Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 1.2
What you will learn
- Find unstated premises that an argument depends on.
- Explain what the burden of proof is and who carries it in a given conversation.
- Recognize when a person has quietly shifted the burden of proof to the other side.
- State your own starting assumptions honestly when you defend a claim.
The big idea
Every argument rests on more than it says. Hidden assumptions, also called unstated premises, are beliefs the speaker takes for granted and the listener may not share. The burden of proof is the duty to give reasons that falls on the person who makes a claim in a discussion. Careful thinkers bring both into the open. They ask what an argument assumes, and they ask who has promised to show what. Neither side in a debate about God may simply assume its own view and demand that the other prove otherwise.
Key terms
- Assumption
- A belief taken for granted in an argument without being stated or defended.
- Unstated premise
- A premise the argument needs in order to work, which the speaker has left out. Also called an implicit premise.
- Burden of proof
- The responsibility to give reasons that rests on the one who asserts a claim in a discussion.
- Presumption
- A position that is accepted as reasonable until good reasons are given against it.
- Begging the question
- Assuming in a premise the very thing the argument is meant to prove.
- Worldview
- The set of basic beliefs through which a person understands reality, such as whether God exists or whether nature is all there is.
- Basic belief
- A belief held without being based on another belief, such as trust in memory or in the reality of the outside world.
Background
Most arguments that people use in daily life are shortened. Someone says, “That church is wealthy, so it cannot be teaching the gospel,” and leaves out the claim that wealth and faithful teaching exclude each other. Logicians have an old name for such shortened arguments, enthymemes. They are not dishonest by nature, since normal speech cannot spell out everything. But what is left out is often the place where the argument is weakest.
The burden of proof is a rule of fairness in discussion. In a court the prosecution must prove its case, and the accused is presumed innocent. In a philosophical debate no such neutral rule is built in, and people disagree about where the burden lies. Some atheists argue that the one who asserts that God exists carries the burden. Many Christians reply that a flat denial of God is also a claim and needs reasons. Philosophers still discuss this. The sensible course is to be ready to give reasons for what you assert, whichever side you are on.
Everyone also holds some basic beliefs without proof, such as that the past was real and that other minds exist. Alvin Plantinga and others in the Reformed tradition have argued that belief in God can be basic in the same way. Critics reply that belief in God is more disputed than these others and needs support. This is an active debate, not a settled one, and you should state it as a debate.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Ask what must be true for the conclusion to follow
Take the argument and ask: what else would have to be true for these premises to lead to this conclusion? Write that missing statement down. If the missing statement is something both sides accept, the argument may be fine. If it is controversial, the argument is incomplete.
Example: “Miracles are impossible, so the Gospels cannot be historical.” The missing premise is that anything reporting miracles cannot be historical. Many historians and believers would dispute that. The hidden assumption is now visible and open to discussion.
Step 2: Separate shared assumptions from contested ones
In any conversation some things are shared, such as that truth matters or that evidence counts. Others are contested. The skill is to place the disagreement correctly. If a Catholic and a Protestant argue about a papal claim, they may agree on the authority of Scripture and disagree on what Scripture says about Peter. Finding that point saves hours of talking past each other.
Do the same for your own arguments. Ask which assumptions your listener might not share, and be ready to say why you hold them.
Step 3: Identify who has made a claim
A claim is a statement that something is the case. Whoever makes a claim in a discussion takes on some duty to support it if asked. This holds for both “God exists” and “God does not exist.” A person who only asks questions or says “I am not convinced” has made a smaller claim, about their own state of mind, and carries a lighter duty.
That distinction matters. A skeptic who says “I do not see enough evidence” is not obliged to prove anything. A skeptic who says “There is no evidence at all” has made a stronger claim and may be asked to defend it.
Step 4: Watch for a shifted burden
A common mistake is to say, “You cannot disprove my claim, so it is true.” Not being refuted is not the same as being proved. The reverse is equally wrong: “You cannot prove it, so it is false.” Both moves treat a lack of evidence in one direction as evidence in the other.
A Christian who says, “Prove that God does not exist” has shifted the burden, and so has a skeptic who says, “Prove that miracles ever happened, or I will assume they did not.” Neither is a conclusive argument. Each side must make its own case.
Step 5: State your own starting points
Honesty requires naming what you take for granted. A Christian may begin by assuming that Scripture is authoritative, that the creeds are true, or that God exists. That is not shameful. It becomes a problem only if you present the starting point as if it were a neutral conclusion.
A useful sentence is: “Here is where I am starting, and here is why I think it is reasonable.” It tells your listener where the real disagreement lies, and it protects you from circular arguments such as “The Bible is true because the Bible says so.”
- What does this argument take for granted without saying so?
- Would a reasonable person who disagrees accept that unstated premise?
- Who has made a claim here, and who has only expressed doubt?
- Am I asking the other side to disprove something I have not supported?
- What are my own starting assumptions, and can I say why I hold them?
- Does my argument assume the very thing I am trying to prove?
Examples
A hidden premise
“A good God would never allow children to suffer, so there is no God.” The hidden premise is that a good God could have no morally sufficient reason to permit suffering. Christians dispute that premise, and so do some philosophers who are not Christians. Once it is written down, the real debate begins. (Constructed example.)
A shifted burden
A speaker says, “Nobody has ever shown that the early church invented the resurrection story. So it must be true.” The speaker has turned a lack of refutation into proof. A better argument would give positive reasons and answer the leading alternative theories. (Constructed example.)
A circular argument
“This church teaches the truth because it is the true church, and we know it is the true church because it teaches the truth.” The conclusion is assumed in the premise. Traditions that claim authority for their church generally offer other reasons, such as Scripture or history, which can then be examined. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic thought
Catholic teaching holds that reason and faith work together, and that some truths about God can be known by reason. Catholic apologists therefore often accept a burden to give reasons, while holding that final assent to the faith is a gift of grace.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox writers often say that the Christian faith is known by participation in the life of the church, not only by argument. They do not usually deny that reasons can be given, but they place little weight on a neutral starting point from which everything is proved.
Reformed Protestant thought
Plantinga and other Reformed epistemologists hold that belief in God can be properly basic, which means it can be rational without being derived from other beliefs. Critics, including some Christians, ask whether this makes faith immune from challenge.
Evidentialist views (Christian and secular)
Evidentialists hold that a belief should be proportioned to the evidence. Some Christians accept this and offer historical and philosophical evidence, as Richard Swinburne does. Many skeptics use the same principle in the other direction.
Skeptical and secular view
Many atheists and agnostics hold that extraordinary claims need strong support and that the one proposing a claim about the supernatural must support it. They often add that a lack of belief is not itself a claim. Christians respond that every worldview, including naturalism, rests on assumptions that need defending.
Why it matters
Many arguments about God fail not because anyone reasoned badly in the middle, but because each side began from different assumptions and never said so. Bringing them out saves time, prevents bad-faith moves and shows respect to the person you are speaking with. It also makes your own faith clearer to you, since you must say what you actually rely on.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Having assumptions means I am being biased and irrational.
Correction: Everyone reasons from assumptions, including skeptics. The question is not whether you have them but whether you know what they are, can give reasons for them, and are willing to revisit them.
Misunderstanding: Only the person who believes in God has to give reasons.
Correction: Anyone who asserts a claim about God, in either direction, can fairly be asked for reasons. Someone who only says they are unconvinced has made a more modest claim.
Misunderstanding: If you cannot disprove it, I may treat it as true.
Correction: Failure to refute is not proof. The same applies in reverse. A claim needs positive support.
Misunderstanding: Starting from the Bible is always circular.
Correction: It is circular only if the Bible is used to prove its own authority to someone who does not accept it. Starting from Scripture within a Christian conversation is simply naming a shared base. Outside it, other kinds of reasons, such as historical ones, will be needed.
Knowledge check
What is an unstated premise, and why does it matter?
It is a belief an argument needs but does not say. It matters because it may be false or contested, and the argument depends on it. Bringing it out lets both sides see exactly what they disagree about, and it often reveals why an argument seemed convincing to one person and empty to another.
Who carries the burden of proof in a discussion about God?
There is no single agreed rule. A reasonable practice is that whoever asserts a claim, whether for or against God, should be ready to give reasons. Someone who only says they are not convinced carries a lighter duty. Philosophers still debate the question, so it should be described as debated.
What is wrong with the claim, ‘You cannot disprove it, so it is true’?
It treats a lack of refutation as proof. Many false claims have never been refuted, and many true ones were doubted for years. A claim needs positive support, and the same standard applies to claims on both sides.
What does it mean to beg the question?
It means placing the conclusion, in different words, among the premises. The argument looks like it proves something but only restates it. The remedy is to find independent reasons for the premise in question.
Why should an apologist state his or her own starting assumptions?
It is honest, and it shows the listener where the real disagreement lies. It also prevents circular reasoning and builds trust. A listener who sees that you know your assumptions is more likely to consider that you have thought about them.
Think it through
- What three assumptions most shape how you read the Bible? Can you give a reason for each?
- Have you ever asked someone to disprove your view instead of supporting it? How could you have handled that better?
- Does it feel unfair to you to be asked to defend a belief you hold deeply? Why or why not?
- How might an Orthodox Christian and a Reformed Protestant differ in what they take to be a basic starting point?
Independent assignment
Uncovering assumptions
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Choose a short argument for a Christian claim and a short argument against one (from reading or a conversation). For each, write the premises, then list at least two unstated assumptions. Say which side seems to carry the burden of proof at that point and why. Finish by listing three assumptions you yourself bring to the discussion of Christian faith. Keep this private.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Read the entries on begging the question and on appeals to ignorance.
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Read selectively to see the argument that belief in God may be properly basic, and note the objections raised in the literature.
- Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God A model of an argument that states its starting principles openly.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion Read to meet a classic skeptical view of evidence and the burden of proof.
- Proverbs 18:17 The first to state a case seems right until the other comes and examines him.
- Acts 17:22 Paul begins from what his hearers already know.