You can not suggest that the burden of proof lies on a theist to prove the existence of [God] by assuming that yours is the only possible view of the world and then to demand proof on that basis if you’ve already rejected evidence which may have been submitted. All that really proves is that both an atheist and a theist interprets with world through an a priori filter…
Secondly, what would happen if God did in fact decide to provide proof of his existence but you have rejected it outright because of your a priori filtering? If you deliberately choose to reject evidence, then that isn’t actually science but something which moves into the realm of faith, which [Richard] Dawkins accuses others of having without base.
My two cents
Yes, this is how I think as well. I’ve heard atheists and their ilk insist that there’s no evidence for God. In contrast, the above quote develops R.J. Rushoony’s point that a person’s presuppositions will put epistemological boundaries on reality, and people will consciously work from that.
I remember the debate in June between Sydney atheists and Christians, where the atheists included with a self-conscious declaration of epistemology (which was good)—and then went to dismiss anything that didn’t fit their epistemological prism (which wasn’t so good).
Before the debate began, I was wondering if the atheists were going to blow the Christians out of the water—after all, the former were the purportedly rational ones—but that didn’t really happen and the debate was a kind of stalemate with no clear result (probably because of a priori filtering). So much for rationalism.
Rollo. (2012). Horse 1316 – A Useless Greek Mindset? Available: http://rollo75.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/horse-1316-useless-greek-mindset.html. Last accessed 31st Aug 2013.