In-the-Closet Atheism

It's a mainstay of the New Atheists to pose as open-minded scientists simply awaiting evidence for a theist hypothesis that in principle could be proved. Ron Reagan speaks for the lot when he says, “You show me evidence, I’ll reconsider, but in the absence of evidence I do not believe.”

But is that what's really going on behind the scenes? I don't think so. It's hard to believe that any of those atheist talk-show hosts actually expect someone to phone up with a never-before-heard proof of the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad. I know I don't expect it -- but then I'm a logical, not an evidentialist or skeptical, atheist. That means I know no evidence is forthcoming -- ever -- for the existence of a logically impossible "being." So I'm not waiting for it. (I just learned that the late Sherwin Wine, a key figure in secular humanistic Judaism, called this position ignosticism. Who knew?)

By the same token, the New Atheists aren't expecting some mind-bending argument from professional theologians in academia or elsewhere. They just know there's no evidence for the supernatural to be found. And so they are not as naive or as skeptical as they pretend. They tell people they're show-me-the-evidence negative atheists when they are really there-ain't-gonna-be-any-evidence positive atheists.

So why dwell in the closet?

Each may have his own reason, but I think it has a lot to do with the sacred burden of proof. New Atheists seem to like being in the passive position of awaiting the evidence without having to do any work. This makes them averse to saying anything that could imply a shifting of the burden of proof. So they won't forthrightly say what I expect is their true position: I believe (because I know) that no supernatural realm and therefore no god exist or could exist.

Now in fact this school of atheism does call on its members to get out of their chairs and do some work. When a theist offers what he regards as evidence -- personal revelation, third-person accounts, or the various philosophical arguments -- any New Atheist worth his salt will tear the purported evidence to shreds. That's a recognition of a burden of proof for the New Atheist's proposition Your supposed evidence is nonsense. After all, if a theist presents you with what he supposes to be evidence, an atheist cannot just say, "I'm unconvinced," and leave it at that -- not if he wants to be taken seriously. In a way, no one can really escape the burden of proof.

So, New Atheists: vacate your closets and face the sunlight as the positive logical atheists you are. You have nothing to lose but your masks.