Atheist Burden of Proof: Part Two
(Today is “Respond to Dave Walker Day”)
Believing, Asserting and Burden of Proof
If somebody says to me, “I think its bad luck to walk under a ladder“, I’d think it odd. I wouldn’t, however, demand proof.
If somebody asserted, “It is bad luck to walk under ladders, and this is a reasonable position”, I would demand proof.
Why?? What is different?
The real question here is what is burden of proof and why does one statement incur it and the other does not?
Burden of proof, lest we forget, is a legal concept. The Corpus Juris states “Semper necessitas probandi incumbit qui agit.” Thus Englished, as Locke would say, the claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies with him.
You make a claim, you assume burden of proof. No claim, no burden of proof. I can think that bad luck lurks in the shadows, and that thought in itself doesn’t incur burden of proof.
But when I assert – i.e., make a claim – that bad luck exists, then I’ve incurred burden of proof.
When something is stated as fact, or as a reasonable position, at that point it is entered into the realm of debate. In essence, you’ve claimed that the other person is in the wrong if he or she refuses to adopt your position. This is true because we see reason as binding on all humanity. For this reason, the claim that somebody is “unreasonable” is of itself a denigration.
Law codifies the expectation of people to be reasonable with the criminal standard of “reasonable doubt”.
To say that somebody is unreasonable is to say that they are in the wrong. To claim that somebody is acting reasonably is to say that their actions are justified.
Thus, one may expect to assume the burden of proof when one asserts that his position is the reasonable.
