It’s recently become common for atheists engaging with believers to try and escape the burden of proof for atheism while demanding that the theistic claim that God exists carries the burden of proof and should not be asserted unless it can meet this burden. The argument goes that if someone claimed that some ridiculous creature like a unicorn on mars or a celestial teapot existed, we would not believe them simply because we can’t prove that it doesn’t exist. If they want to claim that it does exist, they have the burden of proving that it does exist. They then say that it’s the same with God: the burden of proof doesn’t lie with those claiming that he doesn’t exist, but it does lie with those who claim that he does exist.
The kernel of truth in this is that the burden of proof does indeed lie with those who claim that God exists. If anyone wants to make any kind of truth claim then they carry the burden of proof for their claim. A claim that has to be believed without any evidence is seldom believed, truth claims do not have to be accepted by default. Truth claims, especially ones that require action, should be able to be justified and a healthy scepticism about truth claims keeps us from naivety and gullibility.
The absurdity of atheists trying to escape the burden of proof lies in the assumption that if God’s existence cannot be proved, then his non-existence wins by default. As if atheism is the default position if a belief in God cannot be justified. The atheist is here demanding that his atheism, which has clearly forfeited the neutrality of agnosticism, be treated as if it was the neutral position that agnosticism is. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. Just as theists carry the burden of proof for asserting that God exists, atheists also carry the burden of proof for asserting that God doesn’t exist. Only agnosticism escapes the burden of proof for the simple reason that agnosticism doesn’t make a claim.
Atheists who try to escape the burden of proof usually (and sometimes deliberately) confuse atheism with agnosticism. While agnostics don’t believe that God exists or that he doesn’t exist, atheists make a definitive claim that God doesn’t exist, and then in order to escape the burden of proof, pretend that they’re not making a claim. This is move is often made because of their dislike of the word “believe”. While theists believe that God exists and agnostics don’t believe either way, atheists believe that God doesn’t exist, but can seldom admit that they have a belief about God (even if it is that he doesn’t exist). They prefer to speak about their lack of belief, again trying to enjoy the benefits of agnosticism, but this is to confuse the negative with the non-positive. The difference between negative numbers and non-positive numbers is the neutral number 0. If theism is a positive belief in God, atheism is a negative belief in God and agnosticism is the neutral position in the middle (the belief in 0 claims about God’s existence). Agnosticism is the default position which should win by default if either theism or atheism is rejected.
This epistemological spectrum from atheism to theism with the neutral middle of agnosticism is made clear by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 50-51). Dawkins has a scale from 1 (strong theism) to 7 (strong atheism) with the neutral middle of 4 being truly agnostic. This is a very helpful epistemological scale to point atheists to in this kind of discussion, not just because Dawkins helpfully draws the battle lines in the sand, but because most atheists respect Dawkins and will listen to an argument that’s found in The God Delusion.
Finally, something that clearly sets God apart from ridiculous creatures like unicorns on mars or a celestial teapot is the explanatory power of the God hypothesis. If a celestial teapot could explain our observance of space then it might be accepted by some, but it’s rejected by all because its existence explains nothing. The hypothesis that God exists explains the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universal constants for life, the beginning of life from non-life, the fact that human compassion goes beyond the evolutionary good, and the resurrection shaped hole in history. Hypotheses are accepted when they explain what we observe. Alien unicorns and celestial teapots can be easily rejected because they have no explanatory power whatsoever. But while the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved, it would certainly explain a lot.
