Atheism and the Burden of Proof

In a formal debate, one side usually has the burden of proof. What does that mean? It depends on what is being debated. What about God's existence? Well, it depends on how it is phrased. If the debate is entitled simply "Does God exist?", then where does the burden of proof lie? It lies on both sides. Why? The theist has the burden to give us good reasons to accept God's existence; and the atheist has the burden to give us good reasons to not accept God's existence.

Well, atheists try to free themselves from this burden by re-defining atheism. Traditionally, atheism has been the metaphysical thesis that there is no God, gods, or godesses. Now, some philosophers are defining it to mean "lack of belief in such God(s)". Why? If atheism is mere lack of belief, then they don't have the burden of proving anything. They claim that they don't assert anything, so they have no assertions to prove. Whereas, the theist asserts the positive claim that God does exist. In sum, atheists redefine atheism in order to have the burden of proof shifted from their shoulders to the theist's.

What is wrong with this tactic? Do only positive claims bear the burden of proof? Let's look at where the word 'atheism' comes from. It's Greek - a (meaning 'no', or 'without') and theos (meaning 'God'). How is the 'a' being used? What is it negating? Is it used in the same way as 'amoral', which would mean 'without morality'? Does it negate a 'belief', or the 'existence of something'? Philosopher Antony Flew (recent convert to Deism) wants to define 'atheist' along the lines of 'atypical', 'amoral', etc . . . Under this definition, 'atheism' is simply someone who's not a theist. But, theists respond, 'atypical' doesn't mean 'someone who is not a typicalist', or 'someone who is not a moralist'. The 'a' in those instances negate the term itself. If you're 'amoral', you're someone where there is no morality, and the same for 'typicality'. To be consistent, Flew would have to say that 'atheist' means to be someone claiming to be in a state where there is no God.

Philosopher Michael Martin agrees with atheism's Greek origins, but then says that these origins entail 'lack of belief in God'. Hmmmm. It seems 'belief' just sneaks into the definition. Where did it come from? What reason do we have to import it? It seems 'a' merely negates God, not 'belief in God'.

Is this new definition just a 'weak atheism' of sorts? Well, if you reduce it to that, it seems no different than agnosticism. Thomas Huxely, who coined the word, has this to say: "Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence . . . It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

We might call this 'weak atheism', then, 'soft agnosticism'. Huxely might be a 'hard agnostic'.

What about the burden of proof? Does it always rest on the shoulders of those who make a positive claim? It doesn't seem so. What about this negative claim: Death does not exist. That seems like a negative claim that requires the burden of proof. Plus, this only confuses things, because when you think about it, every single claim one can make can be either postive or negative. I can make 'God exists' say 'It's not the case that God doesn't exist.' And I can make the atheist say 'It IS the case that God does not exist.' Here is the key to determining where the burden should fall - given our background knowledge (given all that we know or that common sense teaches us), what is the most plausible?

Another condition might be whether or not the position entails something momentous or life-changing. In this case, both theism and atheism shoulder the burden, since either position entail something drastic. But the atheist doesn't shoulder his burden if he just points out there are no good reasons for theism - absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. But this condition only applies to non-obvious examples - and the existence/non-existence of God certainly falls in this category. For example, if I said 'There is no Hippo.' in the room we are both in, then if my reason for this is that I don't have a reason, then I haven't violated a 'burden of proof' rule. It's obvious there is no Hippo.

But if I said, 'There is a flea on the ground.' in that same room, we couldn't dismiss it so quickly. It's not obvious. Thus, I'd shoulder the burden of proof of demonstrating it.

Also, it seems atheists commit the fallacy of 'appeal to ignorance'. If you commit this fallacy, you deny X because there is no good reason to believe X. This is a fallacy, because you haven't gone the whole way. In other words, just because you have no good reason to believe X, doesn't mean you're justified in disbelieving X. You ALSO need good reasons to disbelieve X.

If the atheist still persists in their definition, we can revise Theism along the same lines. We could say, "Well I don't make the positive claim that God does exist; I just lack a belief in the non-existence of God.' So, it just seems like the atheist is playing word-games. The absurdity also follows that if the atheist definition is right, then animals and babies are officially soft-agnostics, since they lack belief in God. So, it just seems like atheists have consciously warped the definition in order to avert the burden of proof in formal discussions on the topic of God's existence.