I would like to try something different. Imagine you are on trial. The charge is murder. There are two possibilities here: You either committed the murder or you did not commit the murder. To use the legal terms, you are either Guilty or you are Innocent. This is not a false dichotomy, it is impossible to partially murder someone. You may be guilty of a different crime like manslaughter, but on the charge of murder you are either guilty or you are innocent. The judge asks you for your plea and your lawyer replies "Not Guilty". The prosecution makes their case, your lawyer makes yours. Witnesses are called, questions are asked and cross-examinations are conducted. Then prosecution makes their closing argument and your lawyer makes yours. Now your fate is in the hands of 12 people you've never met before as they leave the court room to deliberate.
If you've never seen the film "12 Angry Men", then I highly recommend it because it is a masterpiece with a spectacular performance from Henry Fonda. In the film Henry Fonda is a juror and he manages to keep his head while all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on him. I bring this up because the argument he makes is the one I'm making. The jurors will deliberate, sometimes for hours, sometimes for days, but they will continue deliberating until they have their verdict. In your case the jury returns and the judge asks them for their verdict. The foreman stands up and says "We find the defendant Not Guilty."
It is very important to recognise something. The jury has not said that you are innocent, they have said that there is not enough evidence to prove your guilt. As it is the prosecution that has made the positive claim that you are guilty, they have the burden of proof and they must meet it. Remember, you have not claimed that you are innocent, only that the prosecution cannot make the case that you are guilty, hence your plea of "Not Guilty".
There is a difference between saying someone is innocent and saying someone is not guilty.
Now you are a smart bunch so you probably know where I'm going with this.
I would like to try something different. Think about God (I'll use the Abrahamic God, but feel free to substitute in another). Does he exist? There are two possibilities here: God either exists or God does not exist. This is not a false dichotomy, it is impossible to partially exist. God may have existed at some point and since vanished, but with regards to this exact moment God either exists or God does not exist. The skeptic is asked if he or she believes in God and the skeptic replies "No." The believer makes their case and the skeptic makes theirs. Historians are cited, testimonies are given and points are argued. Now I must make up my mind and think about the arguments made by both sides.
I am now a juror and I must now keep my head while everyone else may be losing theirs. I may think about this for hours, days, months or even years. I will continue to turn this question over in my head until I come to a conclusion. When asked for my verdict, I stand up and I say "I do not believe that God exists."
It is very important to recognise something. I have not said that God does not exist, I have said that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist. As it is the believer that has made the positive claim that God does exist, they have the burden of proof and they must meet it. Remember, the skeptic has not claimed that God does not exist, only that the believer cannot make the case that God does exist, hence the reply of "No."
There is a difference between not believing that God exists and believing that God does not exist.
