Whenever I find myself in a debate with a theist (which, believe it or not, is quite
often), one of the first things I find myself explaining is that contrary to what they’ve
just called me, I’m not a ‘professional atheist’.
I’m as much as professional atheist as I’m a professional non-stamp collector.
Now this tends to both annoy and confuse the theist, because in their mind (at least in
most cases) an atheist is someone who asserts that no gods exist, but in my mind (and in
the mind of most self-described atheists) an atheist is someone who simply isn’t convinced
by the claims of theism.
The problem, of course, is that the difference between these two definitions is paramount
– it’s the difference between making an assertion and not – between having a Burden
of Proof and not.
This, is The Atheist’s Burden of Proof – Debunked.
So let’s begin by clearly defining ‘theism’, ‘atheism’ and ‘The Burden of Proof’,
starting with the latter – because, why the hell not?
Whether we’re in the context of philosophy or law, the Burden of Proof is defined as
‘The obligation to prove one’s assertion’.
If you assert something (anything), then guess what?
You’ve just incurred a Burden of Proof – and it doesn’t matter if you posed it in the
positive (such as I have a pet Bearded Dragon), or in the negative (such as I don’t have
a pet lion) – if you’ve made an assertion, you have the obligation to prove it.
Simple stuff, right?
Moving on, ‘theism’ is defined as ‘The belief that at least one god exists’, and
so a ‘theist’ is ‘Someone who believes that at least one god exists’.
There are, of course, other definitions, but this is the generally accepted… it’s not
controversial.
The definition of ‘atheism’, however, as alluded to in the intro, is controversial,
because it’s defined by theists and self-described agnostics as ‘The belief that there are
no gods’, and by self-described atheists as ‘A lack of belief in gods’...
‘The best definition I've found for atheism is that it is not the denial of gods, it is
a lack of belief in gods.
This is an incredibly important distinction to make’ ‘All atheism is is a lack of
belief in a particular deity, chiefly due to lack of evidence.’
‘Atheism is non-belief in the existence of a deity.
It doesn't make assertions and it doesn't in anyway address knowledge.
Non-belief is the default position until the burden of proof is met’; ‘Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods!’
‘The definition of atheist is a person who lacks belief, or does not believe, in god.
Period.’
‘I try to clarify this with people who're under the impression, usually with negative
connotations, that, you know, atheists think they know there's no god, but really, I really
subscribe to the passing of that - which is that that's not the case - what it is is that
it's unreasonable for me to believe there is a god.’
Now I personally prefer to define an atheist as ‘Someone who isn’t convinced by the
claims of theism’, because, in short, I think that the word ‘lack’ implies that
something’s missing, but for the purpose of this video I’m going to use (unless otherwise
stated) the definition that most self-described atheists adhere to – ‘Someone who lacks
a belief in gods’.
Anyhow, with these definitions in mind, let’s make this as simple as possible.
It’s either the case that ‘at least one god exists’ – that is, that theism is
true (which we’ll represent as P), or it is not the case that ‘at least one god exists’
– that is, that theism is false (which we’ll represent as –P).
Now as soon as someone asserts P, that theism is true, they incur a Burden a Proof, because
they’ve made an assertion, and consequently must now prove it – and, typically, that’s
what an atheist will ask them to do.
In response, the theist, typically, then presents at least one argument (for example, The Watchmaker
Analogy), which logically speaking translates to “P because of X” – that ‘at least
one god exists’ because ‘The Watchmaker Analogy’ is valid.
From here, the atheist examines X (if they haven’t already) and subsequently states
that it’s invalid – but here’s where things get a little confusing.
Once the atheist asserts, in this case, that the Watchmaker Analogy is erroneous, they
too incur the Burden to Proof – they incur the burden to prove –X, but they don’t
incur the burden to prove –P, and this distinction is the heart of the confusion.
You see, if ‘atheism’ is defined (as the opponents of atheism insist on) ‘The belief
that there are no gods’, then in this scenario we can’t call the atheist an atheist at
all, because they didn’t, in any way, assert that “It’s not the case that at least
one god exists”.
But if ‘atheism’ is defined (as most self-described atheists insist on) ‘A lack of belief in
gods’, then in this scenario the atheist is an atheist, and they don’t have the burden
to prove –P. And so what I’m saying here is that whether or not atheists inherently
have a Burden of Proof depends entirely on how atheism is defined – and since it stands
to reason that those who self-describe as an atheist get to define their own position,
ergo, atheists don't inherently have a Burden of Proof…
Capisce?
‘Why do you get to define what an atheist is?’.
‘Don’t tell me I’m an atheist!
I’m an agnostic!’.
‘But Steeevvveeee, the majority of people don’t define atheism this way!’.
‘Don’t you get it?
In academic philosophy atheism is defined as the belief that no gods exist!’.
‘My church says that atheism is the--’ Look…
I get it, I've read through your comments on my David Mitchell video; there's many definitions
of atheism, and I don't get to decide which one is valid, but remember, words are not
authorities, they're tools of communication, and so what matters is what people are trying
to communicate – and so, again, since most self-described atheists define their atheism
not as ‘The belief that no gods exist’ but as ‘A lack of belief in gods’, they,
say it with me kids, don’t inherently have a Burden of Proof.
Capisce?
Okay, now with this settled [it’s done…
Yes Mr. Frodo], I want to conclude by clearing up one more thing.
If, as I’ve unfortunately witnessed a few times, an atheist was to say that because
X is false P is also false, then he or she would be committing a Fallacy Fallacy, because
he or she would be asserting that because an argument for a proposition is false so
too is the proposition.
Now the reason I bring this up is because regardless to how someone defines their atheism,
if they assert or infer that no gods exist, then they do indeed have a Burden of Proof,
and so this is something worth watching out for.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, an extra special thank to my wonderful
patrons and those of you who’ve donated via PayPal, and further special thank you
to Ozymandias Ramses the Second for taking the time to discuss this topic with me.
Cheers, Sir!
I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated our conversation – thank you.
Stay rational my fellow apes!
Stay rational!