The Burden of Proof

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In regards to theological discussion, nothing is default or obvious - neither theism nor atheism. Thus, the "burden of proof" lies with whoever has made a claim, be it "god exists" or "god does not exist".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In regards to theological discussion, nothing is default or obvious - neither theism nor atheism. Thus, the "burden of proof" lies with whoever has made a claim, be it "god exists" or "god does not exist".

And I never make either claim. I only say, "the God that you have presented to me, and what you say about its nature, is so unlikely as to be probably not true."

But if you make the claim, "God expects you to accept Jesus in order to be saved," I'll say you've slightly less than nothing (so far) to back up that claim, so the burden of proof of that statement is now on you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

So what is the objective comparism with that falling Apple from the tree?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So what is the objective comparism with that falling Apple from the tree?

Every single time that humans have observed, without exception, when the stem of the apple separates from the branch it grew on (providing that nobody or nothing picked it), it fell to the ground in exactly the way that Newton described. That's an objective fact. If you walk off the edge of the roof of a skyscraper, you can test this for yourself (I hope you do not, and if you do, I hope that I'm wrong.)

That's "objective."

Now, let's examine another example, claimed with just as much "authority" as Newton's gravity: "if you do not accept Christ as your personal Saviour, you are condemned by God to eternal damnation." You've read that, and I've read that. Millions and millions of Christians believe it. And therefore they believe that billions of very good, very nice, very helpful, very human (and therefore fallible, as are the Christians) Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Jains, pagans, atheists and who knows what else are condemned to eternal damnation while they, even though they boffed their sister a couple of times and hated their enemies more times than Jesus would have allowed, are destined for eternal happiness.

I would say that's pretty subjective, and I would also certainly say that the burden of proof for those assertions are on them. Until they can demonstrate their convictions in some way, I find them silly enough that I can ignore them without the slightest compunction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In regards to theological discussion, nothing is default or obvious - neither theism nor atheism. Thus, the "burden of proof" lies with whoever has made a claim, be it "god exists" or "god does not exist".

How is a burden of proof applied in regards with what essentally is the equivalence for, Nothing is there"?

It seems subjectivness is really at play here, rather than objective burdens of proof needed to establish or discount the existance of any givin thing. Subjectively an arguement can be made as assumptions apply to each case.

Objectively no. Its a different story. Its pretty clear if something is or isn't there at any givin moment in time.

I'm guessing this is primarily the reason these type of arguments go unceasingly circular.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How is a burden of proof applied in regards with what essentally is the equivalence for, Nothing is there"?

The (sometimes) atheist claim? Simple; it's a claim that requires evidence. If an atheist makes the claim "There is no god," they must back it up. All too often I've encountered atheists who think they can make this claim with impunity, but in a respectable discourse this is not so.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The (sometimes) atheist claim? Simple; it's a claim that requires evidence. If an atheist makes the claim "There is no god," they must back it up. All too often I've encountered atheists who think they can make this claim with impunity, but in a respectable discourse this is not so.

To be quite honest with you, gnostic atheists annoy me more than I should let them.

 

[Altfish]

So, to take this to its absurd limit, someone states there is a pink unicorn orbiting Saturn.

I say, "That's nonsense" but you are now saying I have to prove it doesn't exist? How could I prove that there is no pink unicorn orbiting Saturn?

That is why the burden of proof falls on those making extraordinary claims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The (sometimes) atheist claim? Simple; it's a claim that requires evidence. If an atheist makes the claim "There is no god," they must back it up. All too often I've encountered atheists who think they can make this claim with impunity, but in a respectable discourse this is not so.

More often than not, I've found that theists interpret atheist statements like "I find the arguments for your god unconvincing, and therefore I ought not to believe in it" as "there is no god."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I take "evidence" to mean any element that could be used as the basis for logical inferences to make a case for some conclusion. In this regard, yes: some verse in Matthew can be taken as evidence for God, since it can be used, along with other evidence (either established or hoped to be established in future) to make a particular case for the existence of God.

And yes: if that same verse can be used in some case for the non-existence of God or the unreliability of the Bible, then it's also evidence for these things.

We just have to be careful to remember that the number of pieces of evidence for a conclusion isn't a sign that the conclusion is true or likely true unless that evidence all works together to make a valid case. We also have to remember that evidence that supports many different conclusions can't be properly used to choose one of those conclusions over the other.

 

[HonestJoe]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

Often misused but not always inappropriate.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim.

I think you’ve taken that from a legal definition rather than a philosophical one. In philosophy, there isn’t a “default” position, though there can be an initially established one and generally established facts on which evidence can be based.

In your example, the claim of there being a grocery store on the corner still carries a burden of proof, it’s just very easy to fulfil because all of the necessary evidence is immediately and directly available. Different claims in different circumstances will require different levels and forms of evidence but they’re still all facing the same “burden of proof” principle. You can claim there is a grocery store on a particular corner in the next town over, a grocery store on a particular corner in the middle of the Sahara or a grocery store on a particular corner on Pluto. They all require different forms of evidence to support but in each case it’d be under the same “burden of proof” principle.

 

[ChristineM]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

Hence the word 'faith'

Take the biggie as an example, god. The faithfully claim god exists because they believe god exists, no evidence, just faith. Some claim evidence that on analysis also turns out to be nothing more than personal or group faith.

Many none believers in god will claim that proof by exhaustion is is evidence enough. In say, 10,000 years, literally billions of people have claimed their god(s) is/are real yet none of all those people in all that time have provided one iota of verifiable evidence. That is of course is shifting the burden back to the failure of the believer to provide evidence.

Now for the next biggie, only on very rare occasions can evidence dent of break the faith of the believer, whereas it
would only take one success to destroy proof by exhaustion and end atheism in a stroke.

 

[Stevicus]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

I think it would also depend on the importance of the issue or the gravity of the situation. In a formal setting, such as academic, scientific, or legal, then burden of proof is important. However, if people are just jawing about stuff informally or just "thinking out loud" without any particular purpose, then it doesn't have to be such a stringent standard. Nobody has to prove anything to me personally, but a discussion might be more interesting if people were willing to explain why they believe as they do.

If it was so important to me to know whether there is a grocery store on the corner, then I would do my own legwork and check it out for myself.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

If someone says there's a ghost in the castle, I might ask what makes them believe there is a ghost in the castle. More often than not, it's not that they've actually seen a ghost in the castle, but they heard it from someone else who sounded convincing enough. Or maybe they read it in a book or saw a documentary on TV or read an article on the internet which somehow "sold" them on the idea that there is a ghost in the castle.

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I suppose one could say that it's "evidence" in the sense that eyewitness testimony might be considered, but not necessarily "proof." I find the issue of "proof" to be somewhat elusive and slippery, especially when it comes to people who were "proven guilty" in a court of law but later are "proven" to be innocent. How in the heck does something like this happen? Probably because there are alternate and somewhat subjective standards as to what constitutes "proof."

 

[BSM1]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

Although I don't disagree with your premise, a questions immediately comes to mind: Who the heck is George?

 

[metis]

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'"

To me, "evidence" means that there's some indication that A is possibly connected to B, but notice my words "some indication". IOW, "evidence" is not necessarily proof-positive that A is connected to B, therefore there's room for more evidence that may drive us in that same direction or possibly take us in the opposite or somewhat different direction.

To put it in more of a scientific approach, there generally is no agreed upon "absolute fact" even if we're convinced there is one, largely because we cannot always be sure there's not some hidden affect we haven't yet thought of or come up with as of yet. Therefore, saying something like "The evidence suggests that A has a connection to B" is a safer path to take than saying "A is connected to B".

Or, to put it another way, anything and everything can be debated-- according to some evidence of course.

 

[Valjean]

The (sometimes) atheist claim? Simple; it's a claim that requires evidence. If an atheist makes the claim "There is no god," they must back it up. All too often I've encountered atheists who think they can make this claim with impunity, but in a respectable discourse this is not so.

You're talking about a subset of atheists, who are making a positive assertion, but atheism, essentially, makes no claims at all. There is nothing there to provide evidence of.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

More often than not, I've found that theists interpret atheist statements like "I find the arguments for your god unconvincing, and therefore I ought not to believe in it" as "there is no god."

Yes, and those theists are clearly insecure in their own beliefs and require outside validation.

You're talking about a subset of atheists, who are making a positive assertion, but atheism, essentially, makes no claims at all. There is nothing there to provide evidence of.

Which would be why I clarified that this claim is sometimes made. And it sometimes is. Surely you don't deny that often the world will have an atheist that boldly and assertively denies the existence of gods? Beyond what penguin mentions, where they merely state it as a lack of substantial evidence to convince them?

 

[Nous]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I don't know why you go down this rabbit hole about "denying the 'default' conclusion". There are no "default conclusions".

Normally the person who has the burden of proof is that person who makes the assertion. Like this:

I only say, "the God that you have presented to me, and what you say about its nature, is so unlikely as to be probably not true."

The burden is on you there. Be sure to explain how you constructed your probabilities. I'll present Brahman as the God:

In Hinduism, Brahman (/brəhmən/; ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2][3]In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6][7] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1][8]​

Brahman - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

Every single time that humans have observed, without exception, when the stem of the apple separates from the branch it grew on (providing that nobody or nothing picked it), it fell to the ground in exactly the way that Newton described.

Wow. Prove that claim about what humans have observed every time without exception when an apple falls from a tree.

Cavendish didn't premise his demonstration of Newton's inverse square law on such faith.