Propaganda Techniques: Shift the Burden of Proof

 
I've been covering some of the common techniques of debate and propaganda. You can see the complete list at [Propaganda and Debating Techniques].

The technique of shifting the burden of proof onto your opponent is often encountered when we deal with religious leaders who are responding to criticisms of the common arguments for the existence of God. Here's the description of this tactic.

Shift the Burden of Proof Onto Your Opponent

Make all kinds of unsubstantiated statements and claims, and when your opponent objects and challenges those statements, say, "Do some research on the subject and you will see that what I am saying is true."

It is the job of the person who is making the statements and claims to do the research and supply the evidence to support his assertions.

Here's a classic example of this tactic in an interview of Alister McGrath on the National Catholic Register website [All’s Not Quiet on The Atheistic Front]. McGrath says,

A second point, which clearly follows on from this, is that Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that’s their default position. But I think that’s simply incorrect and it’s obviously incorrect.

Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don’t know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure.

Therefore I think Dawkins must realize that he’s under as great an obligation to show that there is no God as, for example, a Christian is to show that there’s a God. Those are two very fundamental problems I have with his approach before we go any further.

This is a totally fallacious argument and it's surprising to see it coming from an Oxford Professor. However, I had a chance to hear McGrath speak in May and I can assure you that he really is this ignorant [Alister McGrath].

It is not up to Richard Dawkins to prove that God doesn't exist. He's not the one making the claim. It's the believers who are making the extraordinary claim that supernatural beings exist and that they control our lives. And that we should worship them. The world is really turning upside down when the believers demand that we atheists have to prove the non-existence of everything that was ever postulated.

Of course that's not the way they see it. They think it would be nonsense for them to have to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or Santa Claus) doesn't exist. What that kind of reasoning demonstrates to me is that there's a powerful correlation between superstition and irrationality.

Imagine that someone went up to McGrath and told him that aliens are using a mind altering probe to take over the British government. How do you think he would respond? According to his version of logic he would have to say. "Hmmm, that's very interesting. You may be right but I'm just not sure. Let me get to work on trying to prove that aliens don't exist."

McGrath commits another common fallacy but I'm not sure this one has a name. Here it is ...

... as someone who has studied the history of science, I am very much aware that what scientists believe to be true in the past has been shown to be wrong or has been overtaken by subsequent theoretical developments.

One of my concerns is that Dawkins seems very, very reluctant to concede radical theory-change in science. In other words, this is what scientists believe today but we realize that tomorrow they might think something quite different. He seems to think that science has got everything forced out and that’s it, whereas my point is that as we progress we often find ourselves abandoning earlier positions.

So my question, therefore, is: How on earth can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself so to speak is in motion, in transit?

According to this line of argument, no scientific concepts could ever be used to support any kind of argument because all science is transient. Yes, this is a form of Reductio Ad Absurdum but not all of these are wrong. If McGrath wants to argue that only some scientific concepts fall into the category of "transient" then he should have made it clear that he was dealing with a subset of what science believes. I'm willing to bet that he isn't as skeptical about everything scientific. Maybe it's McGrath who is committing the error of reductio ad absurdum?

McGrath also says something I agree with.

What I do think is enormously important is to mount a public defense of the Christian faith that shows it as reasonable, attractive and plausible. That really is something that needs to be done, and that’s why I wish we had more people like G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien, who spoke so powerfully in the past. I think there’s a real need for the Church to regain its apologetic dimension and to be really able to speak with confidence and conviction about faith in the public domain.

So far I've read books by Bill Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway-Morris. I've also read four or five articles by Allister McGrath. All of them are Christians and all of them have tried to show me that their religion is "reasonable, attractive, and plausible." If that's the best they can do then Christianity is in big trouble.