Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[LuisDantas]

Isn't deciding the rules of the game as a human pretty arrogant?

If the game you speak of is how to define or deal with the concept of God, then I don't see any alternative to speak of, therefore there is no way of establishing whether it is at all arrogant.

Maybe you meant something else?

To even continue the discussion though is a bit of a nuisance, because things have to be defined. Like "universe", "physical", "experience", and even "effects". Not to mention, it's pretty weird for me to make a distinction between the universe and God at the best of times. That distinction simply isn't there.

Your privilege, certainly.

All the same, others will see such a distinction, or handle the concept in ways that clash with yours.

You can either not mind that or attempt to reach understandings.

 

[LuisDantas]

Implying that whatever a person believes shapes his character?

To an extent. And vice-versa as well.

What if you believe in nothing?

There are no humans that "believe in nothing" without having some sort of serious mental limitation. That is not atheism.

Atheists simply do not believe in the existence of Gods. That gives us a fairly different set of ethical challenges and traps from those of theists. In many senses it is an ethical advantage.

 

[outhouse]

Only man defines any deity.

Man has defined many deities.

Man defines the same deity concept differently.

Man has defined these deities based on previous mythology.



To take a concept known to be created and defined by ancient men, who have now been known to falsely attribute definitions based on well known credible nature, REQUIRES the burden of proof to be met, to overcome factual mistakes in mans definitions.


I find the OP to be null and void of reason based on this reply.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't deciding the rules of the game as a human pretty arrogant?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

To even continue the discussion though is a bit of a nuisance, because things have to be defined. Like "universe", "physical", "experience", and even "effects". Not to mention, it's pretty weird for me to make a distinction between the universe and God at the best of times. That distinction simply isn't there.

Then why did you describe God as "non-physical"? It sure sounded like you were making this distinction.

 

[Breathe]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Basically, I don't believe what you say is accurate and I think it's pretty arrogant to think that someone could state something so factually with such an issue.

Then why did you describe God as "non-physical"?

Differing definitions of what is physical.

 

[Breathe]

All the same, others will see such a distinction, or handle the concept in ways that clash with yours.

You can either not mind that or attempt to reach understandings.

I don't mind, as long as someone doesn't attempt to impede on my beliefs. Another's beliefs or lack thereof have no bearing on my life. As I don't believe in eternal Hell, or even Hell for lack of belief, and have my own flaws and issues to work on, I have no need to convert or whatever.
So, I'm just here for understanding and broadening my exposure to differing concepts -- and hopefully other's.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't mind, as long as someone doesn't attempt to impede on my beliefs. Another's beliefs or lack thereof have no bearing on my life. As I don't believe in eternal Hell, or even Hell for lack of belief, and have my own flaws and issues to work on, I have no need to convert or whatever.
So, I'm just here for understanding and broadening my exposure to differing concepts -- and hopefully other's.

How does a straight disagreement qualify as "arrogant" and/or impede your beliefs?

 

[outhouse]

I don't mind, as long as someone doesn't attempt to impede on my beliefs..

I have no need to convert or whatever.

I would attest to that.


In that case the OP would not even apply to you, as your not projecting your faith into others reality in the form of a debate.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Only man defines any deity.

We don't know much about the metaphysical lives of cows, whales or bacteria, so that is a big maybe.

For all we know some whale song could be prayer, they are known to perform ritual dances when doing so, so they could be praying for a mate.

 

[outhouse]

We don't know much about the metaphysical lives of cows, whales or bacteria, so that is a big maybe.

For all we know some whale song could be prayer, they are known to perform ritual dances when doing so, so they could be praying for a mate.

Elephants, do not they count? They are the ONLY known mammal to practice rituals regarding death.


But since it is not known that they have the ability to define at all, my statement at this time stands.

 

[Copernicus]

If someone is trying to convince me of a claim through arguments, then by their behaviour they're tacitly acknowleding that a suitably convincing argument is needed to support the claim. The only question left is what we should consider "suitably convincing"... where we should set the bar.

I agree. And theists tend to set that bar at a different place than we do. Most atheists will not disagree with you that theists carry the burden of proof, so if you confine your debating partners to atheists, you will experience remarkable success. I'm not actually disputing this point with you.

BTW: I think it's worth keeping in mind that what works in practice and what's reasonable aren't necessarily the same thing...

Right. This is exactly the point that Falvlun, I, and others have been making. The disagreement seems to be over what works in practice, although Falvlun has also claimed that "burden of proof" is weak on philosophical grounds.

...There are plenty of unreasonable or illogical people out there (or, to be a bit kinder, there are people who are inconsistent with their use of logic); they're what allow homeopathy companies to still be going concerns. When I'm confronted with a new argument, I'm mainly concerned with satisfying myself that I've given the argument its due consideration... not necessarily with convincing the other person of this.

I almost never expect a theist to simply give up their religious faith over any argument I make with them. I'm rather more interested in seeing where they stand on the beliefs that underpin their faith. I accept that most theists believe that they have met their burden of proof, at least in their own minds. And I do believe that many of those who feel that way are not coextensive with those who believe in homeopathy. Moreover, I think that we are all illogical about some of our beliefs, so I'm not going to bash theists in general as illogical people. I do think that their theism itself is fundamentally illogical, but that is not the same as believing that they are fundamentally more irrational than I am about other things.

 

[Copernicus]

What is the point of trying to convince someone that their God does not exist? The theist has to justify their own beliefs that they have formulated about invisible gods, it's their burden, it has little to do with this non-believer, far be it from me to convince them of my perspective, they can believe in gods until the cows come home for all I care.

As I told Penguin, I'm not necessarily looking to convince someone to be an atheist, but I do believe in the importance of discussing fundamental issues about how reality works. It is part of a very open and very needed public discourse. I respect your desire not to participate in such discussions, but I'm a bit puzzled as to what you are doing here.

 

[LuisDantas]

The disagreement seems to be over what works in practice, although Falvlun has also claimed that "burden of proof" is weak on philosophical grounds.

While she is right, it must be noted that it is far weaker to simply assume that some random subset of the many, often contradictory conceptions of God that exist may be right just because.

For starters, it leaves open the matter of deciding which conceptions should be disregarded and which one should attempt to keep.

From an epistemological perspective that is not really defensable.

It is far more reasonable to assume no deities until and unless both a working definition and some evidence are presented.

I almost never expect a theist to simply give up their religious faith over any argument I make with them. I'm rather more interested in seeing where they stand on the beliefs that underpin their faith. I accept that most theists believe that they have met their burden of proof, at least in their own minds. And I do believe that many of those who feel that way are not coextensive with those who believe in homeopathy. Moreover, I think that we are all illogical about some of our beliefs, so I'm not going to bash theists in general as illogical people. I do think that their theism itself is fundamentally illogical, but that is not the same as believing that they are fundamentally more irrational than I am about other things.

Fair enough.

 

[Skwim]

Indeed, I can imagine a theist saying exactly the same thing to an atheist. That's the point. A great many think they've met the burden of proof at least to the extent that they are satisfied with their conclusion, and your failure to convince them with your "burden of proof" argument leaves them with a reasonable conclusion. Why? Because you have declared yourself the judge of when the burden of proof is met. You may be right in your judgment, but it isn't going to convince any others than those who already agree with you.

But the atheist has no burden of proof to bear. I don't think any atheist cares one wit whether or not the theist or anyone else believes him. He only announces it as a position antithetical to that of the theist---take it or leave it He has no stake in its acceptance or nonacceptance. However, the theists announces his claim in hopes that it will be taken as truth---why else make it?
Thing is, it's a well agreed upon principle of logic that,

"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."
Source: Alex Michalos, Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.​

I respectfully disagree. The crux of the issue is whether theism is a reasonable belief to hold, not where the burden of proof lies.

The title of the thread is, " Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument."

And, the very first words in the OP are, "I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically."

Both of the underlined terms are direct objects of their sentences. And, this what the thread is about: the burden of proof and where it lies. To suggest anything else is dishonest or uncomprehending. Your choice.

 

[Copernicus]

While she is right, it must be noted that it is far weaker to simply assume that some random subset of the many, often contradictory conceptions of God that exist may be right just because.

For starters, it leaves open the matter of deciding which conceptions should be disregarded and which one should attempt to keep.

I usually like to stick with definitions of words that conform to general usage. People quite often make claims about what they mean that don't quite fit with what they say. The range of conception that I accept is usually the conception of a god that people think of as a willful agency that they worship and pray to.

Frwom an epistemological perspective that is not really defensable.

It is far more reasonable to assume no deities until and unless both a working definition and some evidence are presented.

I'm not disputing this, but it isn't reasonable to expect others would want to discuss the matter under that assumption.

But the atheist has no burden of proof to bear. I don't think any atheist cares one wit whether or not the theist or anyone else believes him. He only announces it as a position antithetical to that of the theist---take it or leave it He has no stake in its acceptance or nonacceptance. However, the theists announces his claim in hopes that it will be taken as truth---why else make it?

Well, they have remarkable success in getting other people to agree with that claim. It isn't about who carries the burden of proof, because atheists and theists simply tend to disagree on that.

Thing is, it's a well agreed upon principle of logic that,

"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."
Source: Alex Michalos, Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.​

The title of the thread is, " Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument."

And, the very first words in the OP are, "I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically."

Right, but I haven't agreed fully with that way of putting it. I would just say that "burden of proof" is a bad argument because it is usually a non-starter for theists. I believe that Falvlun has made that point quite well.

Both of the underlined terms are direct objects of their sentences. And, this what the thread is about: the burden of proof and where it lies. To suggest anything else is dishonest or uncomprehending. Your choice.

No, Skwim. They are subjects of their respective sentences, not direct objects. That suggestion is neither uncomprehending nor dishonest. I know perfectly well what Falvlun's point was, and I wholeheartedly support it.

 

[LuisDantas]

While she is right, it must be noted that it is far weaker to simply assume that some random subset of the many, often contradictory conceptions of God that exist may be right just because.

For starters, it leaves open the matter of deciding which conceptions should be disregarded and which one should attempt to keep.

I usually like to stick with definitions of words that conform to general usage. People quite often make claims about what they mean that don't quite fit with what they say. The range of conception that I accept is usually the conception of a god that people think of as a willful agency that they worship and pray to.

Isn't that still too vague and self-contradictory, though? Even leaving aside such matters as whether Krishna or Amaterasu or Shango are Gods, even the faiths that center themselves on the notion of One True God have a very hard time reaching a consensus on what he would approve or want.

How logical is it to believe that such a being exists despite a remarkable lack of success in even basic communication of his will? Why would anyone treat such a hypothesis as roughly as logical as that of his non-existence?

From an epistemological perspective that is not really defensable.

It is far more reasonable to assume no deities until and unless both a working definition and some evidence are presented.

I'm not disputing this, but it isn't reasonable to expect others would want to discuss the matter under that assumption.

It isn't? Why would anyone want to discuss the matter at all then?

But the atheist has no burden of proof to bear. I don't think any atheist cares one wit whether or not the theist or anyone else believes him. He only announces it as a position antithetical to that of the theist---take it or leave it He has no stake in its acceptance or nonacceptance. However, the theists announces his claim in hopes that it will be taken as truth---why else make it?

Well, they have remarkable success in getting other people to agree with that claim. It isn't about who carries the burden of proof, because atheists and theists simply tend to disagree on that.

I don't know about that. There is a sizeable subset of theists who seems to believe that they have proof, at least.

Thing is, it's a well agreed upon principle of logic that,

"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."
Source: Alex Michalos, Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.​

The title of the thread is, " Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument."

And, the very first words in the OP are, "I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically."

Right, but I haven't agreed fully with that way of putting it. I would just say that "burden of proof" is a bad argument because it is usually a non-starter for theists. I believe that Falvlun has made that point quite well.

It is certainly a bad argument for theists. It does not follow that it is a bad argument generally.

Both of the underlined terms are direct objects of their sentences. And, this what the thread is about: the burden of proof and where it lies. To suggest anything else is dishonest or uncomprehending. Your choice.

No, Skwim. They are subjects of their respective sentences, not direct objects. That suggestion is neither uncomprehending nor dishonest. I know perfectly well what Falvlun's point was, and I wholeheartedly support it.

Maybe you can explain it to me then?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically, I don't believe what you say is accurate and I think it's pretty arrogant to think that someone could state something so factually with such an issue.

If you have a way to figure out whether a thing is physical that doesn't involve considering how that thing interacts with other physical things, I'm all ears.

 

[Skwim]

Well, they have remarkable success in getting other people to agree with that claim.

Perhaps, or maybe others arrived at the same notion all on their own.

It isn't about who carries the burden of proof, because atheists and theists simply tend to disagree on that.

Sorry, but it's all about who carries the burden of proof. Please see the OP and the posts that follow. That you insist on dismissing the very point of the issue here is very curious and a bit telling.

Right, but I haven't agreed fully with that way of putting it. I would just say that "burden of proof" is a bad argument because it is usually a non-starter for theists. I believe that Falvlun has made that point quite well.

A "non-starter"? What's that? An untenable situation the theist has put himself in?

No, Skwim. They are subjects of their respective sentences, not direct objects.

I've always understood the difference is that the subject answers the question "what?" or "who?" before the verb, and that the object answers the question "what?" or "who?" after the verb.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry, but it's all about who carries the burden of proof. Please see the OP and posts that follow. That you insist on dismissing the very point of the issue here is very curious and a bit telling.

I have read them, and my position hasn't changed. Please try to avoid ad hominems.

A "non-starter"? What's that? An untenable situation the theist has put himself in?

It simply kills the discussion. Many people take this type of argument more as rhetorical posturing than a serious thing to debate with you.

I've always understood the difference is that the subject answers the question "what?" or "who?" before the verb, and that the object answers the question "what?" or "who?" after the verb.

You've been given some very unhelpful advice on grammar, and it really isn't relevant to your main argument.

 

[Breathe]

How does a straight disagreement qualify as "arrogant"

Trusting one's own abilities so much that they are able to claim something of an Absolute reality is not possible

and/or impede your beliefs?

Doesn't. But not my point, here.

If you have a way to figure out whether a thing is physical that doesn't involve considering how that thing interacts with other physical things, I'm all ears.

Define physical.