Does Atheism have a Burden of Proof?

You'll often see atheists who describe their position as simply "lacking belief in God" accused of dodging, avoiding, or even being dishonest about the burden of proof. When it's pointed out that most of these atheists genuinely don't claim "God definitely does not exist," the response is usually something like: "Well, maybe not you, but plenty of others do”, just look at how many likes those posts get. There's clearly strong feeling on this topic, not just from theists but from some atheists too. So let's gently unpack it.

My take? Yes, atheists do have a burden of proof in discussions, but it's the same kind of responsibility anyone has when they state a view: the duty to explain why they hold (or don't hold) that position when asked.

A quick clarification of terms helps here:

1. A belief is something we accept as true.

2. Theism is the belief that the proposition that God exists, is true.

3. Atheism, for most people who use the term today, is the absence of that belief, not holding that God exists.

Neither label, on its own, tells us anything about the reasons behind the position or how well-supported those reasons are.

That's where conversation comes in. If someone asks a theist why they believe God exists, it's fair to expect them to share their reasoning (personal experience, philosophical arguments, scripture, etc.). Likewise, if someone asks an atheist why they don't believe, it is also reasonable for the atheist to explain their thinking.

Reasons vary widely. For me, it's largely historical: I don't find the evidence for the key events in the Gospels convincing enough to treat them as historical fact (or even as probably true). If I raise that point in a discussion, the responsibility is on me to explain why I reach that conclusion.

Other atheists might say there's simply insufficient evidence overall, or that certain concepts of God seem logically inconsistent. Whatever the reason, when we offer it, we take on the task of supporting it.

The one thing that wouldn't make sense is demanding that an atheist defend the claim "God definitively does not exist" if that's not actually what they believe. That would be like asking a Christian to prove Zeus doesn't exist simply because they don't believe in him.

Once both sides have shared their actual positions and the reasons behind them, the discussion can move forward productively, wherever it leads.

This approach seems fair and straightforward to me. Does it match your experience of these conversations? Or do you see the burden differently? I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts!

October 2021