If believers tell us or each other there is a God then they must show why we should agree with them.

Against that we have this. 

"It is a basic principle of knowledge...that we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be, until we have evidence that we are mistaken. If you say the contrary - never trust appearances until it is proved that they are reliable - you will never have any beliefs at all. For what would show that appearances were reliable, except more appearances?" Richard Swinburne, Evidence for God.
Let us assume we should take his advice in relation to God and religious doctrine.

Swinburne tries to show that the working assumption that things are to be believed until evidence or proof appears and refutes them is our starting point . Even with God.  So it is more important than God. It turns God into a convenience not a God. God by definition is that which is wholly good and so alone matters.
If Swinburne is right it does not follow that what he says applies to God. Believing in God is not the same as believing there are 24 hours in the day.
If he were right, what he says would apply better to the idea of an impersonal intelligence making and running the universe than God. You don't need to assume that something doing something is a person when it could be impersonal or mechanical.
It is evidence that tells you what seems to be. His advice could be reworded as saying that you should believe what the evidence seems to say until you find out that the evidence does not say it or is faked.
Swinburne should say that we have to take received knowledge for granted only when we have no way of checking it. We should go along with it but not pretend we know it is right. 
If something is testable, always debate it and ask questions.  Don't try to make excuses to protect religious lazy presumptions about God like Swinburne does. 

If you make excuses to avoid facing evidence against what you believe, you are opposing knowledge. For example, you reason that your parents are lying about pretending to be Santa or that even if they are leaving the presents it is because Santa hypnotises them to get and give the presents to you for him. God as a non-testable idea is out. For example, even if there is total evil in the universe believers say it will not refute God because evil is merely misplaced good and God does not make evil.

It could seem to you that Santa is real. Where do the toys come from? But that does not mean you should believe in Santa when you get another explanation for the evidence for him.  Believers know fine well that settling for God as an explanation for things does not excuse not considering atheism.

Swinburne has failed to tell us why God must be the exception to commonplace doctrines and ideas that get challenged and refuted.  We do that all the time.  Swinburne himself would have learned nothing had it not be for the rebels.  Commonsense is not always commonsense and is not always right.  He is trying to get the burden of proof removed from the believers and assert that it is up to agnostics and atheists to provide the case against faith.  He hopes that they will keep their findings to themselves.  By removing the duty to learn from the believer he is protecting religious views.

Finally, a God who commands that we avoid anything that looks like laziness for his sake is not going to encourage us to take anything for granted about him no matter who else does.  A God of study and reason, the God of the unknown waiting to be found, invites investigation.  Swinburne is not a true disciple.  He just has doubts about God and does not want others to see they should doubt too.  Paradoxically, his telling us we don't need to check up on the God stuff shows no respect for God at all.


No Copyright