3.2 The Burden of Proof

An article written by the philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1952 that was never published included the following famous text that has become known as Russell's Teapot.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Here Russell shows us that we need evidence to affirm our beliefs and if there is no evidence then, although the belief could be true, it is acceptable for others to be sceptical of the claim until evidence is brought to the table. Otherwise we would believe all sorts of things, including the orbiting teapot. So we recognised that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

There is an ongoing discussion in the theist-atheist debate of who bares the burden of proof. Some Christians assert that it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist, i.e. that atheists believe that God does not exist. No doubt there are some atheists like this. However my experience is that most thoughtful atheists take the term they are labelled with to mean ‘lacking belief in God’. This shifts the meaning to, in my view a more valid one, which makes it clear that an atheist doesn't believe anything, but recognises where there are unknowns. They are not making a faith claim about the non-existence of God. As they are not making any claim they have no need to ‘prove’ their position. The theist claims that God exists, whereas the atheist simply questions the claim of the theist. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the theist who is making a positive claim about God.

next >