I'm going to reverse the order as I think my answer will make more sense that way.
Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism?
The key word is 'sufficient'. Sufficient for what exactly? For many thousands of years people have held a great diversity of religious beliefs and fought over them. Religious belief was largely sufficient for a pre-industrial and agricultural way of life. Widespread atheism remains a very recent phenemonan largely confined to the late 19th and 20th centuries. I would reason that religious belief was no longer sufficient as the scientific and technological forces unleashed by industrialisation necessitated a naturalistic understanding of the world in order to replicate its processes in predictable ways. The agricultural and industrial revolutions of the 18th century co-incided with the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. With new advances in equipment came the need for education beyond ruling elites and this education involved the scientific method to seek naturalistic explanations.
One of Darwin's proofs for evolution was evidence of domestic selection in farming and agriculture. Cattle, poultry etc, were breed for specific properties such as meat content, egg laying etc, and still are today. What he lacked was a mechanism to explain how man-made variation in species in 19th farming could be brought about by a entirely natural process. The answer came from Thomas Malthus who argued that there were natural limits to human population and competition for resources- Darwin applied this to natural selection.
I would argue that in the case of strong atheism, the question of what is sufficient evidence to reject the view of god holds as much weight as it does for a theist. In so far as reasoning or evidence must be sufficient, it must be sufficient to be acted on. our beliefs affect our actions and vice-versa. As we act in a new way in a industrial and post-industrial society, so we need new beliefs as religion is no longer sufficient for a society. However, as we are not masters of our own social organisation but are subject to various hidden forces, like the evulation of "public opinion", the self-organisation of "market forces", and the deep complexities of "human nature" we remain a society that cannot obtain full or scientific knowledge. There therefore is not a sufficient basis for eliminating religioud belief as we are still the prisoners of forces we do not control.
Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.
No. I think an intelligent theist can make a very good argument based on logically consistent premises. The difficulty is that an intelligent theist won't accept things on authority as an act of faith, so there is a tension there. There remains a continued gap in our understanding of the natural world and of human society which can well be filled by a god of the gaps. There is a gulf between explanations which attribute the cause of pheneomena to nature (materialist) and consciousness (idealist) and this conflict often manifests itself as a conflict between religion and science as well as atheism and religion. I would point out that not all atheism or science is materialist and there remain good reasons to be sceptical as to whether it should be. e.g. the hard problem of consciousness.
I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.
This is very much focuses on the tension between reason and faith. if someone accept something on authority and on faith, it means that they accept that the authority is right. To question that authority, whether it be of a church or a deity runs contary to the nature of the belief. It is alot easier to blame an atheist than admit the possibility that a religious belief, organisation or authority is at fault. This is particuarly true if you have an omnipotent and omnsicent god as an authority figure as god cannot be wrong nor can the atheists lack of belief be anything other than gods plan. I think a theist may well end up having to interpret the existence of atheists as part of the conflict between omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience in the problem of evil. e.g. Are atheists evil for rejecting god and do I owe them an explanation for my faith?
To make a reasoned argument for religion will involve a great deal of questions. I suspect the easiest way to cope with them is to retreat from an objectively existing god to the subjective experience of mysticism and the inner world. That remains largely beyond the realm of science and reason to find naturalistic explanations and is a space where faith can remain. This is however only a defence of faith, rather than an assertion that faith is objectively true and can therefore be relevant to an atheist.
I know that there are reasoned arguments for belief but the sheer complexity and audacity of the task requires a very keen intellect and someone who is emotionally invested in it. Reason is a very individualistic attribute and so runs contary to organised religion, reliance on existing scripture and traditions. scepticism and faith are not mutually exclusive, but they both have tolerances. a sceptic will almost by definition by a weak agnostic and such scepticism is contary to fundamentalist beliefs that are both more attractive and fulfilling to fill the void, although it is only in the short-run. if you need a quick fix to overcome the nihilism of the age, jumping in the deep-end is alot easier but comes with the risk of drowning out your reason. I imagine that the emotional pull of religion is often more powerful than reason. it is alot easier to be a fundamentalist than to be a sceptical theist; given the amount of time and effort to all but create a belief system, I would consider myself very fortunate to have met anyone of that level of intelligence and ability. We have a few on RF but for the reasons spelled out above I imagine it is alot easier not to be this way inclined.
