Negatif Ateizm Ateizmi Gerekçelendirebilir mi?

• Published in: İlahiyat tetkikleri dergisi no. 61; pp. 164 - 178
• Main Author: Ağca, Fatma Nur
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Turkish
• Published: Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi 2024; Atatürk University Faculty of Theology
• Subjects: Philosophy of Religion; Sociology of Religion; Theology and Religion; Evidentialism; Philosophy of Religion; Negative Atheism; Justification; Positive Atheism
• ISSN: 2458-7508; 2602-3946

The question of whether atheism is a position that needs justification and under what conditions a rational justification can be mentioned is as important as the problem of justification of theism. This article examines what kind of justification is set forth when atheism is defined negatively, such as the nonbelief or the absence of belief in God. If atheism is considered as absence of belief, does this imply that it is exempt from justification? Do not atheists have the burden of proving the proposition "God exists" is false, and the proposition "There is no God" is true? When it comes to atheistic justification, two different approaches emerge: the absence of evidence approach and the evidence of absence approach. The article discusses whether the denial of the proposition "God exists" is necessary when there is no sufficient evidence for its truth. Another problematic approach discussed in the article is the question of whether the absence of sufficient evidence can legitimize the transition from negative atheism to positive atheism. It is argued that atheism needs positive evidence for its justification rather than relying on the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. If atheism is considered as a psychological state of nonbelief rather than a propositional attitude, this would lead us to disregard its epistemic dimension. In this study, the possibility of viewing atheism as a state of nonbelief or indifference towards the existence of God is examined, and this study aims to demonstrate that this perspective cannot contribute to atheistic argumentation. From an evidentialist perspective, inferring that atheism is true without presenting evidence seems internally inconsistent.