Monday, June 6, 2016

The Burden of Proof: A Hot Potato




The Chorus:


"Atheists do not claim there are no gods. We simply don't accept your claim that there is a god or gods. Your ‘god claims’ do not meet the burden of proof, and that is why we're not buying it. In light of this, what claim are we [atheists] making that has a burden of proof? I have not claimed that nature is all there is, or that material existence exhausts all of reality. I don't need to."


This is a common refrain in the atheists repertoire of tactics, that more often than not is politely accepted by the theist. But should we allow this to continue as an accepted rite of passage into the holy grail of debate?

As the above statement shows, the speaker self identifies as an atheist. Therefore they are making a claim, to be an atheist. So we must then ask- What is an atheist? Or rather, we should hold them accountable to their own standards, and ask: What then is the evidence that you offer for your belief that an atheist is simply one who lacks belief in a God? (and thereby attempting to avoid the burden of proof). Or perhaps it could be rephrased: Why should I believe that you really are an atheist? You sound like an agnostic who says that there is not enough evidence to affirm that God does not exist? Prove to me why I should accept you as an atheist.

And our second question should be: What proof do you offer to support the idea that the burden of proof is legitimately placed on the shoulders of theists alone?

All of this involves the ability to recognize truth claims that atheists make, and to hold them accountable for the criteria they wish to impose on the theist. Remember that if they are going to push the burden of proof on only the one who makes the truth claims, then they ought to live by that standard themselves. Sooner or later they will make claims and they need to be pushed to live up to their own standards. Bare assertions are to be challenged for the evidence, after all that is what the high ground is that they are imposing on this discussion or debate, then they too must walk the talk.

In reality, this ploy by atheists, to push the burden of proof onto the theist alone, lacks intellectual integrity. They want to appear as atheists, purporting to take the more stronger position compared to agnosticism, but without the effort involved in supporting their stance. An atheist by the traditional, philosphical standard was one who affirmed- that there is no God. But of course this entails a burden of proof, which is that which they wish to avoid. The opening line of the online article on Atheism from the philosophy department of Stanford University opens thus:

"Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
In short this more recent morph of atheism chooses to keep the name, but adopts the less rigorous, and soft approach of the agnostic- who merely denies the ability to know if God exists, whether or not it is actually so. As such it represents a retreat from hardline atheism and a denial of an accepted definition of the term.

If, indeed the person is an atheist, then they are, by necessity either indirectly or directly claiming that nature is all there is, whether they state it or not, because of the impossibility of the contrary- that is the claim. This is the necessary consequence of denying the existence of God. It is the same as if to claim that an empty room is completely devoid of light, by necessity then, darkness is total, there is no light in there.


The atheist, (whether they admit it or not) trusts that, on the basis of what they feel they know about the world, trusts that what their eyes tell them, what their senses reveal of the nature of reality, that there is no God. They trust in their direct sense perception of reality that God does not exist. Moreover, they trust in the extended sense perception of reality, that is, they trust that science- as a deeper means of discovery- has not revealed the existence of God or even any evidence justifying a belief in God.

Though they claim to make no claims about reality (and thereby attempt to evade the necessity for a burden of proof) in actual fact, because nature abhors a vacuum (even in atheist heads) this is not correct. In exactly the same way that if it is true that a state could exist in which there was no darkness, then the opposite of darkness must be the case.


Are the atheists not claiming that our claims for the existence of God are not true? Are they not the ones who are leading the charge? Being the accuser? Who decides that their faith in the idea- that a supposed absence of evidence is evidence of absence- does not need defending? Who has the right to determine the terms of this debate? What authority does the atheist refer to, in order to set the terms of this debate? For that matter to what authority should the Christian refer to in order to set terms for the debate? Should the theist concede that a lack of belief in God- doesn't need proving, and therefore needs no justification? Do we let them off the defensive hook?


If the current debates had taken place in earlier times, would this situation have been different? Given that in Western culture for centuries, it was impossible not to believe in God, I find it hard to imagine that an atheist would not have been required to defend his lack of belief. This isn’t to say that atheists or agnostics didn’t exist, but rather, they had little or no intellectual ground on which to resist what was the accepted view of reality- the consensus of the culture. This isn’t merely an opinion- this is widely accepted. Even Richard Dawkins, the militant atheist admitted that only after Darwin was “it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”


Comparing the situation of the atheist as it may have been a few centuries ago, and where we find ourselves today raises this question: Is the “Burden of Proof” merely culturally situated? Now that theists are in the minority, (at least in Academia), is that justification enough to put the burden of proof on the theist? Is it right to place the burden of proof on the Christian just because of the times in which we live? Is this yet another form of chronological snobbery that C.S. Lewis referred to? Do the terms by which we decide objective truth get decided by merely being culturally situated in the majority?


Should we allow an atheist worldview to set the agenda?  Where do they get their rule book from- "The Atheist's Guide To Avoid Doing Any Work"?  Who gets to decide on the terms of the discussion? Are we deciding on the basis of science? Is it a question of Science? A question of philosophy?

Who gets to decide?


True, the cultural ground has shifted. Now, the days of being impossible not to believe, are long since gone, Western culture has moved in three major steps. First was the culture in which it was generally impossible not to believe, then a situation in which it was possible not to believe, until our present day in which it is now thought impossible to believe and still be thought of as “intellectually fulfilled”- to borrow Dawkins turn of phrase.


Well, for most atheists they don’t discuss the terms of the discussion, they simply decide that we must discuss this in a way in which the burden of proof lies only on the theists. They simply assume that the burden is on the theist, there really is little discussion about on what terms we have this discussion, it is simply an assumption. This is a strategy. An attempt at deciding on terms without giving any or  little thought or opportunity to the theist to counter that.


If any reasoning is offered it might look something like this:


  • It is not possible to prove a negative statement.
  • “There is no god”, or “there is no evidence for God” are examples of a negative statement.
  • The Christian or theist is the person claiming the positive side. (God exists)
  • Therefore the burden of proof must lie on the Christian or theist.


But wait, the success of a deductive argument depends on the truth of its premises. Is it indeed not possible to prove a negative statement? Hmm let’s see:


“A square circle does not exist.”
"If we can show something to be internally incoherent, we can dismiss the idea. For example, square circles. Do square circles exist? If you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot say no. But the very idea of a square circle is internally incoherent. A circle must, by definition, have no sides. A square, by definition, must have four sides. So the idea of a square circle means that it must have four sides and no sides simultaneously. That is a contradiction. It therefore does not exist.” The Christian Vanguard
So it turns out that in this instance a negative statement can be proven false. It is internally contradictory. The premise of the argument is proven false so the argument fails. A negative statement can be proven.


Lets try another example:


“ There is no elephant in my room”


Well direct observation can prove that negative statement false. The argument fails again. But wait a minute, what happens even if we look closely at the original premise alone without any other consideration:


  • It is not possible to prove a negative statement.

The original premise makes the claim that it is true, that a negative statement can’t be proven. But, that statement itself, is a negative statement “It is not…” If it is true that a negative statement cannot be proven, then, one cannot prove that "it is not possible to prove a negative statement". If it can’t be proven, then we ought not make the statement, because it (being negative) must (according to its truth) render ineffective what it is claiming as true. It therefore self-destructs even on its own terms!



To conclude then, the argument that the Christian must bear the burden of proof on the basis that a negative cannot be proven, is false. This cannot be argued. In fact if the unbeliever is to be consistent, they ought to be silent since they have nothing to say to the matter. If they cannot prove that God does not exist then they ought to keep silence. According to their own terms they have self imposed laryngitis. As William Lane-Craig shows below, the idea of disproving a universal negative is not a tactic used by more knowledgeable atheists.



Lost Ground:


So we must look elsewhere for grounds upon which to hang this burden on the Christian alone, if the argument that they must bear the burden of proof is to succeed.


The burning question is: Do we do harm to our cause by allowing the parameters of the debate be determined by the atheist, and allow the burden of proof to settle only on the Christian?


Naom Chomsky may have had only politics in mind but his saying surely can be applied here:
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
By limiting the discussion in such a way as to preclude the necessity of argument from the unbelievers perspective, the atheist has already gained an advantage. It is much easier to lie in ambush upon a steady train of thought, gradually picking off points of resistance, than to present one's own train of thought and be subject to the same conditions.

I hope it is clear by now, that that the argument to evade giving reasons by which to support atheism by supposing that a negation cannot be proved are groundless. The idea that atheists don't have to give an account for their atheism on the basis that negative statements cannot be proven are not justifiable by logical argument. To be fair, in this particular instance of a negation, (the non-existence of God) it might be extremely difficult to prove, yet nonetheless, as a broad principle, negations are proved all the time.

So, we must ask is there any other reason, another case by which atheists might want to appeal, for withholding their side of the burden of proof? On what other basis, might atheists attempt to justify their unwillingness to defend the belief that God doesn't exist, and thereby avoid having to do the work that is involved in defending that perspective? What other defense can be mustered up, that will afford them shelter from the blistering truth that both renunciations and affirmative propositions of an issue, need to be reasonably and logically defended?


Putting aside for the moment, the question of the existence of God, on what basis have other major questions been settled?


Science

If it was a question strictly concerning science we have a ready answer. Scientific hypotheses have been argued over for a long time now. In general, a ruling scientific paradigm begins to come under scrutiny by those visionaries who do not settle easy on the status quo. For example, Galileo questioned what was then almost unquestionable, the Ptolemaic system. He wasn’t the first to propose a revolution against Geocentricity, but the names of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler are recognized as pivotal in the change that helped usher in the Heliocentric view and the Enlightenment period. Clearly the opposing views waxed and waned in scientific orthodoxy for a long period until the new view was firmly established. But that doesn’t mean that the opposing view made no effort. Aside from the political machinations that tried to squash the new understanding by decree and by force, (both by the pre-scientific establishment and the mistaken loyalty of the church to bad science), the search for proofs was reciprocated on both sides of the debate. In short, deciding on who has the burden of evidence from the perspective of science shows a history of effort on both sides, not merely the one proposing something counter to the status quo.


Philosophy


What about philosophy? How have major questions of philosophy been established? Clearly here too, the history shows a remarkable system of peer review, common to science. In fact, philosophy, being the mother of science, we should have no qualms in accepting that vigorous argumentation, and recourse to “proofs” by all opposing points of view have always been the woof and weave that make up the fabric of philosophic discourse. I venture to say that in the once hallowed departments of philosophy no one would dare to suggest that any opposing view whether in the minority or the majority would get away with opposition without argument. So in philosophy as well as in science the interlocutors all have the burden of proof. All sides of the argument have an equal burden to make sound arguments, or at the very least- strong arguments.


So why do we theists, and Christians put up with it?

This brings us to our third and final authority that the atheist might appeal to in deciding how the terms of this conflict might be conducted. We have looked at both science and philosophy with regard to whether these disciplines allow, or have in their history, instances where all contenders over an issue do not have an equal burden of proof, in deciding how to conduct a case in order to gain access to the truth. In as far as the atheists demand that the burden of proof lies only in the direction of the Christian- it is fair to say that the Christian is placed firmly in "the Dock." The atheist then is clearly appealing to principles upheld by the law by which to frame the terms of the discussion.


Law

Only in the history of law has "the burden of proof" not fallen equally on the shoulders of those parties involved in disputes over any issue of truth.

The history of "the burden of proof" is a legal one whose history goes back beyond some 500 years, but only became more universally accepted since that period. Realistically, the claim of the existence of God by theists, is seen at its core, by the atheist as a question of guilt. Claiming, that theists are guilty of unreason, guilty of gullibility, guilty of swallowing a lie, guilty of promulgating something that isn’t true, and thereby guilty of harming society in some way. This is supposedly, at the heart that motivates atheism. 

Atheists then, play the part of the accuser. 

As such, and since they are appealing to principles of law, we may for these purposes name them as the plaintiff. The atheist denounces theism as a betrayal of a duty to truth. Every denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. Atheists have levelled the charge (of being guilty of not living up to a standard of truth) at theists. The guilt of denying a universal moral imperative- that humanity ought to live up to a standard of truth. Implicit in this claim of atheism is a duty of care that humanity ought to hold only those things that are true. As such it is a commendable ideal.


But if theists are to be charged with this neglect of moral duty towards truth, that is assumed by humanity, that is tacitly assumed by both theist and atheist and agnostic for that matter- then it is up to the atheist, it is incumbent upon atheists, to prove their guilt. This is predicated upon by the long held legal tradition: "Actori incumbit onus probandi" which is a legal maxim in Latin. It means ‘the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.’

If atheists are going to assume, and invoke a legal principle, (the burden of proof), then why is it that they arbitrarily ignore the other legal principles that are co-relative to that principle? 

Why is it that they choose to ignore the principle that in a court of law the case of guilt must be made by the plaintiff and not the defendant. The burden of proof (if they are going to invoke a legal doctrine) is therefore incumbent on the atheists. Why is it that the naysayers, wilfully ignore those parts of the legal tradition that are part of the whole package of deciding a question at a court of law if they are going to appeal to legal precedents? 

Why arbitrarily dismiss the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty? Atheists should, in the name of consistency abide by the legal principles they are assuming. If atheists are going to determine that the terms of the discussion must be accountable to legal terms, then they should abide by those terms themselves. Don't atheists think it somewhat disingenuous to be allowed to set the terms of the discussion, and then ignore one of the terms that have a history of being a part of those terms? Please prove that theists are not innocent of the charges. Prove that what theism holds, is untrue.

The following is an example of an online discussion following a youtube presentation in which "The Burden of Proof" becomes an issue:










Summary:
"Only observe, I pray you how many evasions and ways of escape a slippery mind will invent, which would flee from the truth, and yet cannot get away from it after all." Martin Luther, "The Bondage of the Will"

If the atheist wishes to appeal to a philosophical basis on which to base their negation, then they ought to accept the philosophical definition of atheism- which is the affirmation that there is no God. On this basis then, the onus is on the atheist as much as the theist to prove their cases. 

The burden of proof is shared equally.

If they wish to engage in the argument by appealing from the basis of science, (if that is even possible), then this also involves reasoning with an equal burden of proof. The use of logic and reasoning to support thesis and antithesis, that is by argument and counter- argument, which therefore presupposes that the burden of proof is shared equally.

Only in the case of law is the burden of proof really one sided, and this was designed as a safeguard to protect the defendant (the accused) from a tyrannical government, or to mitigate the possibility of wrongly criminalizing innocent people. With the view, that it is better to err on the side of caution, and find the guilty- innocent, than to send more innocent people to their death or jail. Therefore the defendant is presumed innocent, and the plaintiff, (the prosecutor) must prove guilt. 

The burden of guilt is on the plaintiff. 

In this case, it is critical to decide which party is the plaintiff and who is the defendant. The theist or Christian is claiming that the existence of God is true, and the atheist is claiming that this is a lie. Since the promulgation of a lie is injurious to society, and inversely, everyone understands the benefit of advancing truth, it would seem clear the atheist is prosecuting the theist or Christian. 

The atheist is the plaintiff.

If the atheist is going to make an appeal to law, by which to relieve themselves of the burden of proof, they must either make the case that theists, or Christians are putting the atheist in the dock and are therefore the accusers who must prove the other guilty, or abandon their claim to use principles of law as a means to show that they don't need to prove their case. 

However, if the atheist insists that principles upheld in law, will be used as the determining parameters of the debate, then they must at least bear the twin burdens of proving:

  1.  Why the use of legal principles can be legitimately used in the first place, in contradistinction to best practice in science and philosophy, and secondly-
  2. Why they should not be considered as the plaintiff.