Could it be that the burden of Proof is not on Thiest?
In his classic paper on the philosophy of religion entitled ‘The Presumption of Atheism’, Antony Flew, relying on a traditional law rule, extracts a methodological rule according to which the burden of proof in the problem of God’s existence is non-restrictedly on the theist. Here we argue that from another law rule in Islamic jurisprudence, we can extract another methodological rule that, in contrast to Flew’s rule, is context-dependent; so, applying this new rule, we can imagine that in some situations, the burden of proof would be on atheist. Since there are some historical evidence for the relationship or even identification of that traditional rule and this Islamic rule, it could be concluded that Flew’s rules too should be context-dependence. Hence, his non-restricted claim about the burden of proof in the problem of God’s existence will be rejected.
- حق عضویت دریافتی صرف حمایت از نشریات عضو و نگهداری، تکمیل و توسعه مگیران میشود.
- پرداخت حق اشتراک و دانلود مقالات اجازه بازنشر آن در سایر رسانههای چاپی و دیجیتال را به کاربر نمیدهد.