Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[steeltoes]

The burden of proof appears to be just too much for the theist to bear so now they are trying to shift it onto atheists. Why not shift it onto the pagans or the scientologists? They might have more luck with them.

 

[outhouse]

The use of the word "evidence" in the way you presented it, without any conditional modifiers, simply means "grounds for belief".

Thus anything that a theist uses to support their belief is technically "evidence".

Would you prefer it in context of scientific evidence?


You know, real evidence. :sad:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically.

The burden of proof argument claims that because theists have failed to adequately prove the existence of god, atheists need no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief.

I do believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not deny that theists do have a larger burden in order to prove their claim. I simply do not think that this completely erases the need for an atheist to be able to support and defend their own position.

To begin with, ethically:
I believe that every person should be able to articulate why they do or do not hold particular beliefs (or, at the very least, beliefs that they spend time debating.) To me, this is an integrity thing. I can't imagine simply rejecting something, especially something that is widely held to be true-- whether it be evolution, or photosynthesis, or the existence of god-- without having an understanding of why I don't accept it.

Next, philosophically:
It seems to me that the burden-of-proof argument has been misused, or at least, not very well thought out.

Some background: The burden of proof is historically placed on the person making a positive claim. Thus, theists certainly have a burden of proof, as they claim that gods do in fact exist.

Many atheists have gotten around their own burden of proof by claiming to merely have a "lack of belief" in the existence of gods. They are not making a claim themselves; they are merely refusing to accept the claim of another.

Or are they?

The argumentation often goes like this: Theists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need no reason to not believe in the existence of gods.

Seems reasonable on the face of it, no? And it has been a convincing one, at least, to many atheists.

But look more closely. The atheist is making a claim: The claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

Who decides this? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

Is this not a claim that requires it's own proof?

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

You would need to go through various arguments made for the existence of gods and explain why they fail to provide sufficient evidence.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

This has probably been pointed out in the thread somewhere but I think there is a misunderstanding of what actually happens in the debate in terms of burden of proof.

For example a theist can make a claim and provide evidence or argument and I can't simply put my fingers in my hears and say "nope nope nope not true I reject the claim and I don't need any reasons why!".

Once the theist makes a claim it is up to them to provide the proof but it is the duty of the skeptic to provide the counter argument or explanation as to why the "proof" fails certain criteria. Often in the theistic arguments it comes with showing why things are fallacious or baseless.

But this is not a burden of proof on the claim.

 

[atanu]

As Alex Michalos says in his Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.

"usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed."
​

And the atheist doesn't say his proposition automatically stands proven. .....

There is no problem with that logic. In fact i am taking support from this very same.

Check whether the stance "I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist", conforms to your self stated 'Principle of Logic'.

If you think that it conforms then of course there is no further debate. Theist has his belief and atheist has his.

 

[Mycroft]

The burden of proof appears to be just too much for the theist to bear so now they are trying to shift it onto atheists. Why not shift it onto the pagans or the scientologists? They might have more luck with them.

That's because theists have no proof. And that is why it is a problem for them.

 

[McBell]

Would you prefer it in context of scientific evidence?


You know, real evidence. :sad:

Using "real" as a modifier for evidence does not help unless it is your claim that theists believe their evidence is fake.

Seems to me the modifier you are looking for is "empirical".
Or perhaps "objective".

Or maybe "empirical objective"...

 

[The Bullfrog]

Theists have provided evidence, in the forms of logical argumentation and anecdotal evidence.

Just because you don't think it is good evidence, or good enough to convince you, doesn't mean that there isn't any.

Logic is based on a premise, if the premise is wrong but the logic is good, than it can still be an invalid conclusions. You have to prove the premise first before it can be considered valid.

Anecdotal evidence is not hard evidence, as it comes about due to a lack of evidence.

 

[Thief]

Chaos and order are merely perceptions. They are not actual traits of reality.

Consider you have a picture of a bunch of red paint splattered in little droplets. Is this chaos or order? Every drop is a different size, there is no uniform distance between them, and their placement is in no discernible pattern. But then again the canvas is made of hundreds of threads in neat orderly rows and is almost entirely uniform in color. The drops themselves are all the same color, as well. They are all from the same mixture of paint. There is a finite number of droplets.

So can we really say it is chaos manifest? Or order?

Even if we could, consider an identical picture but the drops are blue. Is the blue painting more or less orderly or chaotic than the red picture? Is it possible to be 'equally chaotic' as another thing?

It's all a matter of perception depending on who is assigning which term and why they've done so.

To say the universe is orderly, is just adding a trait through perception. No one is bound to see it that way.

EDIT: I wanted to add that the question then becomes:
If the universe is too ordered to be from anything but God, how much less order would there be without God? Without being able to quantify this difference (and you definitely can't) then there is no weight to the original statement that the universe is too ordered.

Chaos has been given the status of a science.

The flight of a dandelion seed cannot be predicted....but the results are.
More dandelions.

The random path is beyond numbers.
The landing point beyond certainty.
But the seed will land.....more dandelions.

Order is not a matter of appearance or calculation.

 

[Sir Doom]

ING - As already pointed out I am using Zombie as Walking Dead. And just as we don't have real Zombies - It is also logical to assume we don't have Walking Dead Jesus and friends.

Please then, describe the difference between 'real zombies' and 'walking dead jesus and friends'.

ING - There are many types of Zombie myths in modern society, and we were talking about rising dead walking around.

No. We are also talking about caved-skulls and dirty and dusty shrouds and dare I say... ZOMBIES. Because YOU read the verse and it is clear to YOU that these things MUST BE.

ING - It says - the ground shook, even the rocks were torn apart, and the dead arose from their graves, and then headed for town, where they were seen by many.

I know what it says. You posted it...

Doesn't sound like in this story they popped all clean and pretty above their graves to me.

It doesn't sound to me like in this story they popped out in ANY particular fashion at all. Why do you think they popped out in the way you imagine instead of any other particular way?

And AGAIN - Zombie, as in illogical. myth of Walking Dead - that Christianity wants us to accept as truth.

It sort of seems like YOU want ME to accept it as truth.

ING - We are discussing written Christian myth, that Christians expect us to accept as true. I am comparing it to a modern myth of "walking dead" to show it is illogical to expect non-believers to give any credence what-so-ever to either "walking dead" myth.

This only works if any Christian ever believed that the saints rising from the dead resembled zombies in any way, and also intended YOU to believe it.

I don't care how you say you would react - the reality of such an event - the ground shaking and ripping open the graves - and dead people crawling out - or popping above their graves - either way - would cause horror and panic.

I don't care how YOU say I would react. That was the intent of my response here. I don't know how I would react. Neither do you.

Both stories are myth. I have read the Bible, and it appears "to me" that they meant Jesus did not stay in the grave - in the "soul" sense (though they could have though Jesus "alone" actually did rise as proof for them,) whereas non-believers stay in the grave. The walking dead myth is added later.

Who cares? In what way does describing Jesus as a zombie lend to your point?

What Jesus says in the Bible - does not mesh with what later Christianity claims he meant. He was a Jew. No trinity, only ONE God, Jesus is not God, etc. He was claiming to be the awaited Hebrew Messiah - who is not God.

Again... who cares?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't really care how big or little the flaw in the argument is. As long as the atheist supports his claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

I don't think you're getting my point: the atheist doesn't even need to find a flaw; the atheist just has to be unsure about whether a flaw exists.

Whether we're talking about math or theology, the whole point of a logical proof is to break an argument into small steps that the intended recipient agrees with. The atheist would only take on some burden of proof if they said something like "no, that step is wrong."

This is possible in some cases, but in others, it can be a "softer" objection that doesn't create a burden of proof... like "I don't see how that step follows from the one before." I'm not sure how a statement like that could be "proven"... or why we would even ask for proof of it.

 

[steeltoes]

We're grown ups here and we are past the point of having to disprove leprechauns so why continue on with God/s?

 

[Skwim]

There is no problem with that logic. In fact i am taking support from this very same.

Check whether the stance "I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist", conforms to your self stated 'Principle of Logic'.

The atheist position is one of default. Lacking proof of X, the atheist's position is non-X. Either one accepts ghouls as real (you would be a ghoulite) or you don't accept ghouls as real (you be an aghoulite). And, while the agnostic position is available it doesn't correspond to the antithesis of the unqualified claim of X. In any case, the burden of proof wouldn't fall on either the atheist or the agnostic. It belongs squarely with the theist alone.

Logic is based on a premise, if the premise is wrong but the logic is good, than it can still be an invalid conclusions. You have to prove the premise first before it can be considered valid.

You've got it a bit backward. In logic validity deals exclusively with the form of an argument regardless of the truth of any premise. So, if the logic is good then the argument has to be valid. If the content of any premise is wrong then the argument is false (even though the conclusion may be correct---see post 275 below)
As D. B Terrell says in Logic: A Modern Introduction to Deductive Reasoning (p. 7) "It is impossible to prove anything by sheer logic alone except the correctness or incorrectness [validity] of arguments." He then goes on to say (p. 11) "An argument can be valid even though its premises and its conclusion are all false or the premise false."

Hope this helps.

 

[steeltoes]

"An argument can be valid even though its premises and its conclusion are all false or the premise false."

I think that is what atanu was saying.

The argument can be valid but the conclusion false because the premise that the argument is based on is false.

A cow can logically jump over the moon, it is bovine physiology and the laws of physics that don't allow for it.


On the other hand premises can be false and yet the conclusion can be valid. Aristotle concluded that the world was a sphere but his argument for how he derived at that was nonsensical.

 

[atanu]

The atheist position is one of default. Lacking proof of X, the atheist's position is non-X. Either one accepts ghouls as real (you would be a ghoulite) or you don't accept ghouls as real (you be an aghoulite). And, while the agnostic position is available it doesn't correspond to the antithesis of the unqualified claim of X. In any case, the burden of proof wouldn't fall on either the atheist or the agnostic. It belongs squarely with the theist alone.
.

So, it is ok to hold this stance "I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist".

 

[Skwim]

"An argument can be valid even though its premises and its conclusion are all false or the premise false."

I think that is what atanu was saying.

If it makes any difference, I was addressing The Bullfrog's comment.

On the other hand premises can be false and yet the conclusion can be valid.

Absolutely!

p1) All ducks are mammals
p2) All mammals express milk
_____________________________
∴ All ducks express milk (hardly a true conclusion, but valid nonetheless)
​

and sometimes even true.

p1) All ducks are mammals
p2) All mammals breath air
_____________________________
∴ All ducks breath air. (this is sometimes called truth by accident)
​

Both arguments above take the valid form of

p1) All S are P
p2) All P are M
________________
∴ All S are M
​

So, it is ok to hold this stance "I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist".

I think it's OK to hold any stance for whatever reason you decide. In this case, where the grounds for holding X go unproven---by whatever standard one chooses to adopt---I think it quite reasonable to hold a non-X position. So, yes, if one chooses to rely on a neighbor's ability to prove god's existence, and he fails to do so, then I do think it's OK to say "I am an atheist because my neighbor theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist." Personally, I wouldn't limit myself to only my neighbor's ability to convince me. I would like hear the arguments of others; those more likely to present better ones.

 

[atanu]

Ok. So, the basic stance remains: "I am an atheist because my neighbor theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist."

May be that is valid for some. Thanks.

 

[steeltoes]

Ok. So, the basic stance remains: "I am an atheist because my neighbor theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist."

May be that is valid for some. Thanks.

Sure, why not?

The concept of God itself is unverifiable and therefore can be thought of as nonsensical until explained in falsifiable terms.

I don't believe a scientific study is valid until it is verified and even then I hold by beliefs loosely, so you can imagine my hesitation to formulate a belief as regards to a nonsensical God.

 

[Copernicus]

I became aware of this thread when it was 28 pages long, so it took me a while to read and skim it. Falvlun knows that I take his side on this, although I think that the title is somewhat ambiguous. IMO, there is nothing really wrong with burden of proof from a logical perspective. It is a terribly bad strategy for an atheist to fall back on, if he or she wants to engage a theist in debate on the subject, and Falvlun has explained why.

Part of the problem with the "burden of proof" defense of atheism is that the argument isn't just about whether gods exist. It is really about whether belief in the existence of a god or gods is a reasonable belief to hold. Theists believe that it is. Atheists believe that it is not. So the argument gets distorted by irrelevant side issues such as how one defines atheism or god, or whether or not we can believe anything that is not proven. Obviously, we all hold a lot of unproven beliefs--most of our beliefs, in fact--so the question can be twisted around to ask whether it is fair to reject any belief at all. If it is, then why is it fair to reject belief in gods? Or vice versa? And then there is always the inevitable confusion over just what agnosticism is about. Is it a claim that belief in gods is a reasonable one to hold, but just not proven? Or is it simply a claim that one can strongly reject belief without claiming to reject it in an absolute sense?

Belief in a god is not a simple belief. It actually rests on a fairly complex infrastructure of beliefs--a scaffolding that will almost never collapse under a single argument or debate. It is part of a cosmology that typically accepts a spiritual plane of existence and belief that aspects of thought can exist independently of brain activity. Atheism is no less complex, because it tends to rest on a range of other assumptions about how nature works. We engage in debates that really end up being more effective against pieces of scaffolding holding up the conclusion that belief in gods is or is not a reasonable one.

 

[outhouse]

It actually rests on a fairly complex infrastructure of beliefs--a scaffolding that will almost never collapse under a single argument or debate.


.

To me this is due to bias, and nothing more.

For me, it is a matter of education. With education, I see clearly how the mythology evolved and how man factually defined the concept at will. Mirroring the cultural needs of the people writing said definitions. Often the governement officials.

 

[Copernicus]

To me this is due to bias, and nothing more.

For me, it is a matter of education. With education, I see clearly how the mythology evolved and how man factually defined the concept at will. Mirroring the cultural needs of the people writing said definitions. Often the governement officials.

But it is arguably the case that we are all biased in some ways. Even highly educated people can be dogmatic and unreasonable.