Tag, You're It: That Pesky Burden of Proof

Who has the burden of proof? Those who proffer of an affirmative proposition, of course. It seems so straightforward. But is it? Maybe not. In fact, the burden is abundant, so there's plenty to go around. We need not be stingy with it.

When atheists insists that theists justify their belief in God, they are implicitly asserting the affirmative propositions that theists (like everyone else) ought to hold only justified beliefs and that since belief in God is unjustified, theists ought to abandon their belief. Those are affirmative assertions. Why should one hold only justified beliefs, and why is belief in God unjustified? I can't see why atheists have no burden of proof here.

If theists state their evidence (reason) for believing, the atheists may well say that the purported evidence is unconvincing. But why don't atheists bear a burden of proof here? They've put forth an affirmative position.

One tricky thing about the burden of proof is that many negative statements, which seem not to require proof, have affirmative counterparts. ("I have an alibi" equals "I did not commit the crime.") If atheists say the theists' justificatory statements are not convincing, the atheists are at the same time saying that the statements are unconvincing or unsound. That's an affirmative proposition for which the theists are entitled to demand evidence.

Or look at this way: when atheist demand evidence from theists, they are saying at least implicitly, "Doubt about the existence of God is justified." Under the atheists' rules of presumption, that affirmative proposition requires evidence, which the atheists provide implicitly: in effect, they say, "Good evidence for the existence of God is lacking." So even when such atheists insist they has no burden of proof, they in fact do have a burden of proof and they more or less try to discharge it.

As I've said before, the burden of proof is like a wet bar of soap, it easily slips from hand to hand. It's also like a game of tag. Much more often than atheists think, they make statements that enable their theist interlocutors to say, "Tag, you're it!"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like. It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its a coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.... In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic.... Self-evidence, which [Bertrand] Russell talked about so much, can be dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.--What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   3.03, 3.031, 3.032, 5.473, 5.4731 (H/T: Roderick T. Long )      
Read more

Is He Having a Laugh?

According to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the government is God's appointed agent on earth, and each of us owes it allegiance and obedience. If that's so--and I for one don't believe either part of that statement--I'd like some believer to explain what God had in mind when he arranged things so that one of the two major-party clowns running for president will be elected in November. Is He having a laugh?
Read more

What Was the Point of the Bible?

It's more than plausible that the Five Books of Moses and the rest of the Hebrew Bible are about political domination and submission. (The other bibles may well be that too, but I haven't read them.) It's reasonable to think that the authors wrote them on behalf of, or to curry favor with, their rulers in an attempt to make the masses afraid to think for themselves and perhaps defy the ruling elite. (They may have had more than one motivation, of course.)  There were 12 tribes that a ruling class wished to hold together through anticipation of divine rewards and fear of divine punishment. The objective was to promote allegiance. (I can imagine an honorable but misguided motive for this -- group survival in a violent world.) The scriptures were a warning: do what we say your god commands or Yahweh will be so angry he will do some or all the horrible things that are threatened and in some cases perpetrated throughout these books. Follow his commands to a T (as conveyed by us)
Read more