Kenny wrote:
When proof is required, it is required by the one making the claim. Theism is a claim; atheism is usually the default position.
This is all fine and good when talking about Gnostic Theism and
Agnostic Atheism, but each of these positions carry their respective baggage. Agnostic Atheism is only the default position when you are making no claims -- in essence, if you're claiming either that the claim is unnecessary to explain a given issue or that the domain the claim explains isn't worth considering. Obviously if I were to go around saying "I don't know anything, but you should share my beliefs" no one would care what I believed or not. But atheists typically don't do that. They often argue that it's unreasonable to think God exists because God explains nothing that needs explaining. You can certainly hold that belief, but you're implicitly claiming disinterest towards number of domains that most atheists, in fact, claim to know something about.
Take the origin of the universe for instance. You are completely free to assert that it doesn't matter whether the universe is caused or not. "Why do I need to answer this?" the agnostic asks. This is what "burden of proof" is about. It's why no one bothers seriously positing invisible spaghetti monsters. Why does it matter if it's made of spaghetti, or even exists at all? Until you can answer that, I don't need to take the FSM seriously. But atheists often do make claims about the origin of the universe, such as "the universe came from nothing." That's not only a
gnostic claim, it's also an
atheistic claim -- nothingness is the first cause, and nothingness is obviously not God. Very different from just saying "I don't know."
Or take notions of the afterlife. You are completely free to assert that you won't concern yourself about what happens after death, because you don't know one way or the other. But atheists often argue that nothing happens after we die. That's a claim to knowledge. How do you know once you've died you'll never experience anything again? If you're not there to experience it, trillions of years can go by in a blink of an eye. If everything is random, whatever conditions caused you to happen, surely they'll happen again after an infinite period of time. There's a plethora of things that can happen, so the only certain thing you can say is "I don't know."
The problem is, no matter how you approach these domains, you're ultimately left with two choices: either ignore the issue because you don't know, or start trying to make the strongest explanation you can. With the former, no knowledge is possible. With the latter, you too have the burden of proof.
