Newsgroup: it.politica.pds
Titolo: L'onere della prova

Spetta gli Atei l'onere della prova:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Truth Journal
Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist
Professor Ralph McInerny
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
In this paper, I ponder two questions:
(1) Why can't the religious believer simply put the burden on the skeptic,
and ask him to justify his unbelief, with the underlying assumption that as
between theism and atheism, it is the former that is obviously true and the
latter that is obviously false? (2) This not being possible in any way that
is of immediate interest to religious belief, how does the believer regard
his inability to prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?
[1]
Should one review the considerations and discoveries and breakthroughs that
have been taken to render religious belief false, inane or pointless, the
list could prove amusing. Greek atomism, disease and death, heliocentrism,
electricity, the new physics or philosophy or psychology, have all been
advanced as telling decisively against any belief in God. The point on which
the refutation or rejection rests, for a moment the latest thing, is all too
soon forgotten or refuted. Shouldn't this tell against atheism?
Of course skeptics seldom think of themselves as part of a tradition. They
take no more responsibility for the follies of earlier versions of
themselves than they do for the claims of theists. The skeptic is always at
Square One, arguing ab ovo, willing to be himself alone against the world,
and even when he wheels in the views of others for support we sense that he
feels no need for company in order to hold what he does, or to deny what he
does.
Believers have recently gotten a little weary of being assigned research
projects or intellectual tasks by the skeptic and have devised a number of
versions of the tu quoque to stop the demands. No one is more adroit at this
than my colleague Alvin Plantinga and I shall not attempt to steal his fire.
(The phrase has nice theistic overtones but perhaps assigns Al a place more
exalted than he himself would claim.) I simply refer to the structure of God
and Other Minds. This book argues that it is no less reasonable to believe
in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. But critics of
theism cannot get along without belief in other minds, therefore they have
no consistent way of objecting to theism.
In other words, So's your old man.
A later version of this is to counter the claim, one, that there are certain
basic propositions which do not include 'God exists' and, two, that other
such propositions as 'God exists' must be justified by grounding them in
basic beliefs. The theist can accept this model of justification and blandly
add that 'God exists' is one of his basic propositions. Why not?
This should not be understood in a private or subjective sense. When Job
says that he knows that his redeemer liveth, he is not simply reporting on
his psyche; he doesn't mean that he knows that he knows something or other,
it doesn't matter what. It is the object proposition and the truth it
contains he is asserting. Does the believer who says 'God exists' is basic
for him want simply to report on his idiosyncratic convictions?
If he does, he may be saying only that he has as much right to take 'God
exists' as basic as his critic does to take sense data or truths about the
world as basic. Perhaps that is all Plantinga wishes to do. The upshot is
then to claim that the believer and his critic are in the same boat. They
agree on some formal account-that there are basic propositions and
propositions derivative from them-but there is no way to adjudicate claims
as to what propositions, materialiter loquendo, can function as basic. The
skeptic is simply wrong if he thinks some version of empiricism is beyond
dispute or, worse, that it is part of the formal theory.
My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am
asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth
of 'God exists.' Why not put the burden on him? Why not insist that he is
attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational
animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and
worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions,
that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of
the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is,
need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one's own version of
the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement
on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now
alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are
skeptics.
Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition,
the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I
think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe
in God. I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a
person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The
order and arrangement and lawlike character of natural events impose the
idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.
This may be taken both as a factual historical remark as well as a
theoretical claim. Thus it has been in the experience of the race. The
difficulty with this all but universal acceptance of the divine lies in the
identification of God. That is, trees and wind, sun and the world itself
have been identified with God, nor has it been necessary to choose among
these possibilities. This diversity does not tell against the naturalness of
the recognition.
Let me cite a parallel in St. Thomas in order that it may be clear what he
is and what he is not saying here. Thomas, as you know, agrees with
Aristotle that there is an ultimate end of whatever we do, that any human
action of any human agent aims at the supreme good or ultimate end which is
happiness. The familiar objection to this is that humans have very different
aims when they act and that any given human appears to have a plurality of
aims not easily reducible to the kind of unity Thomas's view suggests. Since
Thomas was not the village idiot, we may presume that he is aware of the
diversity mentioned and that he does not think it tells against his doctrine
of ultimate end. How not?
He distinguishes in any action the ratio boni, the note of goodness, the
formality under which we do any action, on the one hand, and, on the other,
the particular deed done in which we take that formality to be realized.
What the dizzying variety of deeds done have in common is the reason we do
any of them, our aim, and that is that they are good for us to do, meaning,
to do such-and-such is perfective of the kind of agent I am. A vast variety
of types and tokens of act fill that bill. Some do not. Just as I may,
misled by a miracle diet plan, think ground glass is good for me, so I may
think theft is a kind of action perfective of the kind of agent I am. To
want to be healthy, the presumed goal of dieting, with being wealthy and
wise following hard upon, of course, is an unquestionable good for man;
physical well-being is a constituent of any adequate account of a fulfilled
human life. The problem lies with the ground glass.
No need to go on about this here. What I wish to recall is the way in which
Thomas holds that human agents always act under the same formality-aiming at
what is perfective of them-and that this in no way precludes legitimate and
illegitimate diversity in action.
In similar fashion, the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is
shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does
not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God
is. Another way Thomas makes this point is by saying that 'God' is a common
noun, not a proper name.
Consider Thomas's remark about Anselm's proof. Someone might not agree that
'God' means that than which nothing greater can be conceived. What does
Thomas think is the common formality of the term 'God.' The etymology of the
Greek term suggests to him: one who sees, with the connotation, I think, of
one to whom we are responsible, one on whom we depend for being or
well-being, one to thank, petition, worship, placate.
Thomas's reference to Anselm is in a discussion in which he argues that 'God
exists' is not a self-evident truth. At first blush, this seems incompatible
with his other view that knowledge of God is natural, easily had, widely
shared, kind of unavoidable. There is no incompatibility because the latter
claim, that knowledge of God is natural, means that men easily make the
requisite inference as, e.g., from the order in the world.
Does not the burden of proof then fall on the shoulders of the skeptic? Yes.
And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I
would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious
belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something
that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have
met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they
were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight
proof for the existence of God.
The Thomist distinguishes rigorously between theism and Christianity in
terms of the distinction between praeambula fidei and mysteria fidei. The
preambles of faith are truths about God which happen to have been revealed
but which had been discovered, independently of revelation, by the pagan
philosophers. Theism, call it natural theology, establishes truths about God
on the basis of other truths which are accessible in principle to any human
being. Mysteries of faith, on the contrary, are truths about God which
cannot be established as such by grounding them in or deriving them from
what anyone knows.
This distinction would seem to imply that even if the best conceivable
results were obtained on the level of theism, this would do nothing to
establish the truth of the mysteries of faith, precisely those truths which
are the heart and soul of Christianity, viz. that Jesus is both human and
divine, that there is a Trinity of persons in the one divine nature, that we
are called to an eternity of blissful union with God, etc. The distinction
between nature and grace, between the natural use of human reason and
reasoning which is aided by grace and revelation, makes it clear that while
Thomas holds that theism is natural and relatively easily attained, he does
not regard this as making the further step into Christian belief as a
continuation of the same sort of thinking.
It is, of course, within the ambiance of his own religious faith that Thomas
makes such distinctions, just as it is in reflecting on revealed truths and
on what philosophers have accomplished that he distinguishes the preambles
from the mysteries. Given the distinction, there would be no way in the
world that the believer can respond to the nonbeliever's demand that he show
that the central truths of Christianity are true. Current day skeptics
doubtless think that theism is in every bit as much trouble as Christian
mysteries and thus that the distinction does not make much difference.
Indeed, the skeptic might well say to me that my suggestion that the burden
of disproof is on him in the case of theism should lead me to the same claim
with respect to Christian mysteries. That is, he might say, an awful lot of
people over the last two thousand years and an awful lot of people today are
Christians. Do I accordingly think that it is natural to be a Christian and
that until proven otherwise Christianity ought to be accepted as true?
Of course the parallel does not hold. It is the Christian who makes the
distinction. St. Paul says that the misbehaving Romans are inexcusable
because they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God from what
God has made. Just as men have a law written in their hearts which is not
identical with the law of the Gospel. It is the Christian who insists that i
t is only thanks to the grace of Christ that he has accepted the word of
God.
It might seem that the believer would have no particular interest in theism.
From the point of view of the fullness of revelation the truths about God
men could learn on their own are few in number and relatively exiguous.
There are several reasons why someone like Thomas Aquinas exhibits such an
interest, but let me stress only one here, the one which enables him to
formulate an argument for the reasonableness of belief.
The truths of faith, the mysteries, are truths about God whose truth cannot
be established by natural reason. (Nor can their falsity.) Does this mean
that Thomas is a fideist if by fideist we mean one who holds that nothing we
know counts either for or against Christianity? No, because Thomas has
devised proofs on behalf of the claim that it is reasonable to accept as
true propositions whose truths we cannot now comprehend. And one of those
arguments makes use of the preambles of faith.
It is not that preambles of faith provide premises from which mysteries of
faith could be concluded to be true. That would of course erase the
difference between preambles and mysteries. The argument is rather this. If
some of the truths about himself that God has revealed can be known to be
true (the preambles), it is reasonable to hold that all the rest (the
mysteries) are true. It is that argument, and its far reaching implications,
that explains the historic interest of Christian believers in theism and
natural theology. If theism is accepted by the non-believer, he has one less
obstacle to accepting the grace of faith. The believer believes on the basis
of Romans 1:19, and the Roman Catholic on the basis of Vatican I, that men
can come to knowledge of God by natural reason. The believer does not need
such proofs. He does not fret when relevant objections are brought against
his own efforts to formulate one. He will return to the task, not to shore
up his own faith and certainly not in search of something that will argue an
other irresistibly into the faith. There is only one way to come to believe.
This is why, in discussions with skeptics, the believer confines himself to
philosophical theism. His aim is not to triumph, to crush, to embarrass,
even simply to succeed, since success in natural theology has such an
oblique relation to what is truly important, that all men recognize and
accept the pearl of great price. If there is something that makes the
believer toss and turn it is the thought that he might become an impediment
to another's acceptance of the gift of faith.
.

his inability to prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?
I say that the rel God iss Pele. She lives inside  the Mauna Loa
Volcano. Don't you believe that? Justify your unbelief!!!!
I say that the Universe stays on a big sheep cheese! No??? Justify
your unbelief!!!!
I say that Mr. Berluconi is gay. Don't you believe it??? Justify your
unbelief!!!!
Professor Ralph McInerny, up yours!
really amusing!!! the assholes are not just in Italy!!!!
Aloha.
Ernest

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:8ob7ov$9im$1...@fe1.cs.interbusiness.it...
