The Logical Atheist

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 expe...

Updated May 15, 2020 Of course, you can't prove negative -- usually. Proof applies to existence, and the nonexistent is nothing, an absence that can leave no trace. Thus the idea of direct proof of nonexistence makes no sense. However, might we have indirect ways of (in effect) proving that something does not exist. Why not? Someone charged with a murder could prove he did not do it (at least not personally) by demonstrating that he was somewhere else at the time; he had an alibi. He's hasn't directly proved the negative -- I did not kill the victim -- but by proving a relevant positive -- I was somewhere else -- that logically conflicts with the negative, he has indirectly proved he did not  commit the murder. Yet some negatives are disproved all the time -- even by atheists who say you can never prove a negative. When a theist presents, say, the first-cause argument for God, the atheist will most likely reply, "That argument is not good (or bad or specious); t...