Evidence and the Burden of Proof

[Don McIntosh]

Ever since Antony Flew introduced the concept of "presumption of atheism," it has become a more or less accepted rule of Christian-atheist debates (like the ones that take place here) that the Christian bears the burden of proof. On the definition of atheism as a mere "lack of belief," this seems fair enough: the burden of proof lies "on the proposition, not the opposition." Flew himself was careful to point out that this should be a procedural rather than substantive principle, so that when properly applied in a debate, the presumption of atheism presupposes nothing about the strength or weakness of the Christian position.

To my knowledge, however, Flew never mentioned what should happen to the burden of proof once a Christian undertakes to not only accept that burden but to meet it (or claim to meet it) by providing various forms of evidence. It seems to me that once evidence is brought in for examination, the burden of proof shifts. An atheist at that point can no longer claim to simply lack belief because there is "no evidence." To rationally maintain lack of belief (or continue to assert irrationality of belief), good arguments have to be made against the evidence that has been provided.

I take it that evidence confirming Christian theism includes:

1. Cosmological evidence suggesting an absolute beginning (of both space and time) of the universe.
2. The apparent fine-tuning of life-permitting physical constants regulating the universe.
3. Numerous instances of specified complexity (or "functional complexity" or "irreducible complexity") in nature.
4. General human awareness of transcendent or "objective" moral rules.
5. The historical origin, worldwide dispersion and persecution, and subsequent physical restoration of the nation of Israel, in keeping with the prophetic message of the Old Testament
6. The miraculous ministry of Jesus Christ, historically attested in thousands of early manuscripts, derived from originals dated to within a generation of his death and purported resurrection.
7. The birth of the early church, in Jerusalem, on the preaching of the resurrection, and in the face of violent persecution.
8. The remarkably sudden, complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, formerly a leader in the earliest efforts to destroy the Christian movement.

It should be noted further that by "evidence," I mean the stuff of inductive inferences: objective data that increase the probability of a belief or proposition being true. I do not mean a sound deductive proof (though such a proof would amount to extremely strong evidence that Christian theism is true!).

Questions for debate: When Christians are challenged to provide evidence for their beliefs, and in response they freely provide various forms of evidence, do they still bear the sole burden of proof in the debate? Or do skeptics rather take on a burden of proof of their own, to show that the evidence provided is not "really" evidence, or for some reason is not admissible, not strong enough to warrant serious consideration, etc.?

[Don McIntosh]

There's a fertility rite that has been conducted by a group of people whereby they take a human being and attach them to a pole which is then carried by two people out to the fields where the guy attached to it drips blood over the field as he's being swung back and forth on this stake.

Up until only recently each and every victim attached to this stake dies, but one year the guy didn't die, and ever since then it is in no way a foregone conclusion that those who are attached to this stake will die.


My question concerns this idea that Christ's resurrection is somehow the primary tenet that Christians were being persecuted for. When I look at the historical accounts, there are other reasons for the locals wanting to get rid of them including, but not limited to: their communist ideals which effectively made using local currencies pointless, their radical selfless love; picking up unwanted orphans, discarded newborns, their openly devoted and expressed treasonous loyalty to another kingdom etc. Everything they did seemed to result in rapid growth as something looking much like a cancerous growth within, and to the body politic.

If I'm reading you right, the idea is that the early Christian movement was conspicuously countercultural while the Roman empire was a strong and well-defined culture, and that's what provoked harsh and even violent state responses...or something along those lines. I think you're right, but in that case I also think an argument could be made that the resurrection was still the most problematic "thorn in the flesh" for the empire, if only because it seemed to vindicate or ratify all the other points of morally exemplary but unconventional and in many respects socially unacceptable behavior you mentioned. Just as the resurrection vindicated the Son of God himself, his resurrection vindicated the claims, hence the radical behavior, of the church.

Here's another problem. The crucifixion of Jesus was an event that the two on the road to Emmaus claim to be something much more notable than the run of the mill crucifixions. It was quite the event in Jerusalem, yet one would expect the following resurrection to garner even more publicity, no?

The fact that the risen Christ appears only to his followers indicates to me that the resurrection is something more than the resurrection of a physical body which Christ himself openly points out is nothing to him. Christ's teachings point to something much more scandalous and incredible than a bodily resurrection, but the terminology seems to limit it to the resurrection of one's physical body.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the ruling elite understand what they're actually saying; at least not to them. Those ruling over them are being presented with their unconditional love, and those who can't comprehend what they're saying and doing, there's no hope for them. There's no explanation necessary.

Well, I think the bodily resurrection is still powerful public evidence that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. It's an event in history, surrounded and supported by a particular set of historical circumstances, so it has a certain factually objective character beyond the testimony of those whose lives have been transformed by the truth of the message and the power of the Spirit behind it. The apostles preached the bodily resurrection of Jesus habitually in the book of Acts, for example.

But I think you're correct to suggest that there's much going on with the resurrection than the mysterious reanimation of a corpse. Paul suggests that without bodily resurrection we are all (Christians and everyone else) dead in our sins and without hope in the world.

The early church wasn't just pointing out that Christ was resurrected, but pointing out that Christ was alive in, with, and through them. They took Christ's own title "the way" and applied it to themselves.

This isn't even something that the modern day church would consider, and most likely would condemn anyone who did apply it to themselves no?

I agree. Over the centuries the church has developed some strong worldly appetites, for money, power, prestige, etc. (I dare say there are atheists on this board who would still be believers had it not been for numerous and shockingly unspiritual actions on the part of leaders and members of the church.) In many (not all!) quarters the modern church has become a sort of halfway house between the "secular world" and the kingdom of God, when it's supposed to be where the kingdom of God manifests clearly and radically. By "manifests" I mean not so much in signs and wonders (though that's often part of the mix) but in the lives of people who are filled with his Spirit and now reflect in large measure the sacrificial and world-denying, thus conspicuously countercultural, love of Christ.