The burden of proof - YouTube

Imagine someone tells you that somewhere beneath the surface of Pluto

there's a tiny werewalrus that sends them psychic messages every midnight

... while juggling skulls on an indigo plinth.

You ask for evidence, but they respond by saying, "You can't prove me wrong!"

Investigating this claim would be beyond the limits of current technology.

But does that mean we therefore have good reason to take this person's claim seriously?

What if we adopted this approach whenever we wanted to establish a factual claim?

We could spend lifetimes coming up with countless fantastic claims

there's no practical way of investigating

dismissing any scepticism with a mindless chorus of "You can't prove me wrong!"

What if encyclopaedias were filled with lists of claims that were given factual status

merely because, even though no evidence was produced to support them

no one could prove them false?

But of course, we don't compile books like that.

We're not obliged to accept or take seriously every claim we can't prove false.

And something that helps to save us from spending unnecessary time and energy

on claims that have no merit is the burden of proof.

When someone makes a factual claim

the obligation lies with them to support their claim;

it is not the obligation of the sceptic to prove the claim false.

Many who make supernatural existence claims

try to avoid this basic next step of supporting their claim.

For example, when asked to give 'a case for God' in an exchange on US television

evangelical pastor Douglas Wilson denied his burden of proof.

When asked "Who do you think carries the burden of proof?"

Wilson replied, "I believe the one who denies the self-evident fact that God exists."

But this reply is so flawed that it's incoherent.

If everyone agreed it was self- evident that Wilson's god existed

there would be no one denying it!

Divine existence is the very thing being disputed

and evidence is what Wilson has yet to produce.

He can't stampede us into accepting the very thing he needs to establish

simply by declaring it to be 'self-evident'.

Wilson claims as fact that a god exists

and it's this act of claim-making that saddles him with the burden of proof.

It's revealing that Wilson also said in this exchange

that much of the debate about divine existence has to do with

what he called "scrambling for the high ground of who has to do the proving".

It may feel like scrambling to Wilson, but in fact the issue is clear-cut.

When Wilson chooses to make the bold claim that a god exists, he has to do the proving.

He can't shift his burden of proof to his opponent.

"Well if God didn't create the universe, what did?"

Questions like this are examples of another common form of burden-shifting.

The underlying implication is that if the sceptic

can't explain just how our universe came to be

then the idea that a god created it somehow wins by default.

But that's not how it works.

Answers involving supernatural beings don't get a free pass.

They must be substantiated like any other candidate answer.

And even if divine answers to this question were acceptable

monotheism would have to jostle with a potentially limitless variety of polytheisms.

The very notion that a question as complex and involved as this

has a default answer (other than "I don't know") is misguided.

Learning about our universe takes time and disciplined work

so demanding that everything has an explanation NOW is an untenable position

and inserting supernatural beings into the inevitable gaps in our current knowledge

commits the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

Furthermore, plenty of everyday examples show us that not knowing a specific answer

doesn't prevent us eliminating alternatives.

One reason we eliminate supernatural answers is that they lack explanatory power.

Saying a god created our universe doesn't explain how it was created.

And poetic metaphors are no more illuminating.

Saying a god 'speaks' things into creation, for example

doesn't explain how divine speech results in creation.

Gods and poetry get us no closer to the process we're actually interested in.

They only push the question further back, while the actual process remains unknown.

And this is ultimately what so-called divine explanations give us:

"I don't know" hidden under a supernatural wrapping.

Remove the wrapping and we get an honourable answer.

Rejecting inadequate answers doesn't automat- ically oblige us to know the actual answer.

Rejecting divine pseudo- explanations doesn't mean

we have to know everything about the universe.

Some insist that, "Saying you don't have a belief

in any god because of the absence of evidence

isn't good enough - you must give an argument for divine non-existence."

Or, more emphatically:

"Failing to give arguments for non-existence is virtually to concede the debate

to the person who at least gives some arguments, however weak, for divine existence."

But we can easily show this is false.

Let's imagine that debate.

A gives some arguments for the position that a god exists.

B, A's opponent, gives no arguments for divine non-existence.

However, what B does during the debate is show that all of A's arguments are invalid.

What is the outcome of this exchange?

Far from having to concede the debate, B has shown that A has no case.

The significant result is that we're left with no reason to believe that A's god exists.

Crucially, at the end of the debate, B has no reason to change position

but A, lacking valid justification, does.

The sceptic doesn't 'owe' the claim- maker arguments for non-existence.

The burden lies with the claim- maker to present an adequate case.

If they fail to do so, their claim fails.

It can certainly be an advantage for the sceptic to have a well-reasoned position.

Acquainting oneself with the stock arguments for divine existence, for example

provides useful illustrations of flawed reasoning

if one wants to learn some of the traps to avoid when constructing valid arguments.

But the sceptic is not obliged to waste her time preparing non-existence arguments

for any supernatural claim that might come her way.

The monotheist may be so deeply embedded in his belief

that he fails to appreciate how bizarre it can seem from the outside.

But to the non-believer, the claim of a divine creator

is often just one of a potentially limitless ragbag of ideas

we have no good reason to give credence to.

Debates about divine existence

have been characterised as "a game played with two different rules"

with the complaint that "theism can be critiqued while non-belief remains invincible".

In fact, there's only one rule:

When you choose to make a claim in debate, you give yourself a burden of proof.

If you claim that a god exists, and shouldering that burden is too much for you

it's always within your power to withdraw your claim.

But trying to imply there's a double standard

because your claim naturally attracts criticism from people

who see no evidence to support it, is playing the victim.

The real double standard

is expecting someone who's made no claim to bear your burden of proof.

Those who feel frustrated that theistic arguments fail

might do better asking *why* they fail.

Perhaps one of the most transparent attempts to shift the burden of proof

comes from theists who, in debate, re-phrase their position

as 'lacking belief in the non-existence of gods'.

Trying to convert a claim into a non- claim by aping the sceptic's position

doesn't magically rid a disputed concept of the need for justification.

For the theist who goes to these lengths to try to avoid the burden of proof

one has to wonder about their strength of conviction.

If there are sound, solid reasons for believing in supernatural beings

why not simply lay out those reasons

instead of wasting time with this curious denial dance?

If a scientist speaking at a conference, complained about the unfairness

of having to present evidence for their claims, they'd empty the auditorium.

But in the realm of supernatural claims

we consistently encounter people who are reluctant, even indignant

when reminded of their burden of proof.

In many ways, this isn't surprising.

The expectation of evidence is kryptonite to claims that lack sufficient support.

People who pretend to be psychic have developed an arsenal of smoke and mirror tactics

to fend off critical questions.

For centuries, certain religions have contrived to demonize questions

and, in the process, developed a skewed complacency about not answering them.

But today, increasingly, we understand that there's no valid basis

for letting supernatural claims escape justification

and we see through institutions that forbid or evade questions

that declare themselves unaccountable.

We're rightly critical of them and we expect and demand better.

If certain groups, over the centuries, have grown accustomed

to not substantiating their claims

so that they regard the mere suggestion as impudent

the way we resolve that is not by letting them remain accustomed

to dismissing their burden of proof

but by pointing out that they were at fault for growing so accustomed in the first place.

Supernatural claims that have thrived historically

by submerging themselves in mystery

are now more than ever, in the information age

being fished out into the glare of rigorous enquiry.

And they're suffering in their new, alien environment.

Their old tricks aren't so effective on the more critical modern mind.

Booming threats don't cow us into obedience as in years gone by.

Too many of us know what's going on behind the curtain.

In greater and greater numbers, we're out- growing the long intellectual stagnation

of humankind's superstitious adolescence

and we're exposing supernatural claims

that have bluffed and bullied their way into a position of unearned respect.

They deserve no reverence

and should be processed with no more ceremony than any other claim.

Clearly, demanding evidence for every statement uttered would make interaction impossible.

But those who make bold supernatural claims

should get used to owning their burden of proof.

In science, owning a burden of proof is routine

because it's understood by those who observe scientific principles

that claims require justification.

It's expected that authors of scientific papers will explain their reasoning and evidence.

And it's common for this to be done not grudgingly but enthusiastically.

If we're interested in holding justified beliefs

finding out which claims have valid support and which don't

is something to embrace, not avoid.

It's when we stake our egos, hopes or identities on specific claims

that we create needless problems

because anything that then threatens the claim also threatens us.

The burden of proof becomes threatening

because having to justify the claim risks discovering that we can't do so.

In this way, our ability to assess the claim becomes fatally undermined

by a personal need for it to be true, whether or not it has valid support.

If, on the other hand, we commit ourselves not to specific claims

but to refining knowledge, we can watch claims gather support or collapse

without the burden of proof posing any personal threat.

Meeting a burden of proof isn't always easy

but without this mechanism

without people volunteering, "Here's my new idea and the evidence to support it"

our education would be at a standstill.

Fortunately, a long history of genuine contributors to education

haven't been so unforthcoming.

Supernatural claim-makers who think they're somehow exempt

from the standards that apply to other claim-makers are mistaken

and, in an increasingly educated world, their special pleading

will only see them being left behind in the darkness of past ignorance

where many of their claims originated.

Extraordinary claims have an inescapable burden of proof.

When those who make extraordinary claims

don't, for whatever reason, take their burden of proof seriously

they relieve us of the burden of taking their CLAIM seriously.