pretty confident that a human Santa, if he existed,
would be mortal rather than ageless and undying. 
• This is evidence against Santa. By contrast, we do have
evidence for God’s existence—the beginning and fine-tuning
of the universe, consciousness, rationality, beauty, human
dignity and worth, and free will.
• The evidence for God is on a different level altogether.