But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. (1 Peter 3:15-16).

Yesterday on my Equus nam Veritas blog, I wrote about epistemology, belief, and faith, and how these things are related to each other. In writing that piece, I wrote that many people who are unbelievers simply choose not to believe--that their lack of faith is an act of the will as much as of the intellect--but noted (in the footnotes) that the opposite charge may be fairly leveled at believers:

To be fair, the opposite charge may sometimes be fairly leveled at believers. As I've said before, apologetics alone isn't enough to make a person into a believer or a disbeliever. What may be convincing one way or the other to one person may be utterly unconvincing to another. I see evidence of God's providence working in my life and the lives of those around me; others disregard this evidence, or try to explain it away. In any case, I've met my share of believers who have reasons to believe, and unbelievers who are really convinced that there is no God; I've also met a handful of "believers who do not believe that God exists, as well as some atheists who seem more convinced that He does.

I have faith that God exists, which means that I have seen some evidence of His existence in my own life, in the lives of others, and in the world around me. This evidence is best explained by lines of reasoning which point to God. The evidence and the arguments I find to be convincing may not be so convincing to the average skeptic--or for that matter to the average Christian or even Catholic--but they are convincing to me. The converse may also be true, that evidence which has an atheist convinced may be irrelevant to my own faith.

In entering into a discussion with an atheist, I can ask him what evidence he needs to see--and doesn't yet see--to be convinced that God exists. Presumably there is some criterion which might be met and which hasn't been to his satisfaction which would convince his intellect (if not his actual will). So far, so good, but the atheist might ask the opposite question of me: what evidence do I need to see (and haven't) to convince my intellect (if not my will) that God does not exist? Such a question is asked in reply to a similar question when tangentially discussed by Mr Mark Shea*.

The problem I have with this question, when asked of the Christian by the atheist, is that it really isn't equivalent to the first question asked of the atheist by the Christian. What I mean by this statement is that the Christian is essentially asking, "What will it take to make you a believer (at least intellectually)?" The converse to this question is, "What will it take to make you, the Christian, into an unbeliever (at least intellectually)?" However, the complimentary pair of questions from the atheist and the theist as concerns evidence are, "What evidence do you need to see before you can accept the existence of God (intellectually)?" and "What evidence do you see now that convinces you that God exists (intellectually)?"

This latter question, which is hypothetically posed by the atheist to the theist, really is equivalent to the first question posed by the theist to the atheist. When asking if a thing exists, we ask whether or not evidence for its existence is there. If we can answer in the affirmative, then we say that there is evidence to support the claim that God exists; if we answer in the negative, then we say that there is a lack of such evidence. The theist is to provide evidence for his claims, the atheist is rather to show why this evidence is faulty, or to explain why it doesn't support the conclusion that God exists. If belief or unbelief is to be based on the presence of evidence, then the existence of evidence must point towards belief and its lack towards unbelief. The opposite is not true: we don't look for evidence that God does not exist (or for a lack of evidence that God does not exist), only for evidence that He does.

"What evidence would convince you that God does not exist?" is equivalent to a different question which a theist might ask. This is, "What evidence do you have of a nonentity which you must not have to conclude that the nonentity does not exist (e.g. that the entity does exist)?" which is sheer nonsense as a question. Indeed, while classical "proofs" of the existence of God number over 20, there is only one evidence-based argument against the existence of God: and that is the existence of suffering and evil in the world (this can be seen as one argument or two). All other arguments which I have seen advanced by atheists are actually attempts to refute one or more of the "proofs" of God's existence.

Only this problem of evil is advanced as an actual argument against God's existence. The argument goes something like this: An omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omni-benevolent (all-good) God would not desire the existence of suffering and would not allow the presence of evil. Therefore, if evil and suffering exist, then such a God does not exist. However, we observe the existence of both evil and suffering (this is the evidence part). Therefore, God does not exist.

Case closed against my hypothesis, that evidence can only point to God, and only a lack thereof can point against there being a God, right? Wrong: case not closed. The evidence presented against there being a God assumes two things: first, that God really is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, and second that a being with these attributes cannot for any reason tolerate (that is, allow, permit to exist) either evil or suffering**. The argument therefore can, at best, prove that no single being possess all three traits of God simultaneously, and even that only if the second premise is granted (I know of no Christian who grants this second premise). If, on the other hand, the first premise is granted (and I do believe and therefore grant that God is really omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient), then the second premise still rest on the assumption that no explanation whatsoever can be found to permit both God and the devil, by which I mean both a Being who desires only good, knows how to bring about only good, and has the power to bring about only good existing side-by side with evil, which is the corruption or absence of good***. This argument from Theodicy is, therefor not complete, and so evil and suffering are not evidence against the existence of God.

Evidence, it turns out, points to things which are there, to beings who exist. It is only a lack of evidence which suggests the absence of such entities. Thus, the atheist is in the intellectual position of dispelling all evidence, and admitting none--a skeptic, ultimately a cynic. The theist, on the other hand, needs only to see some evidence which is to him credible to strengthen his intellectual belief.
_____
*Although I have responded briefly to this comment, I don't think that the comments section of a blog is the best place to discuss this in detail. Comments shouldn't usually go over a paragraph or two, in my humble opinion. Anything much longer than that probably is best written elsewhere and then summarized in the comments, unless it is answering a question directed to the writer (exception: the actual author of the website should obviously write however much he wants, and follow-up comments can perhaps be in kind).

**I am here reminded of Isaiah 55:8, which states "For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

***It should also be noted that it is difficult if not impossible to prove an assertion of the negative, that is, that no explanation can be found--logically, rationally, scientifically, philosophically--for some given phenomenon. In this case, the atheist asserts that no explanation can be given which permits both God and evil to exist: an assertion of an absolute negative. The atheist now finds himself on grounds to which he had previously condemned the theist; there is the small irony, for example, that the atheist now finds himself in the position to which many proponents of Intelligent Design have been consigned in that particular debate, namely that he makes the claim that no explanation can be found for the existence for both these opposing entities--God and the devil, infinite good and evil--and hence concludes that one (God) must not exist; this, in much the same way that the Intelligent Design proponents claim that no explanation may be given for purely naturalistic evolution, and thus posit an Intelligent Designer.