September 29, 2025 • 11 mins
This is Episode 147 of Christian Research Journal Reads. This is an audio version of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL article, “Atheism and the Burden of Proof” by Matthew Flannagan.https://www.equip.org/articles/atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof/
This article first appeared in the Effective Evangelism column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 41, number 1 (2018).
This podcast presents audio versions of Christian Research Journal articles. As the flagship publication of the Christian Research Institute, the Journal seeks to equip followers of Christ to think and to live Christianly—to exercise truth and experience life. Truth, especially essential Christian doctrine, forms the basis for how we live our lives in Christ. As the apostle Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:16, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”The Christian Research Journal enjoyed a print incarnation of almost 45 years. Now exclusively an online publication, the Journal consists of thousands of free articles. We hope that through these audio articles you are not only equipped to proclaim and defend your faith but that as a disciple you also draw closer to Christ in your walk with Him. You can find the written version of each article that is an episode of Christian Research Journal Reads at the website of the Christian Research Institute, equip.org. All Christian Research Journal articles at equip.org are completely free and do not require a subscription and are not under a paywall.All episodes will be available at the following podcast platforms with more being added daily! You can help spread the word about this new podcast by giving us a rating and review from the other channels we are listed on and telling others!You can view off our Website at the at this link and off our Journal main page.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/christian-research-journal-reads--6022978/support.
This article first appeared in the Effective Evangelism column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 41, number 1 (2018).
This podcast presents audio versions of Christian Research Journal articles. As the flagship publication of the Christian Research Institute, the Journal seeks to equip followers of Christ to think and to live Christianly—to exercise truth and experience life. Truth, especially essential Christian doctrine, forms the basis for how we live our lives in Christ. As the apostle Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:16, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”The Christian Research Journal enjoyed a print incarnation of almost 45 years. Now exclusively an online publication, the Journal consists of thousands of free articles. We hope that through these audio articles you are not only equipped to proclaim and defend your faith but that as a disciple you also draw closer to Christ in your walk with Him. You can find the written version of each article that is an episode of Christian Research Journal Reads at the website of the Christian Research Institute, equip.org. All Christian Research Journal articles at equip.org are completely free and do not require a subscription and are not under a paywall.All episodes will be available at the following podcast platforms with more being added daily! You can help spread the word about this new podcast by giving us a rating and review from the other channels we are listed on and telling others!You can view off our Website at the at this link and off our Journal main page.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/christian-research-journal-reads--6022978/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
This is episode one hundred and forty seven of the
Christian Research Journal Reads Podcast. Atheism and the Burden of
Proof by Matthew Flanagan. This article first appeared in the
Effective Evangelism column of the print edition of the Christian
Research Journal, Volume forty one, number one in twenty eighteen.
(00:30):
The Christian Research Journal Reads Podcast presents audio versions of
Christian Research Journal articles. To read the full text of
this article, as well as its documentation, please go to
equip dot org. That's e qu ip dot org.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Atheism and the Burden of Proof. This article is by
Matthew Flanagan and is read by an automated voice. It's
not uncommon to hear skeptics claim that, but the burden
of proof is on the person making a claim. Atheists
argue that because they don't make any positive claims, but
rather simply fail to affirm the existence of God, they
(01:10):
bear no burden of proof. The theist is the one
making a claim that God exists, so if he does
bear such a burden, they say, I think this line
of argumentation is faulty. Atheism is not simply the absence
of belief. It does involve making claims. Moreover, the burden
of proof is not always on the person who makes
(01:30):
a claim. There are several problems here. First, this definition
is contrary to the way the term atheism historically has
been used in philosophical discussions about God's existence. Philosopher William
Rowe states to be an atheist in the broad sense
is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being. Similarly,
(01:51):
Graham Appy writes atheism says that there are no gods.
JJ's Circus Smart concurs atheism means the negation of thingeism
the denial of the existence of God. Paul Draper states
that atheism is best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical
claim that God does not exist, and J. L. Schellenberg
(02:12):
defends a similar definition of atheism, understood as disbelief of
traditional theism. Even the Triple A partially concedes when it
says older dictionaries define atheism as a belief that there
is no God. However, the Triple A's statement then dismisses
this idea by suggesting theistic influence taints these definitions. Yet
(02:33):
the above quotes aren't from outdated dictionaries. They are from
contemporary publications. Nor do any of them come from theists.
They are the definitions given by today's most prominent critics
of theism. The leading critics of theism and defenders of
atheism currently define atheism as the belief that there is
no God. The attempt to redefine atheism so that it
(02:56):
refers merely to the absence of belief in God has
origin in a nineteen seventy two article by Anthony Fluent
title The Presumption of Atheism. Flu candidly admitted he was
using the term atheism in an unusual way against established
common usage. Flu did so precisely so that he could
defend the contention that the debate about the existence of
(03:19):
God should properly begin from a presumption of atheism, and
that the onness of proof must lie on the feast.
It is therefore inaccurate for the Triple A to assert
the definition at sites is correct and chalk the contrary
use up to theistic bias. Rather, the definition the Triple
A offers is a deliberate redefinition designed to foist the
(03:41):
burden of proof on its opponents. Second, there are problems
with this redefinition. It would have infants, cats, dogs, or
even a brick wall cowb as atheists because none of
these things has a belief in God. Similarly, the redefinition
fails to distinguish atheism from agnosticism. End me elaborate on
this last point. An agnostic is someone who neither affirms
(04:04):
nor denies the existence of God. In contrast to theists
who affirm God exists and atheists who deny that God exists,
Agnostics contend that the evidence for God is inconclusive either way,
so people should suspend judgment. Denying that God exists and
suspending judgment on the question are two different stances concerning
(04:25):
the question of God's existence. However, defining atheism merely as
the absence of belief conflates them, because an agnostic neither
denies nor affirms the existence of God. Consequently, the agnostic
would be considered an atheist by the standards of the
proposed redefinition of the term. Again, the Triple A attempts
(04:46):
to circumvent this by stating agnostic isn't just a weaker
version of being an atheist, it answers a different question.
Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what
you know. The problem here is that they have said
that atheist isn't a belief, and it doesn't answer any
other question about what a person believes. Contrary to its protests,
(05:06):
the definition of atheism that the Triple A offers does
entail that agnostics are atheists, for unless an agnostic believes
in God, and hence as a theist, he lacks belief
in God. A person whom neither affirms more denies a
proposition does affirm it. Fird, the claim that atheism makes
no claims is contradicted by things stated elsewhere on the
(05:27):
same website as various stances they, as atheists, wish to
take in support. Consider what is said about the constitutional
protection atheists are granted under the First Amendment. Atheism is
not a religion, but it does take a position on religion,
the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a
code of ethics. For that reason, it qualifies as a
(05:49):
religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection. To justify
this conclusion, the author cites Kaufman verse Mukautri, in which
the court ruled without venturing two fours into the realm
of the philosophical We'd have suggested in the past that
when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of
ultimate concern that for her occupy a place parallel to
(06:10):
that filled by God in traditionally religious persons, those beliefs
represent her religion. If we think of religion as taking
a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form
of religion. Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a
central role in his life, and the defendants do not
dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held. Atheism is,
(06:33):
among other things, a school of thought that takes a
position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being,
and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied
that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the
First Amendment. Claims he is attempting to raise what happened
to the assurance that atheism is not an affirmative belief
(06:54):
that there is no God, nor does it answer any
other question about what a person believes. Emphasis Suddenly, atheism
involves a series of sincerely held beliefs composing a school
of thought dealing with issues of ultimate concern that takes
a stance on the existence of a supreme being. A
code of ethics and the importance of religion. Atheism is
(07:17):
not simply a lack of belief, and it appears the
triple aid is speaking with a forked tongue a burden
of proof. This brings me to the other assumption that
the burden of proof is on the person who makes
a claim. This too, is incorrect for at least three reasons. First,
it leads to vicious infinite regress. Philosopher Roy Klausser summarizes
(07:39):
the problem succinctly. If everything needed to be proven, then
the premises of every proof would also need to be proven.
But if you needed to prove the premises of every proof,
you would then need a proof for your proof, and
a proof for your proof of your proof, and so
on forever. Thus it makes no sense to demand that
everything be proven, because an in definite regressive proofs is impossible.
(08:02):
Emphasis in original. You simply cannot demand proof for everything
you believe. If you are to rationally believe anything at all.
Eventually you'll have to believe some claims without such proof. Second,
there are many things we do believe quite rationally that
we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims for examples, such
as it's wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.
(08:25):
This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could
prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on
which it is based, or consider obvious beliefs that other
people exist, or there is a real world independent of
my senses. If I affirm any of these things, I
am making a claim. Yet they are all things that
can't be proved. We do not seriously think that the
(08:46):
default position of a rational person is to disbelieve these
things until whomever affirmed them could prove the claims. Third,
it is self refuting to claim that the burden of
proof is always on the one who makes a claim.
When someone asserts this, she is making a claim. Hence,
if what she says is true, no one should accept
it until it has been proven. What we have is
(09:08):
an unproven assertion, telling us to never believe unproven assertions. Therefore,
it is mistaken to claim that the burden of proof
is on the one who makes a claim. Next, on
you are in discussion with an atheist who claims not
to bear any burden of proof because the burden is
always on the one who makes a claim, ask him
to consider the following statement, there exists some material objects
(09:31):
that were not created by God. This statement is a
positive claim until the atheist can provide proof that it
is true. Until he can prove that some material objects
were not created by God, he must deny that such
objects exist. However, to deny this statement is to affirm
that every material object was created by God and hence
(09:52):
that God exists. The bottom line is that the claim
that theists bear the burden of proof because they are
making a positive claim, and thee the denial of positive
claims is the default position until proven, is a problematic claim.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Matthew Flanagan, thank you for listening to another episode from
the Christian Research Journal Reads podcast, which provides audio articles
of Christian Research Journal articles.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
If you go to equip dot.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Org you will find a brand new article for the
Christian Research Journal published weekly. In addition, please subscribe to
our other podcasts. Wherever you find your favorite podcast, you
will find the Christian Research Journal Reads podcast, the Postmodern
Realities podcast, which features interviews with Christian Research Journal authors,
(10:43):
our flagship podcast, The Bible answer Man Broadcast, and the
Hank Unplugged podcast, where CRI President Hank Canagraph takes you
out of the studio and into his study to engage
in in depth, free flowing, assent Christian conversations on critical
issues with some of the most interesting and informative people
(11:06):
on the planet. At equip dot org you will also
find a lot of resources to equip you, including many
thousands of Christian research journal articles.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
That's e q u I P dot RG
This is episode one hundred and forty seven of the
Christian Research Journal Reads Podcast. Atheism and the Burden of
Proof by Matthew Flanagan. This article first appeared in the
Effective Evangelism column of the print edition of the Christian
Research Journal, Volume forty one, number one in twenty eighteen.
(00:30):
The Christian Research Journal Reads Podcast presents audio versions of
Christian Research Journal articles. To read the full text of
this article, as well as its documentation, please go to
equip dot org. That's e qu ip dot org.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Atheism and the Burden of Proof. This article is by
Matthew Flanagan and is read by an automated voice. It's
not uncommon to hear skeptics claim that, but the burden
of proof is on the person making a claim. Atheists
argue that because they don't make any positive claims, but
rather simply fail to affirm the existence of God, they
(01:10):
bear no burden of proof. The theist is the one
making a claim that God exists, so if he does
bear such a burden, they say, I think this line
of argumentation is faulty. Atheism is not simply the absence
of belief. It does involve making claims. Moreover, the burden
of proof is not always on the person who makes
(01:30):
a claim. There are several problems here. First, this definition
is contrary to the way the term atheism historically has
been used in philosophical discussions about God's existence. Philosopher William
Rowe states to be an atheist in the broad sense
is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being. Similarly,
(01:51):
Graham Appy writes atheism says that there are no gods.
JJ's Circus Smart concurs atheism means the negation of thingeism
the denial of the existence of God. Paul Draper states
that atheism is best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical
claim that God does not exist, and J. L. Schellenberg
(02:12):
defends a similar definition of atheism, understood as disbelief of
traditional theism. Even the Triple A partially concedes when it
says older dictionaries define atheism as a belief that there
is no God. However, the Triple A's statement then dismisses
this idea by suggesting theistic influence taints these definitions. Yet
(02:33):
the above quotes aren't from outdated dictionaries. They are from
contemporary publications. Nor do any of them come from theists.
They are the definitions given by today's most prominent critics
of theism. The leading critics of theism and defenders of
atheism currently define atheism as the belief that there is
no God. The attempt to redefine atheism so that it
(02:56):
refers merely to the absence of belief in God has
origin in a nineteen seventy two article by Anthony Fluent
title The Presumption of Atheism. Flu candidly admitted he was
using the term atheism in an unusual way against established
common usage. Flu did so precisely so that he could
defend the contention that the debate about the existence of
(03:19):
God should properly begin from a presumption of atheism, and
that the onness of proof must lie on the feast.
It is therefore inaccurate for the Triple A to assert
the definition at sites is correct and chalk the contrary
use up to theistic bias. Rather, the definition the Triple
A offers is a deliberate redefinition designed to foist the
(03:41):
burden of proof on its opponents. Second, there are problems
with this redefinition. It would have infants, cats, dogs, or
even a brick wall cowb as atheists because none of
these things has a belief in God. Similarly, the redefinition
fails to distinguish atheism from agnosticism. End me elaborate on
this last point. An agnostic is someone who neither affirms
(04:04):
nor denies the existence of God. In contrast to theists
who affirm God exists and atheists who deny that God exists,
Agnostics contend that the evidence for God is inconclusive either way,
so people should suspend judgment. Denying that God exists and
suspending judgment on the question are two different stances concerning
(04:25):
the question of God's existence. However, defining atheism merely as
the absence of belief conflates them, because an agnostic neither
denies nor affirms the existence of God. Consequently, the agnostic
would be considered an atheist by the standards of the
proposed redefinition of the term. Again, the Triple A attempts
(04:46):
to circumvent this by stating agnostic isn't just a weaker
version of being an atheist, it answers a different question.
Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what
you know. The problem here is that they have said
that atheist isn't a belief, and it doesn't answer any
other question about what a person believes. Contrary to its protests,
(05:06):
the definition of atheism that the Triple A offers does
entail that agnostics are atheists, for unless an agnostic believes
in God, and hence as a theist, he lacks belief
in God. A person whom neither affirms more denies a
proposition does affirm it. Fird, the claim that atheism makes
no claims is contradicted by things stated elsewhere on the
(05:27):
same website as various stances they, as atheists, wish to
take in support. Consider what is said about the constitutional
protection atheists are granted under the First Amendment. Atheism is
not a religion, but it does take a position on religion,
the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a
code of ethics. For that reason, it qualifies as a
(05:49):
religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection. To justify
this conclusion, the author cites Kaufman verse Mukautri, in which
the court ruled without venturing two fours into the realm
of the philosophical We'd have suggested in the past that
when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of
ultimate concern that for her occupy a place parallel to
(06:10):
that filled by God in traditionally religious persons, those beliefs
represent her religion. If we think of religion as taking
a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form
of religion. Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a
central role in his life, and the defendants do not
dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held. Atheism is,
(06:33):
among other things, a school of thought that takes a
position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being,
and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied
that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the
First Amendment. Claims he is attempting to raise what happened
to the assurance that atheism is not an affirmative belief
(06:54):
that there is no God, nor does it answer any
other question about what a person believes. Emphasis Suddenly, atheism
involves a series of sincerely held beliefs composing a school
of thought dealing with issues of ultimate concern that takes
a stance on the existence of a supreme being. A
code of ethics and the importance of religion. Atheism is
(07:17):
not simply a lack of belief, and it appears the
triple aid is speaking with a forked tongue a burden
of proof. This brings me to the other assumption that
the burden of proof is on the person who makes
a claim. This too, is incorrect for at least three reasons. First,
it leads to vicious infinite regress. Philosopher Roy Klausser summarizes
(07:39):
the problem succinctly. If everything needed to be proven, then
the premises of every proof would also need to be proven.
But if you needed to prove the premises of every proof,
you would then need a proof for your proof, and
a proof for your proof of your proof, and so
on forever. Thus it makes no sense to demand that
everything be proven, because an in definite regressive proofs is impossible.
(08:02):
Emphasis in original. You simply cannot demand proof for everything
you believe. If you are to rationally believe anything at all.
Eventually you'll have to believe some claims without such proof. Second,
there are many things we do believe quite rationally that
we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims for examples, such
as it's wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.
(08:25):
This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could
prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on
which it is based, or consider obvious beliefs that other
people exist, or there is a real world independent of
my senses. If I affirm any of these things, I
am making a claim. Yet they are all things that
can't be proved. We do not seriously think that the
(08:46):
default position of a rational person is to disbelieve these
things until whomever affirmed them could prove the claims. Third,
it is self refuting to claim that the burden of
proof is always on the one who makes a claim.
When someone asserts this, she is making a claim. Hence,
if what she says is true, no one should accept
it until it has been proven. What we have is
(09:08):
an unproven assertion, telling us to never believe unproven assertions. Therefore,
it is mistaken to claim that the burden of proof
is on the one who makes a claim. Next, on
you are in discussion with an atheist who claims not
to bear any burden of proof because the burden is
always on the one who makes a claim, ask him
to consider the following statement, there exists some material objects
(09:31):
that were not created by God. This statement is a
positive claim until the atheist can provide proof that it
is true. Until he can prove that some material objects
were not created by God, he must deny that such
objects exist. However, to deny this statement is to affirm
that every material object was created by God and hence
(09:52):
that God exists. The bottom line is that the claim
that theists bear the burden of proof because they are
making a positive claim, and thee the denial of positive
claims is the default position until proven, is a problematic claim.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Matthew Flanagan, thank you for listening to another episode from
the Christian Research Journal Reads podcast, which provides audio articles
of Christian Research Journal articles.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
If you go to equip dot.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Org you will find a brand new article for the
Christian Research Journal published weekly. In addition, please subscribe to
our other podcasts. Wherever you find your favorite podcast, you
will find the Christian Research Journal Reads podcast, the Postmodern
Realities podcast, which features interviews with Christian Research Journal authors,
(10:43):
our flagship podcast, The Bible answer Man Broadcast, and the
Hank Unplugged podcast, where CRI President Hank Canagraph takes you
out of the studio and into his study to engage
in in depth, free flowing, assent Christian conversations on critical
issues with some of the most interesting and informative people
(11:06):
on the planet. At equip dot org you will also
find a lot of resources to equip you, including many
thousands of Christian research journal articles.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
That's e q u I P dot RG
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.