Atheists Not Burdened by Proof

[philalethes]

(An excerpt from "Logic and Trascendence" by Frithjof Schuon)

Once again, it is by no means obvious why the peremptory denial of causes lying outside our sensory experience should be regarded as conforming to reason or why it should be reasonable to label things impossible merely because they appear improbable or extraordinary from the standpoint of current experience. Equating the supernatural and the irrational is characteristic in this respect: it amounts to claiming that the unknown or incomprehensible is the same as the absurd. The rationalism of a frog living at the bottom of a well is to deny the existence of mountains: perhaps this is "logic", but it has nothing to do with reality.

... First of all, however, an answer should be made to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation. Consequently, the skeptic has the right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God. Now this kind of reasoning is arbitrary, and for the following reason: a man who finds himself unable to verify a statement has undoubtedly the right not to accept it as certain or as probable, but he has by no means the logical right to reject it without providing valid reasons for doing so. It is not difficult to discover the basis of the objection in question: it starts from the preconceived notion that the affirmation of God is something “extraordinary,” whereas the denial of God is “normal.” The skeptic starts, of course, from the idea that the normal man is the atheist, and from this he deduces a kind of one-way jurisprudence.

In the spiritual order a proof is of assistance only to the man who wishes to understand and who, by virtue of this wish, has already in some measure understood; it is of no practical use to one who, deep in his heart, does not want to change his position, and whose philosophy merely expresses this desire. It has been claimed that it is up to religion to prove itself in the face of the utmost ill-will, that “religion is made for man,” that it must therefore adapt itself to his needs, and that through its failure to do so it has become bankrupt. One might as well say that the alphabet has become bankrupt in a class where the pupils are determined not to learn it; with this kind of “infralogic” one might declare that the law is made for the honest people who are pleased to conform to it and that a new law is required for the others, a law “adapted” to the needs of their maliciousness and “rejuvenated” in conformity with their propensity for crime.

 

[Sunstone]

Philalethes, why do you think Schuon found it necessary to argue against the weakest possible formulation of atheism? Do you think it could have perhaps been because he could find no intelligent arguments against a stronger position?

By the way, even if Schuon were to show that atheists who argue such a weak version of atheism have a burden of proof, that would do nothing to remove the burden of proof that theists have when they assert there is a god.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

(An excerpt from "Logic and Trascendence" by Frithjof Schuon)

... First of all, however, an answer should be made to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation.

Yes this is true. A position that has not been proven does not need to be disproven.

Consequently, the skeptic has the right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God. Now this kind of reasoning is arbitrary, and for the following reason: a man who finds himself unable to verify a statement has undoubtedly the right not to accept it as certain or as probable, but he has by no means the logical right to reject it without providing valid reasons for doing so.

Incorrect, a position is not accepted as true just because no one has disproven it. It must first be proven to be true to be accepted.

It is not difficult to discover the basis of the objection in question: it starts from the preconceived notion that the affirmation of God is something “extraordinary,” whereas the denial of God is “normal.” The skeptic starts, of course, from the idea that the normal man is the atheist, and from this he deduces a kind of one-way jurisprudence.

Of all the atheists i have ever interacted with, none of them have embraced this position. This is what is called attacking a strawman.

In the spiritual order a proof is of assistance only to the man who wishes to understand and who, by virtue of this wish, has already in some measure understood; it is of no practical use to one who, deep in his heart, does not want to change his position, and whose philosophy merely expresses this desire.

So are you saying that before you can believe you have to believe?

Also you do not get to tell atheists why they do things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

(An excerpt from "Logic and Trascendence" by Frithjof Schuon)

Once again, it is by no means obvious why the peremptory denial of causes lying outside our sensory experience should be regarded as conforming to reason or why it should be reasonable to label things impossible merely because they appear improbable or extraordinary from the standpoint of current experience. Equating the supernatural and the irrational is characteristic in this respect: it amounts to claiming that the unknown or incomprehensible is the same as the absurd. The rationalism of a frog living at the bottom of a well is to deny the existence of mountains: perhaps this is "logic", but it has nothing to do with reality.

This is a cart before the horse type of argument. The rational position is not to assert that "things outside of our sensory experience" don't exist, but to simply hold a position of disbelief until such things are evidenced to exist. To assert that they do exist is a claim that has to be tested and evidenced before we can believe it. The rationalist position with regards to supernatural claims is not to assert that they are impossible, but to assert that they are merely unworthy of being believed until demonstrated otherwise. The whole point of logic is not to faultlessly and instantaneously observe and understand every possible fact in an instant, but to come to knowledge and understanding through investigation and inquiry rather than assume a truth that you cannot possibly know. It's about not jumping to conclusions.

... First of all, however, an answer should be made to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation. Consequently, the skeptic has the right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God. Now this kind of reasoning is arbitrary, and for the following reason: a man who finds himself unable to verify a statement has undoubtedly the right not to accept it as certain or as probable, but he has by no means the logical right to reject it without providing valid reasons for doing so. It is not difficult to discover the basis of the objection in question: it starts from the preconceived notion that the affirmation of God is something “extraordinary,” whereas the denial of God is “normal.” The skeptic starts, of course, from the idea that the normal man is the atheist, and from this he deduces a kind of one-way jurisprudence.

What this argument fails to realize is "there is insufficient evidence or reason to believe the claim" IS a valid reason to reject a claim. "Normality" has nothing to do with it. It's a position known in science as "the null hypothesis", but is perhaps better known in law as "innocent until proven guilty" (although a more precise phrase would probably be "not guilty until determined within a reasonable doubt to be guilty", but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well). It's a very basic tenet of logic that you do not believe a claim until there is sufficient reason to believe it, and until such a time you are perfectly justified in holding a position of disbelief. What is determined to be "an extraordinary claim" has nothing to do with it being "not normal" - it's about the quantity and quality of evidence required for the claim to be reasonably concluded as being true. In the case of God claims, that threshold is extremely high, and so any claim that God exists must necessarily carry that burden.

In the spiritual order a proof is of assistance only to the man who wishes to understand and who, by virtue of this wish, has already in some measure understood; it is of no practical use to one who, deep in his heart, does not want to change his position, and whose philosophy merely expresses this desire. It has been claimed that it is up to religion to prove itself in the face of the utmost ill-will, that “religion is made for man,” that it must therefore adapt itself to his needs, and that through its failure to do so it has become bankrupt. One might as well say that the alphabet has become bankrupt in a class where the pupils are determined not to learn it; with this kind of “infralogic” one might declare that the law is made for the honest people who are pleased to conform to it and that a new law is required for the others, a law “adapted” to the needs of their maliciousness and “rejuvenated” in conformity with their propensity for crime.

Absurd. Is this man seriously arguing that religion should never change, and that the dictates of old should never be cast out when society advances and becomes more moral and understanding? Religion need not change if it so wishes, but if it does not it quickly proves itself archaic and regressive. The reason religion changes is so that it can survive in a modern society where more and more people are realizing that religious practices and tenets are not as moral as once proclaimed, and where the needs of modern people - both emotionally and psychologically - differ greatly from the needs of the people for whom religious doctrines were initially penned. Religion DOES change, and it not to meet the demands of the irreligious, but to meet the demands of the religious - people who are advancing beyond the regressive morality of their ancient texts and attempting to bring the tenets of their faith up to date. This isn't some kind of "infralogic", it's basic common sense. If you believe in a text that tells you to love your neighbour and sell your daughter into slavery, it makes sense to drop the slavery portion and keep the love your neighbour part in a society in which love is widely believed to be a good thing and slavery widely believed to be bad.

 

[Ultimatum]

it is by no means obvious why the peremptory denial of causes lying outside our sensory experience should be regarded as conforming to reason or why it should be reasonable to label things impossible merely because they appear improbable or extraordinary from the standpoint of current experience.

It is by all means obvious. You can not claim something, to then also say that it can't be reasonable because it is "supernatural." This would be defeating the point of getting YOUR point across. It doesn't make sense therefore how can we accept the ludicrous claim?

Equating the supernatural and the irrational is characteristic in this respect: it amounts to claiming that the unknown or incomprehensible is the same as the absurd. The rationalism of a frog living at the bottom of a well is to deny the existence of mountains: perhaps this is "logic", but it has nothing to do with reality.

No, that is not logic. That is assumption. And in the case of your example, if we know that the frog is at the bottom of a well then we can assume that it is there. One wouldn't then be able to deny the existence of mountains as they are also there. As physical proof. Of course, one may make the choice of denying the existence of mountains, but there's not much you can do about ignorant human beings.

... First of all, however, an answer should be made to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation.

Well done. 2 points for you. It is you who is trying to sell us something; trying to convince us of an idea, therefore, you should prove it. Go ahead. We're waiting. We don't need to give any evidence of the contrary (even though in most cases we do) because we aren't the ones that are trying to convince you. And when the scenario is flipped on it's head, then WE will be the ones giving proof; evidence. We have no problem with doing that, so it's only reasonable to ask the same of you.

Consequently, the skeptic has the right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God.

But we do prove the [probable] "nonexistence" of God. Do you not hear the question: "Where's the proof for this God?" countless of times? I do and I'm not even religious! And because you FAIL to answer this question reasonably, we cannot ask any more questions (perhaps we can but only out of curiosity of the answer).

 

[Looncall]

But we do prove the [probable] "nonexistence" of God. Do you not hear the question: "Where's the proof for this God?" countless of times? I do and I'm not even religious! And because you FAIL to answer this question reasonably, we cannot ask any more questions (perhaps we can but only out of curiosity of the answer).

Very apt! Many thanks. I must remember this.

The core failure of religion is that there is no reality check for its pronouncements.

 

[Revoltingest]

(An excerpt from "Logic and Trascendence" by Frithjof Schuon)

Once again, it is by no means obvious why the peremptory denial of causes lying outside our sensory experience should be regarded as conforming to reason or why it should be reasonable to label things impossible merely because they appear improbable or extraordinary from the standpoint of current experience. Equating the supernatural and the irrational is characteristic in this respect: it amounts to claiming that the unknown or incomprehensible is the same as the absurd. The rationalism of a frog living at the bottom of a well is to deny the existence of mountains: perhaps this is "logic", but it has nothing to do with reality.

... First of all, however, an answer should be made to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation. Consequently, the skeptic has the right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God. Now this kind of reasoning is arbitrary, and for the following reason: a man who finds himself unable to verify a statement has undoubtedly the right not to accept it as certain or as probable, but he has by no means the logical right to reject it without providing valid reasons for doing so. It is not difficult to discover the basis of the objection in question: it starts from the preconceived notion that the affirmation of God is something “extraordinary,” whereas the denial of God is “normal.” The skeptic starts, of course, from the idea that the normal man is the atheist, and from this he deduces a kind of one-way jurisprudence.

In the spiritual order a proof is of assistance only to the man who wishes to understand and who, by virtue of this wish, has already in some measure understood; it is of no practical use to one who, deep in his heart, does not want to change his position, and whose philosophy merely expresses this desire. It has been claimed that it is up to religion to prove itself in the face of the utmost ill-will, that “religion is made for man,” that it must therefore adapt itself to his needs, and that through its failure to do so it has become bankrupt. One might as well say that the alphabet has become bankrupt in a class where the pupils are determined not to learn it; with this kind of “infralogic” one might declare that the law is made for the honest people who are pleased to conform to it and that a new law is required for the others, a law “adapted” to the needs of their maliciousness and “rejuvenated” in conformity with their propensity for crime.

It's hard to read something so chock full of passive voice & artfully culled claims of
unknown foes. He's 'winning' against an argument which no one appears to be making.

 

[Desert Snake]

What this argument fails to realize is "there is insufficient evidence or reason to believe the claim" IS a valid reason to reject a claim. "Normality" has nothing to do with it. It's a position known in science as "the null hypothesis", but is perhaps better known in law as "innocent until proven guilty" (although a more precise phrase would probably be "not guilty until determined within a reasonable doubt to be guilty", but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well). It's a very basic tenet of logic that you do not believe a claim until there is sufficient reason to believe it, and until such a time you are perfectly justified in holding a position of disbelief. What is determined to be "an extraordinary claim" has nothing to do with it being "not normal" - it's about the quantity and quality of evidence required for the claim to be reasonably concluded as being true. In the case of God claims, that threshold is extremely high, and so any claim that God exists must necessarily carry that burden.

No no no...Theism is about belief in a G-d, even without evidence, the 'claim' is of ones personal rationalization and logic, leading them to theism, not a claim that they can 'prove' the existence of a Deity.

 

[Looncall]

No no no...Theism is about belief in a G-d, even without evidence, the 'claim' is of ones personal rationalization and logic, leading them to theism, not a claim that they can 'prove' the existence of a Deity.

Ah, I see.

So, religion is just about personal fantasies, and there is no matter of fact involved? That would account nicely for the proliferation of religions.

You see fit to state that Sherlock Holmes sat facing forward on a train, even though Conan Doyle did not specify that?

In that case, why bother with it?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ah, I see.

So, religion is just about personal fantasies, and there is no matter of fact involved? That would account nicely for the proliferation of religions.

You see fit to state that Sherlock Holmes sat facing forward on a train, even though Conan Doyle did not specify that?

In that case, why bother with it?

Is this a riddle?
Idk why don't you ask in the DIR's.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No no no...Theism is about belief in a G-d, even without evidence, the 'claim' is of ones personal rationalization and logic, leading them to theism, not a claim that they can 'prove' the existence of a Deity.

Irrelevant. To "believe" a claim is to assert the truth of the claim. If you cannot demonstrate said claim to be true, you cannot successfully assert that it is true. Theism still makes a specific claim that the proposition "God exists" is true.

 

[Desert Snake]

Irrelevant. To "believe" a claim is to assert the truth of the claim. If you cannot demonstrate said claim to be true, you cannot successfully assert that it is true. Theism still makes a specific claim that the proposition "God exists" is true.

What your argument actually is, is a claim to knowledge , which, most likely, you do not possess. You are making the 'claim' of the parameters and 'facts' that one must use when claiming Thiestic beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

Philalethes, why do you think Schuon found it necessary to argue against the weakest possible formulation of atheism? Do you think it could have perhaps been because he could find no intelligent arguments against a stronger position?

By the way, even if Schuon were to show that atheists who argue such a weak version of atheism have a burden of proof, that would do nothing to remove the burden of proof that theists have when they assert there is a god.

Theists are not burdened by reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What your argument actually is, is a claim to knowledge , which, most likely, you do not possess. You are making the 'claim' of the parameters and 'facts' that one must use when claiming Thiestic beliefs.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that in order for a belief to be rational it should be supported by facts. You can believe whatever you want to believe for whatever reason you want to believe it - but it is only REASONABLE to believe something when you have sufficient rational justification. I believe I was very clear about that.

 

[icehorse]

Back to the OP,

Tell Frithjof Schuon that I have a friend named Lucille that flies around the planet in a large teacup. Whenever I have a question, Lucille flies over and answers my question. It's fantastic really, because Lucille knows everything, so her answers are always correct!

 

[Looncall]

Is this a riddle?
Idk why don't you ask in the DIR's.

Dodge noted.

 

[Willamena]

The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation. Consequently, the skeptic has the right to reject the “existence” of God without being required in his turn to prove the “nonexistence” of God.

Of course: the skeptic's claim is not "God does not exist." To reject the claim of god is to say, "I don't believe that," not to affirm the negation, "God does not exist."

And the claim about what one believes is easily enough proven.

 

[Iti oj]

The only thing to suggest god are other people's faith.

 

[outhouse]

Once again, .

WILLFUL IGNORANCE of theist

It Is only theist claims that have no evidence or proof of any kind.



Why is it atheist have a mountain of evidence only man creates deities?

 

[outhouse]

To reject the claim of god is to say, "I don't believe that," not to affirm the negation, "God does not exist."

.

Is that honest?


How much evidence have we presented you over the years that man alone creates and defines gods.


Your god was created by plagiarizing Canaanite and Mesopotamian polytheistic mythology which evolved into Israelite mythology.

El was a god and Yahweh was his son, and they were fused together in two different traditions that were collected and compiled by editors of the bible to form a unified belief to please their Babylonian oppressors who wanted a unified Israelite belief system in place.


Monotheism was not born until long after King Josiahs reforms after 622BC who was a strict yahwist.


Jesus redefined the gods concept once again.

muslims redefined the god concept

Smith redefined the concepts


ONLY MAN factually defines gods, and faithful fanatically refuse credible knowledge