Do Christians Have the Burden of Proof?

Every now and then this question comes up who has the burden of proof in a conversation about God or the

Christian worldview a lot Of folks on the non -christian side will say well You know the theist or the Christian is the one who shoulders the burden of proof because guess what?

They're the one making claims about the existence of God and the supernatural Have you ever been in a conversation like this before?

But then a lot of folks on the Christian side will say something like well You know atheists and skeptics have a worldview

So they should shoulder their own burden of proof just as much as anyone else does and then Atheists and skeptics get angry and say well

You know atheists don't have a worldview and then a fight breaks out and Jerry Springer gets involved and then someone gets killed

I made that last part up So the question is who's right and who's wrong whether we're in a formal debate or in a regular conversation

Who shoulders the burden of proof? What even is the burden of proof? I'm gonna talk about all of that in this video.

So let's go Thank you very much for watching

My name is Nate and I'm the president of a Christian Organization called wise disciple where we focus like a laser on living effectively as Christians in today's culture

Now before I jumped into ministry, I taught debate and so lately I've been reacting to theology and apologetics debates kind of coming at it from a more

Formal perspective and judging these debates from my vantage point as a former teacher

So if you haven't seen any of those videos I encourage you to check them out. I'll leave a link for the playlist in the notes below today

I want to talk debate theory So, I don't know pull up a chair and a cup of coffee or something

I have my cup of coffee here My goal in this video is to shine some light on a topic that is a bit confusing a lot of confusion kind of floating around when it comes to the burden of proof and partly,

I think this is because Not a lot of people have been formally trained in debate and so they don't understand the formats and the rules of argumentation

But also I think what's playing into this is there's been some disagreement behind the scenes about burden of proof like when it comes to theory and The philosophy of debate like when it comes to the literature

So I'm gonna try to lay some of these pieces out for you so that you could have a better understanding here

Okay, so first let's talk definitions So when it comes to the issue of the burden of proof

The first thing I think we should do is actually back up a little bit and talk about something else called presumption

Presumption basically refers to the predisposition towards one side of a debate resolution

The resolution just refers to the subject of the debate the topic of the debate So when debate resolutions are determined in the formal arena, you have to understand that presumption

Automatically favors one side of the resolution. Why is that? Well because presumption represents the status quo now hang in there with me because this is gonna make sense later when we start talking about Apologetics debates.

So let me give you an example what I'm talking about let's say we debate a Resolution that says something like the

United States should adopt communism as its official form of government pretty spicy topic, right? Most people 30 years ago would have been like absolutely the heck not now a lot of people are like, yeah sure

I mean, let's try anything. Why not? What's the big deal? So that means whoever takes the affirmative or the app will argue for change

They're gonna argue that we completely leave our form of government and adopt communism That also means whoever takes the neg or the negative will argue for the status quo to stay the same

So in other words, they're gonna argue from the position that we should not adopt communism because the

United States should stay the way it is Well in more formal debates presumption typically sides with the status quo

So in that sense presumption is on the side of the negative and if presumption is on the side of the negative

Well, then the burden of proof rests with the one arguing the affirmative you with me so far and by the way

We see this in legal cases, right? So the the burden of proof in legal cases always rests on the side of the prosecution

Why well because presumption in our society is innocent until proven guilty

Even when it seems pretty cut and dry that the person probably did it the prosecution still needs to overcome

Presumption by making their case to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt And by the way,

OJ Simpson lives in Las Vegas. Apparently he lives in or near my neighborhood I ran into him recently when he was out getting a haircut and if you can imagine standing face -to -face with OJ Simpson He actually held the door open for me, which was a very kind gesture

So the point is if the prosecution wants to say that the defendant is guilty of a crime

Well, then the prosecution shoulders the burden of proof and so I think this helps us to understand the burden of proof is a term that simply refers to the

Obligation to argue in a manner that overcomes presumption with good and sufficient reasons and so in formal debates this job rests on The shoulders of the affirmative team and it's set up right at the outset because the resolution is worded

So clearly go back to the communism example for a moment The US should adopt communism as its official government

Well, the AF clearly must argue for the resolution because you see how it's worded

The resolution is set to challenge or change the status quo. Now at this point, here's the question that everyone's wondering

Hold on a second. Hold on a second because we can't talk about this until we understand that in a debate

There is more than one burden There are actually two more burdens that we need to talk about if you really want to understand this issue of who has what burden

The second burden that we need to talk about for a moment is what's called the burden of refutation and the burden of refutation refers to the obligation to refute or Respond to opposing arguments.

So think about it when the affirmative stands up on the stage and makes its prima facie case in support of Whatever the resolution is the negative shoulders its own burden

It's called the burden of refutation and with this burden The negative must show by making its own arguments that the affirmative's arguments are flawed.

They're insufficient They're unjustified or whatever and guess what when the negative makes its own arguments against the affirmative now

The affirmative also shoulders its own burden of refutation to respond This is kind of the tennis match of the debate and the ball goes back and forth over the net as a matter of fact

That's how the debate progresses to the end. It tracks along this burden So the burden of refutation is crucial to a debate

I mean without the burden of refutation there is not any real clash going on at all as a matter of fact

This particular burden is so important that if you do not fulfill this burden as a debate opponent

It is understood by the judge that you accept your interlocutors Argument and this can quickly turn into a recipe for disaster if you're on stage if you do not fulfill your own

Burden of refutation. Here's the third burden. It's called the burden of proving assertions Now we're more familiar with this kind of burden

All right This also is a vital feature of debates and this burden trades along the old axiom and philosophy

Say it with me Whoever makes the claim bears the burden to prove it and guess what any negative team is going to have to make claims

All right, they're gonna have to make assertions in order to refute the affirmative's case.

Let me give you an example We'll take it back to the communism thing Okay, the resolution says the United States should adopt communism as its official form of government

All right The team that argues the negative is going to have to make some claims in order to do so now

Maybe some of the claims are well, the affirmative's case is insufficient or you know, it falls apart in a few key areas

Oh, or maybe they'll say Adopting communism will lead to things like mass poverty and starvation

But you see those are all claims that need good and sufficient evidence to support it so the neg

Shoulders this third burden the burden of proving assertions just as much as the afters as a matter of fact

I hope that you've noticed that in two out of the three burdens that I've just talked about Both teams both sides of the debate shoulder these burdens

These are the burdens of refutation and proving assertions. All right, so let's reframe the question here

Is it the case that only the aft shoulders a burden in a debate? The answer is no the neg shoulders their own burdens both sides shoulder various burdens

All right, you with me so far. So now let's bring it back to the question in my opinion

This is where things get a little tricky All right So stick with me on this for a minute the reality is

Debates on apologetics and religion are not the same thing as arguing policy or public forum or more formal debates

There are some similarities in these areas, but they're not the same thing. I've said, I don't know how many times now on this channel

It's not the same thing and it's absolutely true Apologetics debates are not about enacting new legislation.

They're not about advocating You know some kind of change in the legislative status quo or or with regard to the status quo of governmental foreign policy or something

Like that apologetics debates are really about the nature of reality. What is at base true?

What is going on objectively speaking in the real world now, I think it's important to know this

Okay There's been disagreements in the scholarship about which side exactly presumption favors in non policy style debates

All right There's a great article by David Thomas in the book advanced debate where he argues that in non policy debates

Presumption should not automatically go to the neg. Let me go ahead and quote him This is what he says in advanced debate in non policy debate

Okay So here he's referring to like regular debates where the general public is assumed to be the judge, right?

So like political style debates and I would add apologetics and religion debates again this is what he says in non policy debate audience analysis is the debaters method of determining where presumptions lie an audience adaptation is the debaters method of Influencing audience presumptions hence their decisions

So in other words, you can't just automatically drop the formal rules on more popular non policy debates

Why because in non policy debates the status quo is not always on the negative side.

Think of it like this Okay, if presumption represents the status quo What is the status quo when it comes to belief in the existence of God think about that the data?

Points to the vast majority of people all over the world believe in God as a matter of fact the number of atheists in this country specifically is

Dramatically low compared to Bible believing Christians. So now let's say two people agree to debate the existence of God Are we just supposed to place presumption on the side of believers in God because that does represent the status quo does it not see?

this is where things get a little fuzzy and I think atheists are gonna have a problem with that and Actually, I'd have a problem with that as well just being real with you

We cannot just automatically assume that presumption favors one side the way that we can in formal debates

But check this out now Okay If it's not easy to determine presumption then it's also not easy to determine the burden of proof because the burden of proof must

Overcome presumption it's situated on either side of the fence so to speak with regard to presumption

So this is why I've said that apologetics debates religion debates The resolution should be very carefully worded you want to talk about God?

Okay, great Let's talk about God The resolution should be stated in such a way that we can

Determine the burden of proof for the affirmative side so that when they get up to make their prima facie case It's clear that they have a burden, but that's not what's going on with a lot of these apologetics debates

You know, sometimes the the title of the resolution is nowhere to be found It's as if these folks just like decided to wander into a room and then talk about anything in the area of religion

And then they invited a bunch of people to hear it. That's great. But what happens to the burden of proof? What happens to clash in these kinds of discussions, right?

Sometimes the debate resolution is in the form of a question does God exist? Okay, but what are we supposed to do with that?

You guys tell me do you think that the resolution is worded in such a clear way as to determine the burden of proof?

For one particular side. I don't think so. And so this is the problem with folks who want to Immediately ascribe the burden of proof to the

Christian side in a debate I don't think that you can just automatically do that I think there are two ways that I would really help, you know

It would help folks out who are thinking about getting into debate All right. The first way is just make sure the resolution is very clearly titled

Okay, instead of does God exist a better resolution is the God of the

Bible exists All right, you see the difference, you know at least there on the second one it's a little bit more clear that the affirmative side is arguing for the

Resolution and therefore needs to make its prima facie case and the negative side must shoulder the burdens of refutations and proving assertions

You see that right? The bottom line is Regular conversations should not be debates if you're watching debate videos

You're looking at my debate teacher reacts videos and then thinking that you should go out and do the exact same thing in regular

Conversations you're setting yourself up for failure. The first question that you have to ask yourself is what is my goal?

What is the goal in having a conversation where I express myself from my particular convictions?

And if you're a Christian, it's from the Christian worldview to someone who disagrees with me potentially I would argue that your answer has to include if not be singularly about Changing their minds persuading them and that's probably the easiest way to flesh this out in debates in Formal debates both interlocutors are not open to changing their minds

I was just in a conversation with William Lane Craig and he said the very same thing Debate opponents their job is to hopefully sway the judges.

All right, but in regular conversations There is no audience and there are no judges. You're just in regular conversations

You're just looking to say a few things that that hopefully gets the person that you're talking to thinking more critically

And yes considering changing their minds about what you're saying So don't try to squash the formal rules of the burden of proof on top of regular conversations

They do not belong regular Conversations should be about discovering the truth and that requires that two people who disagree about the nature of what is true

Should shoulder their own burdens to prove their assertions and to refute opposing arguments not because you're on some stage and you're performing in front of judges, but because you both agree the thing that really matters is

Discovering what is true and following that path wherever it leads. Well, that's all I got for this video

What do you think about the burden of proof? You've heard my thoughts I'd like to hear yours should Christians shoulder that burden alone.

Let me know in the comments below Also, this video is kind of an experiment Do you want more videos like these, you know where I kind of sit down with my cup of coffee?

You have your cup of coffee and we're just chatting we're talking inside baseball about debate the way that you'll let me know your answer is if you like and Subscribe these videos and hey,

I don't know maybe share this with other people that couldn't hurt and then I'll know Oh, okay. Let's do more of these kinds of videos

Well, if you want to follow up on how to communicate more effectively in regular conversations Check out my first aid evangelism series where I give you practical tips to speak in ways that will change people's minds

Thank you so much for sticking around to the end of this video I will return soon with more but in the meantime,