𝐙𝐔 𝐋𝐄𝐇 𝐑𝐔𝐈𝐇𝐇𝐋𝐎: 𝐓𝐇𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐔 𝐍𝐔𝐍 𝐀 𝐍𝐆𝐇𝐀𝐖𝐍𝐆 𝐃𝐀𝐍

                                                ATHEISM BIHCHIANNA 3

                          Finfiahna Chungchânga Harsatna (The Problem of Proof)

            New Atheist Christopher Hitchens-a thukhawchang sawi chhawn hlawh tak chu, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence,” tih hi a ni a. Tunlai khawvel hi scientific world a nih miau avangin eng pawh sawi ila, ‘evidence’, ‘proof’, phûtna hi a lian tawh hle a ni. Hei hi thil thar a ni lo va, kum 1936 khan kum 26 mi chauh AJ Ayer-an Language, Truth and Logic tih a ziak a. Chu lehkhabu Logical Positivist ho textbook a tling ta hialah chuan Verification Principle a tih chu telhin, “a sentence had literal meaning if and only if the proposition it expressed was either analytic or empirically

verifiable,”[1] tiin a sawi a. Ani lo lan hma daihin 1876 khan W.K. Clifford-an, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe in anything upon insufficient evidence,”[2]a lo ti tawh a.” Hei hi tunlai \hangthar Atheist-te intihchangkanna a ni awm e.

            Ayer-a thusawi khi a chak tawk loh chhan chu, a dân zam khi a dik leh dik loh ‘verify’ theih a ni lo! Eng tika ‘verify’ tur nge a tih aw? Kristian thurin zawng zawng hi ‘verify’ theih, nakina ‘verify’ vek tur, a lai laklawhah kan la awm avanga la ‘verify’ loh mai a ni zawk. Clifford-a evidentialism pawh hi pawm vek theih a ni bik lo. Evidence awm lovin thil tam tak kan pawm alawm (e.g., midang rilru (other minds)). Ayer-a ang tho hian a thusawi finfiahna a awm bik lova ‘vawtu êk cheh’ (self-defeating) case ve ve an ni. Finfiah theih leh theih loh chungchângah chuan Theism leh Atheism hi ‘prove’ theih an nih loh dan a inang chiah a. Ni e, Pathian chu logic leh mathematics thil ang mai mai a mihringte ‘prove’ theih leh ‘disprove’ theih mai mai ni awm lo tak a ni.

            Heti hi a nih avangin tunge mahni dinhmun finfiah (prove) tur zawk tih thuah pawh inhnialna a awm ta a. Theism lama a inleh hma 1976 khan Atheist Antony Flew chuan, Pathian awm rinna hian nitin nun leh science thil hmuh chhuahte a kalh tlat avangin Theist ho chuan Pathian awm hi an proof zawk tur a ni, tiin a sawi a.[3] Michael Scriven pawhin Theist ho hian an thusawi hi pawmnahawm anga an sawi dawn chuan a finfiahna an nei ngei turah ngaiin, chuti a nih loh chuan Atheism hi a dingchang mai turah a ngai bawk.[4]

Kristian Philosopher Alvin Plantingan hei hi a pawm bik hauh lo mai a. Pathian hriatna hi hringfate tana ‘basic belief’[5] a ni a, keimahnia awm sa a nih miau avangin hnawltute chuan a dik lohzia hi an finfiah (prove) zawk tur a ni ang, tiin a \ang. Plantinga sawi dan hi ‘Reformed Epistemology’ an ti a. John Calvina sawi \hin sensus divinitus (Pathian hriatna) chu mi zawng zawnga awm sa a nihna behchhan a ni. He thil avang hian Theism chu mihring nihphung pangngai a ni a, \henkhat Pathian awm ring hauh lo an lo awm a nih chuan Sual hnathawhah a ngai mai a ni.[6]

Finfiahna eng ang êm nge kan phût tih kan inbih chian fo a pawimawh ang. Pathian awm chungchangah hian, 2+2=4 tih anga chiang leh hnial theih loh dinhmun ang kan phût a nih chuan kan ti lutuk a ni ve thei tho lovang maw? Khawvel court-ah meuh pawh, engkim phawrh fai leng loh pawhin, thu rinawm tawk a nih chuan kan pawm mai si a. R.A. Reid chuan, “Strictly speaking ‘Proof’ exists nowhere outside mathematics. There is no proof (accurately speaking) in empirical science: there is only progressive verification and substantiation. In Philosophy of Religion it has, it is true, been a custom to speak of ‘Proofs’ or ‘demonstrations’ of the existence of God. This is certainly scholastic language,” a ti. Pathian hi a awm a nih chuan mithiamte hriat bik tur ‘proof’ ngan taka hriat tur a nih kher a rinawm loh va, mimawl ber pawhin kan hriat tura a inpuan a rinawm zawk daih a ni. Tin, Pathian chungchâng hi a len em avangin ‘proof’ leh ‘disproof’ chi hrang hrang hi mal\an thei an ni lo. Nun pumpui huapa en tur ni awm tak zawk an ni.

Pathian hi ‘thil’ pakhat ve ang chauha kan ngaih chuan a buaithlak hle reng a. Entirnân, ‘pheichham’ hi thil pakhat a ni a. A awm leh awm loh pawh finfiah tura beisei theih thil a ni. A awm ringtu leh awm ring lotu chuan thil dang zawng zawngah an inthurual hnuin pheichham chu ‘thil’ pakhat dang a ni ve mai. Pathian awm ring leh ring lotu chuan thil pakhatah an ngaihdan a rual lo mai a ni lo va, nun pumpuiah an inkalh tihna a ni.

Hemi chungchâng hi C. Stephen Evans chuan chipchiar angreng takin, “The person who believes and the person who does not believe in God do not merely disagree about God. They disagree about the very character of the universe. The believer is convinced that each and every thing exists because of God and God’s creative activity. The unbeliever is convinced that natural objects exists “on their own,” without any ultimate reason or purpose for being. In this situation there are no neutral “safe” facts all parties are agreed on, with one party believing some additional “risky facts.” Rather, each side puts forward a certain set of fats and denies its opponents’ alleged facts. There is risk on both sides…religious beliefs imply something fundamental about how life should be lived.”[7] A tawpkhawkah chuan Naturalistic Worldview leh Supernaturalistic Worldview inkar a ni ber e.

---

[1] A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 2^nd Edition (Victor Gollancz: Dover Publications, 1946),

[2] W.K. Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief,” republished in Baruch A. Brody (ed.) Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), 246. Skeptic David Hume pawhin 1748 daih tawh khan, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion”. David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Liberal Arts Press, ([1748]1955), 173. Mak tak mai chu Hume leh Ayer hian Atheist an inti duh lo ve ve a ni.

[3] Antony Flew, The Presumption of Atheism (London: Pemberton,1976), 22.

[4] Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 103.

[5] A properly basic belief is a belief that rightly belongs in the foundation of a rational noetic structure.

[6]  Alvin Plantinga, “Reformed epistemology,” in Phillip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro (eds), A Companion to Philosophy Of Religion (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999), 383–9. See also, Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

[7] C. Stephen Evans, The Quest for Faith: Pointers to God (Leicester, England: IVP, 1986), 28.