Does the Theist or Atheist Have the Burden of Proof?

Christianity 101 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:16:44 -0700

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.