Who carries the burden of proof, and when

Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 4.1

What you will learn

• Define burden of proof and presumption and explain how they work in law and in everyday argument.
• Explain why the burden usually falls on the person who makes a claim and how it can shift.
• Describe the dispute over whether belief in God or unbelief is the default position.
• Recognize the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and apply the idea fairly to both sides.

The big idea

The burden of proof is the responsibility to give reasons for a claim. In ordinary discussion it usually rests on the person who asserts something that others are not already prepared to accept. The idea comes from law, where the accuser must prove a charge. In religious debate it is contested: believers and unbelievers each sometimes claim that the other side must prove its case. A fair approach asks what each side is claiming, what each side already shares with the other, and how strong a standard of proof is appropriate to the claim.

Key terms

Burden of proof

The responsibility to give enough reasons to support a claim when it is challenged.

Presumption

A position taken as acceptable until good reasons are given against it, such as the legal presumption of innocence.

Standard of proof

The level of support required before a claim is accepted. Law distinguishes a balance of probabilities from proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Default position

The view that is held unless and until reasons are given to leave it.

Shifting the burden

A fallacy in which a person who made a claim demands that others disprove it instead of supporting it.

Negative claim

A claim that something does not exist or did not happen. It is sometimes held that such claims cannot be proved, but this is disputed.

Agnosticism

The view that it is not known, or cannot be known, whether God exists. The word was coined by T. H. Huxley in the nineteenth century.

Background

The idea of a burden of proof comes from legal practice. In criminal trials in many countries a person is presumed innocent, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases the standard is lower: the side bringing the claim must show that it is more probable than not. The Roman governor Festus in Acts 25:16 describes a similar principle when he says it is not the Roman custom to hand over a man before the accused has met his accusers face to face.

In debate outside court there is no judge to assign the burden. People must agree on it, and often they do not. The question matters a great deal in apologetics, because it determines who is required to start and how much has to be shown. It can be abused by both sides, so it is worth studying carefully.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The basic rule

The common rule is that whoever makes a claim that others do not already accept bears the burden of supporting it. If a friend says there is a tree in the yard, and everyone can see it, no proof is needed. If a friend says that a rare bird nested in the tree last night, the friend should be ready to say why. The more surprising or important the claim, the more support it needs.

This does not mean that those who doubt a claim have no responsibility at all. They must at least be honest about their reasons for doubting, and they carry their own burden for any positive claims they make in return.

Step 2: Positive and negative claims

A popular saying is that the burden lies on those who assert a positive claim, such as that something exists, and not on those who deny it. The philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrated this with a teapot said to circle the sun, too small to be seen: the claim is not proved by the fact that no one can disprove it. The principle has real force.

It has limits, though. A negative claim can also need support. Someone who says that there was no such person as Jesus, or that no moral truths exist, makes a claim that is open to question. In such cases both parties have claims and both must give reasons. Many philosophers also point out that every claim can be restated in a negative form, so the rule needs care in use.

Step 3: The dispute over the default

In religious debate, each side often argues that it need not prove anything. Some atheists, following the philosopher Antony Flew’s essay The Presumption of Atheism (1972), say that unbelief is the default position and that theists must make the case. Many Christian philosophers reply that belief in God is a natural belief, held by most people in history, and that Alvin Plantinga has argued it may be rationally held without argument, like belief in other minds.

Others say that no side has an automatic advantage. The question whether God exists is a question about reality that both sides try to answer. On this view each side takes on the burden of supporting its own account, and the agnostic is free to ask which does better. Several philosophers have proposed that the debate would go better if the language of burden were replaced with the question, what are the best arguments on each side?

Step 4: Standards and stakes

The amount of support required depends on the claim and what hangs on it. A claim that is plausible and has low stakes needs little. A claim that conflicts with a great deal of well-established knowledge, or that would be costly if wrong, needs more. A miracle claim, for example, is unusual, and many hold that it needs stronger evidence than a claim about an ordinary event. Christians who believe in miracles answer that the evidence for particular miracles must be weighed on its merits, not ruled out in advance.

Standards should also be applied evenly. If a skeptic demands near certainty from believers, the same skeptic should apply the same standard to naturalism or materialism. If a believer demands that critics produce a complete explanation of the origin of the universe, the same demand should be put to theism. A double standard is a common source of bad argument.

Step 5: Using the idea well

A useful habit is to state, at the start of a discussion, what each party claims and who is willing to defend what. Many disputes dissolve when it becomes clear that one person is only asking questions and the other is defending a conclusion. Another habit is to resist the temptation to win by default, by declaring that the other side has failed to prove its case, while offering nothing in return.

The Christian tradition asks believers to be ready to give a reason for their hope (1 Peter 3:15). That implies a willingness to carry some burden. It does not require pretending that others carry none.

1. Who usually carries the burden of proof in everyday discussion, and why?
2. What does the teapot example show, and what are its limits?
3. Why do some argue for a presumption of atheism and others for belief in God as natural?
4. How does the level of proof needed depend on the claim?
5. What is a double standard of proof, and where might it appear in a religious debate?
6. What would be a fair way to start a discussion in which both parties disagree about who must prove what?

Examples

Different perspectives

Reformed epistemology (Plantinga and others)

Plantinga and his followers argue that belief in God can be properly basic, meaning reasonable without being inferred from other beliefs, much as belief in other minds or in the past is. On this view the believer does not start with a large burden, though belief may be defeated by good objections.

Evidentialist philosophers

Philosophers such as W. K. Clifford in the nineteenth century and Antony Flew in the twentieth argued that beliefs should be proportioned to evidence, and that religious claims need positive evidence. Some modern atheists hold that unbelief is the neutral starting point.

Roman Catholic

Catholic teaching holds that God’s existence can be known by reason and that faith is reasonable. It is not typically framed as a question of who has the burden. Catholic apologetics has often accepted the task of presenting reasons, as in Aquinas’s Five Ways.

Presuppositionalists

These writers hold that the question of burden hides a deeper question: by what standard is evidence to be judged? They argue that no neutral standard exists and that each worldview carries the burden of showing that it can justify reasoning.

Agnostic and secular views

Many agnostics hold that both theists and atheists make claims about reality and both must give reasons. Some secular philosophers note that the language of burden is better suited to courtrooms than to metaphysics.

Why it matters

Debates about God often stall on the question of who should speak first. A student who understands the burden of proof can see what is reasonable in each side’s request and what is merely a tactic. It also teaches a habit of honesty: to state clearly what one is claiming, to be ready to give reasons, and to accept that the same rules apply to people who disagree.

Common misunderstandings

Knowledge check

Think it through

1. In your last disagreement, who was making a claim and who was asking for proof?
2. Do you hold any belief without having given reasons for it? Is that acceptable?
3. What would it cost you to apply the same standard of proof to your own view that you apply to others?
4. Is there a way to begin a conversation without arguing over who goes first?

Independent assignment

Assigning the burden

In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Pick three disputed claims, one religious, one scientific and one about a historical event. For each, state who is making a claim, what standard of proof seems fitting and why, and what reasons are on offer. Then write a paragraph on whether you applied the same fairness to each. Keep this for yourself.

Further study

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Read the entries on shifting the burden and appeal to ignorance.
• Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Read selectively for the argument that belief in God can be properly basic.
• Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God See how a philosopher assigns probabilities to claims in a cumulative case.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hiddenness of God A related question: why God’s existence is not more evident.
• Acts 25:16 Read Festus’s remark about accusers and the accused.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Read the call to test all things and hold fast what is good.