Does the Theist or Atheist Have the Burden of Proof?

EMAIL THIS PAGE

RSS

SHARE THIS PAGE:

Does the Theist or Atheist Have the Burden of Proof?

June 2, 2009, 10:16 am » Christianity 101

No doubt you are already familiar with the concept of the "burden of proof." (Unless you have already had some unfortunate personal experience with the criminal justice system, just think about the O.J. Simpson trial or any television drama involving the criminal courts.) The "burden of proof" is on the prosecutor (the D.A.) to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecutor doesn't present enough convincing evidence, then the defendant is declared "not guilty."

It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists. They don't want to be put in the position of having to prove the non-existence of God. They know it can't be done. As was stated in Positive Atheism magazine: "one cannot prove a negative existential claim (that is, a claim that a thing does not exist)." For this reason, the distinction between the weak position and the strong position of atheism becomes very important. With weak-position atheism, the burden of proof falls on the theist. With strong-position atheism, however, it is the atheist that carries the burden of proof. Here is how it breaks down:

The weak-position atheist says: "I don't believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists." This position puts the theist on the defensive. The theist must present evidence to persuade the weak-position atheist.
The strong-position atheist says: "Absolutely, positively, there is no god." In response to this dogmatic position, the theistic can say: "So prove it." This means that the strong-position atheist must go on the defensive.

Atheists are well aware of this burden-of-proof issue, and they want to avoid carrying it. Consequently, they advocate using a weak-position definition of atheism even for a person who has a strong-position belief. (This is not a lie because the weak-position definition is broad enough to include proponents of the strong-position.) Using a weak-position description of atheism will always put the burden of proof on the theist. This is purely and simply a debating strategy, which the atheists aren't embarrassed to admit. Positive Atheism magazine suggests using weak-position terminology to avoid the burden of proof issue:

With the weak definition, the strong-position atheist can participate in a lengthy debate with a theistic apologist without ever disclosing his or her wholesale dismissal of the entire god question, and without once ever being called upon to prove anything. (A careless presentation of the strong position could open itself to the Burden of Proof.) And the strong-position atheist can, through restraint, make much more of an impact on the listener. The main point here is that the theist is the one making the claim, so the theist must first describe what he or she is claiming, and secondly make a strong case for the claim. By showing that the claim itself is invalid, that it is not worthy of our attention, we don't need to deal with any counter-claims.

Christopher Hitchens, who is as close to a "poster boy" for strong-position atheism as there is, failed to heed this advice in his recent debate with William Lane Craig at Biola University. Craig presented a reasonable case for the existence of God, while Hitchens failed to offer any evidence for the non-existence of God, despite Craig's persistent request to do just that. For a balanced critique of the debate, see Doug Geivett's excellent blog post.

Next time we'll wrap up this mini-series on atheism by relating some advice Positive Atheism magazine gives to weak-position atheists who want to engage a theist in a discussion or debate.

Tags | Belief | atheism | burden of proof | theism

Add new comment

Comments

Wed, 06/03/2009 - 18:30 — DeafAtheist

You obviously don't know very many atheists. There are VERY VERY few atheists who claim absolute certainty of non-existence of God. 95% of us simply don't believe due to lack of evidence. Given credible evidence we'd all turn around on a dime, but no such evidence exists.

Many atheists, myself included do indeed strongly believe that there is no supernatural deity in existence, but we still fall short of absolute certainty. Even the likes of Christopher Hitchens (as you mentioned here in your post as being a "strong-willed atheist") or Richard Dawkins would not claim absolute certainty.

So, yes as you, yourself admitted, the burden of proof is yours since an atheist claiming absolute certainty is rare.

Fri, 06/05/2009 - 17:42 — Stan Jantz

Thanks for the comment! Appreciate your thoughtful reply. Theists are doing all they can to provide "credible evidence." Of course, there's no such thing as absolute evidence (which is almost impossible to come up with in any situation, especially in a court of law). About the best that's available is "reasonable" evidence, which will satisfy some but not all.

Mon, 07/25/2011 - 08:36 — mesothelioma attorney texas

BACKLINK -> mesothelioma attorney texas

Mon, 07/25/2011 - 08:35 — mesothelioma attorney texas

I THINK SOO ! =)

Tue, 07/14/2009 - 22:39 — Christoph

Consider the following.

Two men are standing next to one another on a street corner. Neither man has said anything to the other. Which man has the burden of proof?

Too often, the burden of proof debate between theists and atheists neglects an essential component, the claim. Without a claim, there is no burden of proof. Thus, for one to have a burden of proof one must necessarily make a claim. Yet, is a claim enough? I would argue no.

Suppose one of our two men looked at the other and said, "Hi, my name is Ron." Is Ron now obligated to provide a lengthy defense to prove his name is indeed Ron? It would be highly unlikely because the social context does not demand such of Ron. Thus, we have the second essential component to a burden of proof, the social context.

Therefore, a burden of proof exists when a person makes a claim and the context requires this person support their claim. Such contexts exist when a person desires to convince another person of their claim and/or there is prior agreement that one will support all challenged claims. There are indeed some social contexts in which the requirement is automatically assumed (e.g., academic journals, formal debates, etc.), but most social contexts exist somewhere between the blurry points of required and not required. That is, there is no "innate" burden of proof to any given position.

For example, consider a discussion between two conservative Evangelical Christians theologians. They are likely to assume the Bible is true, inerrant, and authoritative. This would not necessarily be true of a discussion about God between a Christian and a Muslim. Though they both assume God, they will likely disagree on some of the attributes of God. Hence, social context defines when one carries a burden of proof and when one does not. And, further, unless both parties agree or have previously agreed there exists a burden of proof then no burden of proof exists.

Sat, 01/30/2010 - 20:27 — ex-skeptic

I agree. Context is important. So why is it the atheist who gets to establish the ground rules? To set the terms? They place the burden of proof on the theist, when it is they who are the challenger. In the context of history, where belief in the supernatural, in God, has been the norm for millennia, the atheist would have the burden of proof, since he is challenging the status quo. Likewise, in the United States, which was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and where the vast majority still profess belief in God in some form or another, the burden of proof should be on the atheist, again the challenger, to prove otherwise.

But if we allow the atheist their insistence that the burden of proof should be on the theist because one can't prove a negative, that is, they can't prove that something doesn't exist, why do we never see this question asked of them: What is the burden of proof you demand? And are you demanding the same burden of proof from the theist that you would expect for yourselves? I see a double standard. When they do argue proactively, their arguments are on the lines of "more likely than not" that God doesn't exist (and even here they fall short). Yet they seem to demand an unrealistic "absolute proof" standard from the theist.

So I would like to see atheists answer this: What will it take for you to believe? What burden of proof do theists have to meet for you to be satisfied? Is it an honest burden, one that can be realistically met with sufficient evidence? And if the theist does meet that burden, will you capitulate? Or will what they have to say never be good enough for you, and is any debate between you two just mental calisthenics?

Sat, 01/30/2010 - 20:44 — ex-skeptic

I neglected to mention one thing. It is not an impossible burden of proof for the atheistic to have to meet the "more likely than not" standard of proof, and to hold the theist to the same standard. It is only when the standard is "absolute proof" that the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God (but neither can the theist, unless God chooses to show Himself in no uncertain terms - which is entirely out of the theist's control). So, really, in all fairness, shouldn't this be the burden of proof that is imposed? And if it is determined that it is more likely than not that God exists, only a fool would choose to ignore that, given the eternal consequences.

Sat, 09/26/2009 - 02:27 — Spepee

Atheist are fools and become bigger asses everyday.
They wake up an ass, and then a bigger ass, and even bigger ass, until all that is left is a losing communist ass.

Sat, 01/30/2010 - 20:37 — ex-skeptic

My, what an ingelligent, thought-provoking and thoroughly helpful comment. Yes, atheists are fools, because a fool says in his heart, "There is no God" (Ps. 14:1). But a fool can still be of high intellect, and a believer in God, though not a fool, by definition, can still be a moron. Intelligence and wisdom aren't the same thing (though sometimes it is both wise and smart to keep one's mouth shut).

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 15:56 — Lynx Fried

Well this kind of information is really worth searching for, good information for readers and a value for you as will definitely show the quality of the writer. It’s good to have these kinds of articles around to keep the information flow steady. Helping those who really can make things right in the future, good work!
-steel suppliers

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 07:47 — Charlotte24WH

How to write the custom classification essay is an issue, college students talk about all their student years. Thence they would get all the answers at creative writing services.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:49 — AgeofReason

Curious that this debate is still ongoing with no end in sight.

As many comments have posted, most atheists do not take the strong position because of the burden of proof issue as well as the use of reason. Clearly it is possible that God could indeed exist but based off current evidence his existence seems very unlikely.

The difference is that a theist is claiming absolute proof. Their faith is unwavering and steadfast. If scientific evidence were discovered tomorrow that the theistic God could not exist, I highly doubt that religion would stop and thus is their problem. Science allows for flexibility and claims nothing absolutely.

Atheists derive their opinions based off of proof and probability rather than faith and mysticism.

This was very general and I could get into different arguments ranging from the philosophical problem of evil, Russell's teapot, problem of non belief to evolution and biology, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, etc.

Bottom line, a theist must believe through faith(which is void of reason) in a book in which its stories cannot be verified, in a god that disguises himself from his creation and cannot be proven, who is also omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, while also destroying the very thing he created on a regular basis.
Even if the outlandish idea was true, why would you even want to follow that god.

and I am the one who is called foolish?

Wed, 02/10/2010 - 20:15 — bluediamond

"If scientific evidence were discovered tomorrow that the theistic God could not exist, I highly doubt that religion would stop and thus is their problem. Science allows for flexibility and claims nothing absolutely."

Did you just contradict yourself?? scientific evidence could absolutely prove that God could not exist... science claims nothing absolute...

Faith is void of reason... NOT.. do you mean to say "Faith is void of 100% proof of scientific evidence to support it's claim knowing that science is not absolute?" Reasonable does not have to be 100% of anything..

Stories cannot be verified.. NOT where did you come up with that? All stories?? Some stories?? literature?? Myths??

God disguises himself from creation?? what in the world does that mean?

God destroying the thing He created on a regular basis?? How do you know that? If he doesn't exist, how does He destroy anything? Maybe that's what you would like to think to make your argument more palatable. Is it possible that man is destroying themselves? If God doesn't exist, any destruction we witness would be a result of our own destruction.

I think you're "reasons" are a little outlandish.

Just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 22:28 — brian

well i agree that The difference is that a theist is claiming absolute proof. Their faith is unwavering and steadfast. If scientific evidence were discovered tomorrow that the theistic God could not exist, Skin Beauty I highly doubt that religion would stop and thus is their problem. Science allows for flexibility and claims nothing absolutely.

Atheists makeup tips derive their opinions based off of proof and probability rather than faith beauty vitamins and mysticism .

Sat, 08/14/2010 - 15:43 — discount auto insurance quotes

I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! keep up the good work.

Tue, 08/09/2011 - 08:20 — makeityourring diamond engagement rings

I have to agree with those who praised the blog post above. I really enjoyed it and it made me quite curious to see what we are going to see or get on this website in the future, it's exciting for me.

Thu, 08/26/2010 - 02:27 — dress

Best canon Coffee Mugs! Funny, Cute, & Humorous Unique designs. Also find Travel Mugs, Coffee Cups also, or Create Photo Personalized Mugs & Drinkware
canon mugs
canon lens mugs
Nikon Mugs
Canon Coffee Lens Mug
Nikon Coffee Lens Mug
anon coffee mug,canon lens mug,canon mug,canon coffee cup,canon thermos travel mug
Canon 70-200mm Lens Coffee Mug
Canuydress.org/" >dresses

Mon, 08/30/2010 - 08:49 — cosplay

discount wedding dresses
cheap wedding dresses
wedding dresses sale

Sun, 11/14/2010 - 13:57 — Bradford

Thanks,some great data here keep up the good work. I actually allow for a more creative comment as I'm a bit out of my depth but I will be checking back here for further updates.
Bradford,
need to sell my house fast

Fri, 12/24/2010 - 09:46 — cpesoft

Hey Guys! I really love your articles, it is very useful. I will definitely follow it, thanks and keep up the good work.satellite direct

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 11:00 — Ruby Genders

Cool! So good to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. Thanks for starting this up. This blog is something that is needed on the web, I don't think Ive read anything like this before Finally!!! someone with a little originality. Good job for bringing something new to the internet!
Ruby @ steel supply

Wed, 07/20/2011 - 03:23 — Tyler Truck Accident Lawyer

I must say that overall I am really impressed with this blog.It is easy to see that you are impassioned about your writing. I wish I had got your ability to write. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:43 — Samet Kandemir

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 13:41 — comment perdre du poids vite

Hiya, I'm really glad I've found this info. Nowadays bloggers publish just about gossips and web and this is actually irritating. A good site with interesting content, that's} what I need. Thanks for keeping this website, I'll be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can't find it. comment perdre du poids vite

Tue, 08/09/2011 - 08:12 — tablet android honeycomb terbaik murah

This is a great post ! it was very informative. I look forward in reading more of your work. Also, I made sure to bookmark your website so I can come back later. I enjoyed every moment of reading it.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 02:59 — prom dresses

If you need a unique Prom Dresses or a special high fashion or Formal Dresses for a pageant or your Quincenera, a short Cocktail Dresses for graduation or a bat mitzvah or even affordable Bridesmaid Dresses for your wedding, we have them all in sizes and prices to fit your needs.
We have a team of professional designers, plate-makers, tailors and production workers, dedicating to provide you with better and more.
Wedding Gowns
Wedding Dresses
A Line Wedding Dresses
Ball Gown Wedding Dresses
Mermaid Wedding Dresses
Empire Wedding Dresses
Column Wedding Dresses
Beach Wedding Dresses
Plus Size Wedding Dresses

Thu, 09/15/2011 - 04:24 — tablet android honeycomb terbaik murah

This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives indepth information. thanks for this nice articleTablet Android Honeycomb Terbaik Murah

Sat, 08/27/2011 - 04:40 — london plumbers

weak-position atheist informative quote is really excellent. I liked it a lot.

Sun, 09/25/2011 - 04:43 — Blogger Solo

These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post
Pantun Cinta
Contoh Pidato
BlackBerry Bold 9900 Dakota Harga Spesifikasi
Daftar Harga Laptop Acer 2011
Daftar Harga Laptop Toshiba 2011

Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:56 — Pemancar FM TV

Hello Pemancar FM and than Pemancar TV so its get your the Pemancar nad you can see Iklan Gratis so dont miss Jam Replika it and get it!

Thu, 10/13/2011 - 21:25 — fantastic clean

Excellent, but it would be better if in future you can share more about this subject. Keep posting.

Thu, 10/27/2011 - 18:46 — myfvczqv

simhevs

Fri, 10/28/2011 - 03:27 — jersey

Steelers Jersey
Ben Roethlisberger Jersey
Brett Keisel Jersey
Byron Leftwich Jersey
Casey Hampton Jersey
Chris Kemoeatu Jersey
Evander Hood Jersey
Franco Harris Jersey
Heath Miller Jersey
Hines Ward Jersey
Ike Taylor Jersey
Jack Lambert Jersey
James Farrior Jersey
James Harrison Jersey
Jeff Reed Jersey
Jerome Bettis Jersey
Joe Greene Jersey
Kevin Greene Jersey
LaMarr Woodley Jersey
Lawrence Timmons Jersey
Limas Sweed Jersey
Lynn Swann Jersey
Maurkice Pouncey Jersey
Mel Blount Jersey
Mike Wallace Jersey
Mike Webster Jersey
President Obama Jersey
Rashard Mendenhall Jersey
Rocky Bleier Jersey
Rod Woodson Jersey
Ryan Clark Jersey
Santonio Holmes Jersey
Terry Bradshaw Jersey
Troy Polamalu Jersey
Willie Parker Jersey

Fri, 11/04/2011 - 04:00 — waterproof camera

you got the point dude : The main point here is that the theist is the one making the claim, so the theist must first describe what he or she is claiming, and secondly make a strong case for the claim. By showing that the claim itself is invalid, that it is not worthy of our attention, we don't need to deal with any counter-claims.

waterproof digital camera

Sat, 11/05/2011 - 18:10 — Sbobet

hi there, this is the information that i looking for, thank you so much for sharing this info...i am so lucky can found this information...
agen bola - Agen Bola

Sat, 11/05/2011 - 18:21 — Manga

i am agree with what your opinion there, nice thinking sir

Naruto - Bleach - One Piece

Sat, 11/05/2011 - 18:27 — Electric Toothbrush

i will share this page to my friends, i am so lucky can be here and read your article

Kitchen Cabinets Design - Cancer - busana muslim - free online games

Sat, 11/05/2011 - 21:09 — Ban terbaik di Indonesia GT RADIAL

I dont like atheist many more... thanks!

Tue, 11/08/2011 - 22:26 — Anto

hello, very happy can be here...thanks for the info...

jual beli mobil bekas - otomotif mobil - audio mobil

Wed, 11/09/2011 - 14:35 — johny S