Blog - Monday, March 1, 2010 11:29 - 47 Comments

The Burden of Proof

Time and time again I have had conversations with people who completely misunderstand the burden of proof, so I though I might state it as clearly as I can here, once and for all.

Imagine, if you will, that there are two people in a room.  At first no one is speaking to the other.  No one has made a claim which they need to back up with a logical argument, or (shock/horror) even evidence.  No one at this stage bears the burden of proof.  Then one of them pipes up:

“This table is made of wood.”

Not a massive claim, I know, but a claim none the less.  A claim which is easily verified by the other person observing the table and concluding it is indeed made from wood.  There is evidence to support the gentleman’s claim and the claim is accepted.  Now let’s suppose he adds:

“The wood came from Noah’s Ark.”

Now this is a hell of a claim, with many ramifications for it presupposes Noah’s existence and a global flood.  Notwithstanding, should we accept his claim on face value, or request the evidence that leads inescapably to this conclusion?  If no evidence or even a logical argument can be presented to support this claim, why accept it as truth?

Same goes for a God.

If you claim there is a mystical invisible entity residing outside of space and time, then please provide evidence this is actually the case.  If you further claim that this entity took human form and killed himself to wash away something called “sin” with his blood – well you certainly have your work cut out for you.

Keep in mind it is NOT up to the sceptic to disprove your claims.  Take, for example, this conversation:

You: “There are no diamonds in the trunk of my car”

Me: “OK”

That’s it.  Why should anyone investigate the claim any further?  Do it make any difference to anyone if there really are not diamond in your car?  Do I have any reason to suspect otherwise?  In a recent conversation the response to this question was:

“What if you were a thief and believed I did have diamonds in the truck of my car?  Then you might get mad and assault me.”

What the author of this comment failed to realise is that the thief holds a belief for which there is no evidence.  He is in error and acts upon his illogical and unsupported beliefs with horrible results.  To anyone familiar with religions, this should sound very familiar.

So why do so many theistic arguments go along these lines?

Me: “I can see no evidence of god”

Theist: “You’re not looking had enough”