Do you feel better now? Alas, my case against theism consists of many dozens of articles, each covering a different aspect of religion. This article on the preposterousness of theism comes at the tail end of a series I just did on the epistemic status of atheism. I elaborate on the burden of proof issue in several of those recent articles.
You’re also not much of a close reader, are you? In the above article I say explicitly that the atheist need have no fear of taking up an equal burden of proof, so there’s no absolving of responsibility here. This article is on the technical point that preposterousness is relative to background beliefs and social context. Modernity is that background for developed societies.
I understand that “modern” is a relative concept so that even ancient Romans, say, would have considered themselves modern relative to previous societies. But by “modern,” I’m talking about the historical period that came after medieval feudalism in Europe. So the revolutions of modernity would include the Protestant Reformation (individualism), the Renaissance, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, the Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions. It covers the modernization of science and philosophy, and the transition from theocratic feudalism into capitalism and democracy.
All clear now on your basic history? Good, then the thesis is that modernity changed the default beliefs and thus what’s generally considered outlandish. As Nietzsche put it, God is dead, as in he’s no longer a live option in modern culture. God must be kept private because these societies are secular.
Obviously, calling something “preposterous” doesn’t amount to a demonstration that the thing is false. As I say in the article, the demonstration has been given over and over again throughout the modern period. That’s what it means to have entered a revolutionary secular era. I can provide links to my articles that go into the various theistic arguments and problems with Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, if you like.
Flew was pestered by ghoulish Christian apologists who exploited his mental decline in his old age. Also, citing his dubious conversion is just an anecdote. Francis Collins is one of the scoundrels like Faucci who, because of their monumental God complexes have likely been covering up the extent to which the American medical establishment is responsible for funding the research that led to the covid pandemic. And his articles on religion aren’t so impressive. As I recall, he converted when he saw a three-way waterfall.
Like the other Christians who’ve tried to address the point about religious parents’ indoctrination of their children, you fail to grapple with the main point. Unless you want to maintain that most theists convert as adults, those that do are exceptions. In the case of Christianity, the adults that convert tend to do so when they’ve hit rock bottom. They’re desperate for a change. Afterward, to brush up on their Christian testimony, they exaggerate the intellectualism of their transformation. They say they were sophisticated atheists who knew all the arguments, and then they saw the light. They copy Paul’s “witness to Christ.”
But this is largely Christian propaganda. Most adults tend not to change too much, regardless of whether they’re religious or not. And the vast majority of religious people who’ve ever lived were brought up in their religion from a young age. That’s why religions have been so tied to ethnicities and societies because they’re passed down from one generation to the next. That’s the main point I had in mind.
