User:KSci/Sandboxes/PresumptionOfAtheism

Arguments and positions
The Presumption of Atheism In 1976, the well-known atheist Analytic Philosopher Antony_Flew wrote The Presumption of Atheism, in which he argued that the question of God's existence should begin by assuming the position of atheism. When he forwarded this proposition, the norm for academic philosophy and public dialogue was for atheists to argue that God does not exist with theists taking the opposite position. with both the atheist and theist having a 'burden of proof' for their respective positions. In his 1976 publication Flew proposed that his academic peers redefine 'atheism' to bring about these changes:

Flew's proposition saw little acceptance in the 20th century though in the early 21st century Flew's broader definition of atheism came to be forwarded more commonly. In 2007, Analytic Philosopher William Lane Craig's desribed the presumption of atheism as "one of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism." And in 2010, BBC journalist William_Crawley explained that Flew's presumption of atheism "made the case, now followed by today's new atheism" arguing that atheism should be the default position. In today's debates atheists forward the presumption of atheism arguing that atheism is the default position with no burden of proof,  and assert that the burden of proof for God's existance rests solely on the theist.

The presumption of atheism has been the subject of criticism by atheists agnostics, and theists since Flew advance his position more than 40 years ago.

Criticism of the presumption of atheism
The Agnostic Analytic Philosopher Anthony Kenny rejected the presumption of atheism on any definition of atheism arguing that "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism" adding "a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated, ignorance need only be confessed."

Outspoken atheist Philosopher Kai Nielsen criticized the presumption of atheism arguing that without an independent concept of rationality or a concept of rationality that atheists and theists can mutually accepted, there is no common foundation on which to adjudicate rationality of positions concerning the existence of God. Because the atheist's conceptualization of 'rational' differs from the theist, Nielsen argues, both positions can be rationally justified.

Analytic Philosopher and Modal logic ian Alvin Plantinga, a theist, rejected the presumption of atheism forwarding a two-part argument. First, he shows that there is no objection to belief in God unless the belief is shown to be false. Second, he argues that belief in God could be be rationally warranted if it is a properly basic or foundational belief through an innate human “sense of the divine”. Plantinga argues that if we have the innate knowledge of God which he theorizes as a possibility, we could trust belief in God the same way we trust our cognitive faculties in other similar matters, such as our rational belief that there are other minds beyond our own, something we believe, but for which there can be no evidence. Alvin Plantinga's argument puts theistic belief an equal evidential footing with atheism even if Flew's definition of atheism is accepted.

University of Notre Dame Philosopher Ralph McInerny goes further than Plantinga arguing that belief in God reasonably follows from our observations of the natural order and the law-like character of Natural events. McInerny argues that the extent of this natural order is so pervasive as to be almost innate, providing a prima facie argument against atheism. McInerny's position goes further than plantinga's arguing that theism is evidences and that the burden of proof rests on the atheist, not on the theist. The Analytic Philosopher William Lane Craig wrote that if Flew's broader definition of atheism is seen as "merely the absence of belief in God" atheism "ceases to be a view", and even infants count as atheists." For atheism to be a view, Craig adds, "One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist." Like the agnostic Anthony Kenny, Craig  argues that there is no presumption for atheism because it is distinct from agnosticism:

Forty years after Flew published his position on the presumption of atheism his proposition remains controversial.