Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?

I think from a theological perspective there can't be any doubt that Atheism is the default position. If belief and non-belief were on the same level that would degrade the incomprehensible wonder of Jesus' resurrection, that God let him die for us and that he came back and will come back!

Because there is no easy way out there is this old confession of faith:

Credo, quia absurdum est (I believe because it is absurd)

It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.

Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):

"I won't believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.

Jesus endorses this attitude and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!

And finally (John, 20, 29):

Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me.

So even the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.

EDIT

But what about the phrase right after:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Isn't Christ himself saying to believe on faith?

You have to be very careful here: Jesus is saying this after he gave proof and he is saying this only unto him, i.e. Thomas, who believes already because he has the evidence right before his eyes; Jesus is not saying this unto us or to anybody else or in general!

So this part is one of the clearest and most unambiguous parts in the Bible. Christians have to take Jesus' word literally here and not try to interpret it as it seems convenient. I even think it is one of the most pivotal parts of the Bible!

I think it depends on where you live and what you are taught.

If you were to look at an area such as Africa where not everyone is educated, and I imagine science isn't taught as strongly with textbooks etc then I believe you'll find there are many more who believe in God.

However in a western country we are brought up with a lot of science, not just teaching us the processes involved in scientific experiments, but often "facts" from other conducted experiments and we often accept these. A simple example is erosion, you're taught about in geography commonly from a textbook, how many times do pupils actually do an experiment to conclude that water erodes materials?

So for many, they are brought up with the big bang, evolution and the morals of their parents (who also have a significant effect on someone's default stance). Therefore someone is likely to come from an Atheist background to reach Christianity which contradicts some of the textbook teachings.

Though possibly not directly related, I think it is interesting to point out that science has opened the way for the "possible" existence of God in the arena of Quantum Physics. I'm currently reading a book called Quantum Glory by Phil Mason that compares what science is discovering in the area of quantum entanglement, quantum non-locality, quantum teleportation to what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God. It is quite fascinating. Simply point: The universe is made up of wave energy and only collapses into particles / matter as we know it when someone is watching it, and someone has to be watching the whole universe for it to be matter. Sounds like God to me :-)

Atheism (the belief that God does not exist) is not the default position because, for many people, it is obvious that God exists.

If I were to say, "The sun does not exist," you would then have many more questions for me:

• Where does the daylight come from?
• What heats the earth during the day?
• What is that big bright circle in the sky?

The burden of proof would not be on the "sun believers," it would be on me to explain myself. I might be able to come up with some sort of explanation that would answer these questions without the existence of the sun, but you would want some proof for my claims.

The world we are living in, animal and plant biology, the various ecosystems all appear to have design by an intelligent Creator. The more you learn about these systems, the more amazing they are.

The belief that all living things on earth descended from one common ancestor (evolution) has no real evidence to support it. The theory is useful for someone that is starting from a presupposition that God does not exist and needs an explanation for how the intricate systems necessary for life as we know it came to be, but evolution requires faith without evidence to believe that it is true.

For many people, it is easier to believe that life on our planet was intelligently designed than it is that life came to be by millions of random beneficial mutations.

Atheism is, at this point in history, becoming the default position, as you have pointed out. Again, as you have pointed out, it is not the natural position, since God indeed exists. Now, we Christians could regard our correctness as "robbery" (Phil. 2:6), as something to be used to our advantage against our atheist neighbors. But the way of love is to meet them where they are. "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Phil 2:3--4). The burden of proof is on the atheist, but we are called to bear one another's burdens.

Well, suppose that God exists. Will the world contain clear traces of God's existence? Suppose now that God does not exist. Will the world contain clear traces of God's nonexistence? Many atheists would argue that God's existence would leave clear traces of existence, but God's nonexistence would simply leave no traces at all. Therefore, they would say, the best strategy is to start by assuming God does not exist, and change your mind if you find traces of existence.

I believe that argument is... reasonable, in a sense, but I don't put much weight in it myself. Perhaps God's existence can be justified using pure reason, making traces unnecessary; or perhaps there are traces after all.

There's another argument, however. Before I start, I believe that the idea of an uncaused cause is unescapable. (If the "first cause" caused itself, what caused it to cause itself? If there is an infinite chain of causation, what caused there to be one?)

So, supposing that there is an uncaused cause, the question is simply, "what is it?" Either the uncaused cause is God, and God caused humans to exist; or the uncaused cause is something else, and humans came into existence anyway. Which of these things is more likely? Really, the "smash a watch, put it in a box, and shake it" argument can be used against both of these. The question is whether it's more implausible that God exists for no reason and He created man, or that the universe exists for no reason and man evolved from scratch.

The American philosopher Alvin Plantinga has done much work towards defending the position that not only belief in God, but belief in the Christian God, is an intellectually justified "default" position. ("Default" in quotation marks because he uses more technical language to describe it but it amounts essentially to how the word "default" is being used in this thread.)

Calvin's concept of the "sensus divinitatis" -- the capacity to encounter/perceive/recognize God that God has built into man -- significantly factors in to his position. (I believe Calvin himself bases the concept of the sensus divinitatis on Romans 1:20, quoted above).

For basic information on Plantinga's position check out wiki: Reformed epistemology. Or if you are committed to a greater time investment, Plantinga's books "Reason and Belief in God", and "Warranted Christian Belief" are both highly recommended.

The default position is neither; both Atheism and Theism are a mental construct. You must argue from experience, and it seems that some have not experienced God (or understood the experience of him in that way.) Whereas some have experienced God (or understood their experience in that way.)

Meister Eckhart had a controversial saying (which could be interpreted as Platonism) that addresses the problem of presuppositions. He said, 'In the beginning, before I was, I had no God and was just Myself.' Both Atheism and Theism are presuppositions about a world external from one's self, an experience that always arises in human beings from the infant experience of continuous and unbroken 'I'. It is implied in Eckhart's saying that the 'Myself' is God.

Therefore you must argue from someone's presuppositions in all cases and cannot assume either is the the default position; the default position is not one any adult holds nor is one useful for making any arguments from, unless perhaps we get into forms of Eastern Mysticism (which by the way are still not identical to the default position.)

I ask this a bit tongue in cheek. But why do Christians have to make arguments starting from atheism? It seems obvious to me that God exists. However,

The rationalists' view of argumentation is that one presents statements that logically cohere and are backed up by evidence that anyone can, in principle, confirm. That something "seems obvious" is not always sufficient for justified belief; after all, it might seem obvious that the Earth is not moving, when in fact it is rotating at 1,000 mph. I mention this point because it helps set up the answer to your question...

Those with a rationalist view (e.g. Bertrand Russell) would say that for any claim, the burden of proof of that claim is on the person who makes it. If I were to say there is a dragon living in my bas*m*nt, if I wish to be believed, the burden would be on me to show evidence for that. But the same would be true if I claimed it were merely my Aunt Tilly living in my (furnished) bas*m*nt. The only difference here is that in the second case, others would be much more willing to give me the benefit of the doubt.

So, a rationalist would say, it is sensible for the burden of proof to be on the claimant. Whether that claim is for the existence of a god, space aliens, magic, the virtues of whole life insurance, the health giving properties of vitamin D, or whatever.

In this sense, atheism is the default position. But keep in mind, "atheism" can mean, depending on who you ask, either:

1. Absence of a belief in any god(s).
2. Presence of a belief that there is no god(s)

Those two aren't the same. Russell and other rationalists would say that the only the first sort of atheists escape the burden of proof and thus the burden is on the Christian claimant to give them reason to have a belief in a god(s).

Clearly Faith cannot be the default position if you ask whether God exists, because if your question is not rhetorical, but strives to be balanced, then you cannot start by assuming that God exists.

The same applies to Atheism.

So clearly the default position is agnosticism.

That said, a few points are also pretty obvious:

• there is no factual evidence for the existence of God.
• if you approach the question via Faith, the answer is fundamentally quite simple. If you have Faith, you are quite sure that God exists. If you don't, then you think otherwise (very unsure, sure of the opposite).
• if you approach the question via science, then the default position is non-existence due to the null hypothesis (and the fact that the God hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore invalid).

A bit more on the last point: the null hypothesis is the conviction that when someone makes a statement, it's up to them to prove it. It may sound harsh, but that's exactly how science (medicine, technology, etc.) works. It's exactly the kind of thinking that let's us assert the falsehood of astrology, tarots, magic and so on...

So, the burden of proof does rely on who makes the assessment according to scientific, rational principles. If you think scientific principle does not lead to the truth in all cases, you may disagree with the default position and use Faith.

All in all, it's a matter of Faith, which means belief in something without (or in spite of!) factual proof.

The reason why the non-existence of something should be the default position, is that the opposite (being able to assume that something exists just because nobody has been able to disprove it) allows one to prove that anything exists.

My thinking on this starts with Paul:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.—1^st Corinthians 9:19-23 (ESV)

To me, that means that I must do my best to put myself in the shoes of an atheist in order to hope to influence their thinking. When I answer questions on Philosophy, I must think like a philosopher. On Skeptics, I must be skeptical. (I'm 1 for 2 there, by the way.) When I talk to friends and co-workers who have left the church, I must be sympathetic to their complaints. In my mind, it's impossible to communicate when neither corespondent is willing to "get inside" the head of the other. Even in contexts outside of philosophy and religion, that's just good policy.

Do I have to believe the atheist default is correct? Not necessarily. I agree with Plantinga that the theist assumption is warranted. Given the chance to argue against the atheistic assumption, I will. Ultimately, I believe what I believe because I've seen the power of God in my life—not because I've constructed an argument from the ground up to prove His existence.

And I'm also convinced that very few people arrive at the atheist position because of carefully constructed arguments. (You, my dear reader, are probably one of the exceptions.) Most people come to believe by the most convoluted paths. I believe that the desert is beautiful, but it would take all afternoon for me to explain how I came to that conclusion. Most people (perhaps not you), if they really examined their assumptions, are atheists (or theists) because of seminal events in their lives over which they had no control. I can't will myself to like the taste of tomatoes and I can't will myself to believe God does not exist.

In the end, we must go back to Paul:

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,  
         and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”   

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.—1^st Corinthians 1:17-25 (ESV)

The obvious rebuttal is that atheism can hardly be considered "the default position" when the very concept was almost completely unheard of throughout world history, in any culture, up until just a few centuries ago. Humans have an intuitive understanding of cause and effect, and the default position is to take this to its logical conclusion and believe in a First Cause.

Over the ages, many things have been written, and many things have been believed. I appreciate that the Bible has many believers, but that by itself is evidence of only one thing: that the Bible has many believers. As noted in a previous answer - if we are not required to reason a view, we can state anything as fact. Thus there is a burden of proof on both sides. Atheism is approaching this burden of proof through scientific method, and it is astonishing the new insights it provides - I don't just mean re-interpreting words that have been written both others : I mean original research and ideas, researched, some found to be useful and iterated, some found to be incorrect and dismissed.

What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

The default position with any fact based assessment is to look at a combination of factors, including:

• observation
• reason
• historical evidence in context (which I'll come back to)

(and many other points)

Observation

There is nothing verfiable about religious claims. No reliable, repeatable test can be made. We should here limit outselves to things that directly provide evidence for some kind of deity, not simply the "beauty of creation", etc, since that is not causal. The argument "we exist and things are ok, thus God" makes a huge presumption.

Reason

It is not reasonable to assume a God. By which, I mean in exactly the same way that if I said "when I drop my pen, invisible pixies push it towards the ground; these magic pixies cannot be detected by any means" - the above would fit with the observation (the pen falling), but:

• there is no requirement for the pixies in the theory
• given the definition (cannot be detected by any means), there is no test that could disprove the theory (this is actually very important in the scientific method)
• the existence or non-existence of the pixies tells us nothing about the universe

Many attempts have been made (over the ages) to prove the existence of a deity through logic; they are all easy to dismiss as abuses of "logic".

Historical Evidence

This might offend: the Bible is not evidence; the sources are limited and biased, many accounts do not tally with other known records (or even similar accounts in the Bible); it has been extensively edited and re-edited; most of it was written centuries after the supposed accounts; it repeatedly shows even from God, a perspective limited to the knowledge available at the time. All we can prove from the Bible is that: these things have been said and believed.

The modern age

The common interpretation is that the Bible, along with much religion and philosophy, is the approach that relatively primitive cultures have used to explain the awesome fact that we exist. That we exist is amazing, and no attempt is made to devalue that - however, today we have more powerful tools to bring to this. Modern physics, biology, geology, astronomy, etc provide much better explanations for everything in the Bible, that do not require a "leap of faith", but instead have sound reason. Each scientific development erodes our human ignorance, leaving any deity fewer and smaller holes to hide in.

As Carl Sagan wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

A claim along religious lines is an extraordinary claim; no religious group has ever produced any compelling evidence for such. So yes: atheism is the reasonable "default position", in the same way that our default position for things falling should not be "pixies".

Christian apologetics often employ a form of presuppositional logic. In fact, the wikipedia page for Presupposition (philosophy) specifically addresses this issue:

A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made.

It is difficult or impossible to coherently reason with someone who makes different presuppositions than you, and sometimes the best course is to first lay out your presuppositions. After you have a place to stand on, you can look back and defend those views.

The Biblical witness on this point is fairly straightforward. God exists. In addition to this testimony it claims that there is no possible excuse for men not knowing at least some basic facts about his identity.

Romans 1:20-21 (ESV)
²⁰  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

After asserting in verse 20 that there is clear evidence in the world pointing to some attributes of God, verse 21 goes on to state that all men knew God and that it is through willfully not honoring him As God that they become unable to reason properly. Without a worldview informed by the presupposition that God exists, as well as certain attributes about him, men are unable to see clear reason.

The writer C.S. Lewis applies this idea to practical belief and frames it in layman's terms rather graphically when he wrote:

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

To Christian reason, no further proof of God's existence is required but that, knowing he does exist, we can finally make sense out of the world around us.