Who's Afraid of the Burden of Proof?

As a general matter, I accept the idea that he who proposes -- X is true (and thus ought to believed) -- has the burden of proof. But I am not troubled by the idea that propositions of the form X is not true (and ought not to be believed) -- also require support. Drawing a hard line against this is a mistake.

You may not be able to demonstrate a negative proposition directly -- say, I did not commit a particular murder -- but you can demonstrate it indirectly by showing that a contradictory positive proposition is true -- I was somewhere else at the time. Proof that the earth is round is proof that the earth is not flat.

Why can't I demonstrate that the supernatural God does not exist by showing that it is impossible? It seems to me that any negative proposition can be restated in a positive way. The negative claim God does not exist corresponds to the positive Spinoza-ish claim that the natural world is eternal, self-sufficient, the source of all explanations, and all that can meaningfully be said to exist. Proving the positive simultaneously proves the negative. As sticom character Bob Patterson (Jason Alexander) said, "'No' is only 'yes' to a different question." (I found that quote in Deborah J. Bennett's Logic Made Easy: How to Know When Language Deceives You.)

So why play "hot potato" with the burden of proof?

Why not assign the burden to whoever challenges a widely accepted proposition. In Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand, Auburn philosopher Roderick T. Long points out that if someone makes a plausible truth claim that does not clash with a reliable and reputable belief set, it is not "immune to challenge," but "the burden of proof lies with the challenger. What arguments [the claimant] needs to offer will depend on what objections the challenger makes." Long adds, in reference to plausible appearances and reputable beliefs, that "it is the skeptic who must shoulder the burden of proving that things are not as they seem." Seems reasonable to me.

So atheists who think they can, Houdini-like, escape the burden of proof are not paying attention. Imagine a theist who says to an atheist, "God exists." The atheist says, "Can you demonstrate it?" The theist responds by offering the first-cause argument. The atheist responds, "I'm not convinced." The theist responds, "Why not? What's wrong with the argument?"

What does the atheist say now? I hope he wouldn't say, "Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me, buster. I'm not falling for that old trick."? If he does say that, should he be taken seriously?

Of course not. If you say you are not persuaded by an argument, you can't just leave it at that or else it just sounds like a psychological report. Who cares about your psychological state? Surely the atheist has more in mind than that! He must think the evidence given is so flawed that it doesn't really count as evidence at all. And if that's what he thinks, he needs to demonstrate that -- if he wants to be taken seriously, that is. We can call this the burden of disproof.

I can't imagine a theist who would say when asked why he believes in God: "I have no evidence. I just believe." Theists always have justifications their belief. Atheists may not think they are good reasons (I don't); nevertheless, theists don't use the word faith the way most atheists think they do. That is, they don't take faith to mean belief without evidence or good reason. They mean trust, and they will be happy to give you reasons why they trust.

The upshot is that there's plenty of burden to go around. Don't be afraid. Seize it!