Something I hear atheists say a lot is along the lines of "I don't
have to prove that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the
theist to prove that God does exist." This phrase "burden of proof" is a
technical one from the field of philosophy. According to Wikipedia:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
Wikipedia continues...
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim.
There is actually nothing intrinsic about a claim that puts the burden of proof on the one who's making it. All in all, this is semantics and rhetoric which are used to avoid the issue. But we don't actually need to worry too much about who, technically, has the burden of proof; or whether it even makes sense to assign a burden of proof to either side in the case of atheism vs theism. Atheists say "the burden of proof is on the theist, so I don't have to do anything," and then they sit back and wait for the theist to try to convince them of something. But let's consider the following analogy...
Imagine you're born on an island in a tribe who has never seen any other land. When they look out to sea, there are no other coastlines to be seen. It's just horizon in every direction. And no one has ever traveled far enough in their canoe to see other land. And so one day you have a philosophical discussion with a friend. You say "I believe that if we could swim far enough we would find other lands." Your friend says "I see no evidence of that. I don't believe there are other lands at all." Of these two claims, who has the burden of proof? I'm going to say, "Who cares?" If we argue about who has the burden of proof and finally decide who, indeed, has the burden of proof, does that change who's right about the question of whether other lands exist?
Now, let's
imagine that the answer to this question matters to these people. Let's
imagine that some disaster happens on this island... a hurricane which
causes so much damage that most of the crops and most of the livestock
and most of the people's property are destroyed. Survival on this island
is now in peril. So you say to your friend, "I want to get in this
canoe and travel further than anyone has before to see if we can find
another land where there may be resources to bring back and help our
people survive. But I need your help." Because your friend doesn't
believe that there are other lands, he says "No, you can't take the
canoe; one of the few we have left. There's nothing out there." So you
go on your own anyway. And you do find land, and you bring back food and
other resources. You're the hero of the people. Now, what value was there to your friend
having said "The burden of proof is on you..." All it meant was that he
was unwilling to participate in the search for truth, even when it
mattered. He was quite sure of himself, but he didn't really know that
there were no other lands. Lucky for him, in this tale all that he
suffered was a bruised ego. I'm sure he'll get over it.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
Wikipedia continues...
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim.
There is actually nothing intrinsic about a claim that puts the burden of proof on the one who's making it. All in all, this is semantics and rhetoric which are used to avoid the issue. But we don't actually need to worry too much about who, technically, has the burden of proof; or whether it even makes sense to assign a burden of proof to either side in the case of atheism vs theism. Atheists say "the burden of proof is on the theist, so I don't have to do anything," and then they sit back and wait for the theist to try to convince them of something. But let's consider the following analogy...
Imagine you're born on an island in a tribe who has never seen any other land. When they look out to sea, there are no other coastlines to be seen. It's just horizon in every direction. And no one has ever traveled far enough in their canoe to see other land. And so one day you have a philosophical discussion with a friend. You say "I believe that if we could swim far enough we would find other lands." Your friend says "I see no evidence of that. I don't believe there are other lands at all." Of these two claims, who has the burden of proof? I'm going to say, "Who cares?" If we argue about who has the burden of proof and finally decide who, indeed, has the burden of proof, does that change who's right about the question of whether other lands exist?
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
No comments:
Post a Comment