The Burden of Proof


Philosophical debates on the existence of God can be and usually is tumultuous territory. On both sides, the concern often develops into trumping the opposition rationally in such a manner that they must submit or concede to the presented arguments. More often than not, though, the discussion leads nowhere – to the inevitable stalemate where, at best, the opposing parties opt to agree to disagree and among the many areas that result in this stalemate, is the matter of the “burden of proof.” As frequently as the burden leads to a stalemate, however, it is far more misunderstood and misrepresented.

Perhaps the first step one needs to take to fully understand the reasoning behind the burden itself is understanding why the burden exists in the first place. Essentially, the burden exists as a means to validate one’s assertion and to add credibility to the one making the assertion; this draws one to the rule of the burden: any positive assertion requires evidence to validate it rationally. This burden, though, is misunderstood with respect to how it is applied within the debate and is coupled with the explanation that “you cannot prove a negative” or “the burden of proof is not on the shoulders of the one presenting a negative.”

Any positive assertion requires evidence to validate it. Even when positing a negative position as actually being the case, the burden appears, for that position, though “negative” is made as being positively the case. Atheists who teach, outwardly, that “there is no God” place upon their own shoulders the burden of proof and what a weighty burden it is indeed, for, in most cases, “one cannot prove a negative” (this stems from the issue of the Universal Negative). When, in response to claims of their responsibility of proof, they say “you cannot prove a negative,” what they are really saying is “you should not have to prove a negative,” which is absolutely false. Presenting the negative as positively so, they don the weight of the burden and must abide by it to maintain credibility, yet this is impossible and, consequently, their position is impossible to maintain rationally. It is only when one’s atheism ends at the internal confession of their rejection of a transcendent Creator that they no longer possess the weight of the burden, but when it extends to a form of proselytizing, they are once again crushed under the burden.

Approaching this discussion or debate with the understanding of its inevitable destination and the intricacies therein is essential to gain intellectual ground adequately. In all areas, though, the approach must be balanced and every step must be well-thought out and intentional. Defend against opposing rhetoric and the opposition itself on the basis of that individual position alone that the discussion would not become overly convoluted.

Gloria in Excelsis Deo.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Burden of Proof

  1. People like to “win” a discussion. If you are looking at 5 brands of cars, and I’m a car salesperson who convinces you to buy my brand, I have the gratification of “winning ” the sale. If I say Al Pacino starred in Taxi Driver and you say it was Robert De Niro, we can look on IMDB, at which point you have the satisfaction of being right beyond any doubt.

    When arguing god, no one ever has the gratification of convincing the other side. The debate then shifts to semantic points and arguing who is in a position to argue what, and so on. So why do we do it?

    • Much of it, on the Christian’s side is defended by using Peter suggestion to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1Pe 3:15). Christians being commanded to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20) inevitably brings them into the conflict. My contention is that no one can be reasoned to accept Christ as their Savior and must accept it faithfully as much as one would accept the promises made by God, which, I admit, came from a lengthy study of Kierkegaard’s reasoning in light of Biblical Scripture.

      You touch on the essence of the issue, which is the problem of the will. Pride often prevents one from accepting one’s own error. Even among the faithful, the possibility of error seems impossible and this is the same among skeptics who argue against them. Great point, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s