Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, the concept of Burden of Proof is meaningless in the face of something that can't be proved or disproved.

The problem then becomes "How do you know that you cannot prove or disprove the claim"? "We cannot know" is just as much a claim as "I definitely know".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not think it's reasonable to demand of someone that they find positive reasons and/or evidence for dismissing an argument, if that's what you're doing.

For instance, one needs only show that someone's reasons and/or evidence for a claim are inadequate support for their claim.

I'm not sure that even that much is necessary. For instance, if the argument relies on an intermediate step that's based on some type of math that I don't know, then maybe I can't even tell whether the reasons given are inadequate... but I still can't mentally work my way from the premises to the conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, the concept of Burden of Proof is meaningless in the face of something that can't be proved or disproved.

In that case, the burden of proof isn't meaningless; it's an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[Sunstone]

An appeal to popularity would be a fallacy if it were being used to prove the existence of God (or whatever).

But that's not how I was using it. It's a measure of reasonableness of a concept.

Good point. Although, I wouldn't myself use the world "reasonableness". I've been around too long to presume people in general are reasonable. Maybe, "likelihood" of something being the case.

In general, if the majority of people believe something exists, then it is reasonable to assume that it exists.

Not as the absolute principle that you seem to be trying to make it here. If there is a sound explanation why the majority of people believe something to be true even when it is not true, then it would not at all be reasonable to assume that it exists on the mere basis that the majority of people believe it to exist.

For instance, there appears to be an emerging consensus from across several sciences that the human brain somehow functions to predispose us to belief in deities, spirits, ghosts, etc. If that consensus proves to be firm, there would be little basis on which to argue that it is reasonable to assume deity exists merely because the majority of people believe it exist.

 

[Bunyip]

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?

Well the atheist in question decides that of course, why would you imagine anyone needs an objective arbiter to validate what they believe? If a person is not convinced, they are not convinced - there is no need for an objective arbiter, and no objective arbiter could make the atheist in question hold a belief that they do not hold anyway.

Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

Because it has not been met to the satisfaction of the atheist in question. Simply put, you should accept the assertion because it is the truth.

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

No,it is not. It is also not possible to prove that you find the evidence lacking and so you would be placing upon atheism a burden thatis impossible to meet.

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.

That has been done ad nauseum, it is broadly accepted that belief in god is a question of faith rather than evidence. The scientific literature clearly demonstrates that there has yet to be any scientific evidence for the existence of god. There can be no evidence of non-existence, thatiswhy the burden of proof is upon the theist.

 

[Sunstone]

I am mainly responding to this scenario:

Theist: What are your reasons for not believing God exists?
Atheist: I don't have to have any reasons because theists have the burden of proof. (Or, "I don't have to have any reasons because theists haven't met their burden of proof")

Well, this is where you lose me, my friend. Suppose I were to say to you that I am an acrobat. You ask me what evidence I have for my claim. I then say, "I have none, but nevertheless you yourself have some burden -- less than mine, but still some burden -- to disprove my claim. Otherwise the claim stands as a reasonable possibility."

I would not accept my reasoning as given in that example, and I would not recommend that you do so either.

 

[Skwim]

Never mind.

 

[McBell]

Who decides this?

the person you are trying to convince.

 

[steeltoes]

There can be no evidence of non-existence, thatiswhy the burden of proof is upon the theist.

Exactly, what is the evidence for the non-existence of an undetectable invisible entity supposed to look like anyways?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As I understand it, it's not exactly like that. It only works when debating one side of the argument.

For example, it would NOT work for:

"God doesn't exist" "Proof?" "The burden of proof is on you."

It WOULD work for:

"God exists" "Proof?" "Prove that God doesn't exist" "The burden of proof is on you"

The original claim leads the burden of proof, rather than the positive belief. I've seen people use it by the former standard, but I do think that most people understand and use the latter.

 

[steeltoes]

As I understand it, it's not exactly like that. It only works when debating one side of the argument.

For example, it would NOT work for:

"God doesn't exist" "Proof?" "The burden of proof is on you."

It WOULD work for:

"God exists" "Proof?" "Prove that God doesn't exist" "The burden of proof is on you"

The original claim leads the burden of proof, rather than the positive belief. I've seen people use it by the former standard, but I do think that most people understand and use the latter.

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time attempting to prove the existence or non-existence of an invisible God, what would be the point?

 

[Mycroft]

The Burden of Proof is only a bad argument if you have no proof.

 

[steeltoes]

The Burden of Proof is only a bad argument if you have no proof.

I'll second that.

 

[LuisDantas]

The burden of proof does indeed fall to the theistic side. Not only because it is the side making a claim that demands evidence, but also because it is the side that expects the other to make concessions.

 

[outhouse]

I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that a rejection of a claim has no burden whatsoever.

.

Hardly ever see that though.



Its my claim that man has created all deities to date, as they do not write the books that describe them.

Only man does that.


Which then becomes a debate a divine inspiration

 

[Bunyip]

The burden of proof is not a bad argument, it is not an argument at all.

It is a simple convention, the party making the claim bears the burden of proof.

Morover in this particular context a burden of proof to disprove the existence of an immaterial entity is clearly absurd. After all - what would the evidence that an immaterial entity (with no known measurable effect on the universe) is not there look like?

The reality here is that atheism can not bear a burden of proof that it is not possible to satisfy, and to ask atheists to do so is as absurd as it is dishonest.

 

[bobhikes]

I find it ridiculous to hold the person making the claim to the burden of proof. You are then relying on others for your facts or truths, you are setting yourself up to be lied to.

If you really care about something and consider it important, it is your burden to seek the proof. It is the weak person's out to simply say prove it or it doesn't matter. I can go along believing what I want because you haven't proved it to me. Again this is for anything you consider important.

If something is not important or you don't care then it is okay to shift the burden of proof because first they need to prove to you it is important.

For example: When a person says to me pink elephants can fly. I don't care what other words come out of there mouth. They first need to prove to me they are intelligent and not on something.

2nd: A person tells me there has been a major earthquake in El Salvador. My wife is from El Salvador this is important to me. I will go to the News Sources and the USGS website and verify where in El Salvador it happened and how bad it was and then notify my wife. I am not going to notify my wife without Proof that I have gotten.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time attempting to prove the existence or non-existence of an invisible God, what would be the point?

I just point at the emptiness. Proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reality here is that atheism can not bear a burden of proof that it is not possible to satisfy, and to ask atheists to do so is as absurd as it is dishonest.

I suppose that could be true under very specific circunstances. Generally speaking it is not.

 

[Bunyip]

I suppose that could be true under very specific circunstances. Generally speaking it is not.

Would you please expand on that comment?
Atheism bears no burden of proof, theism is unproven, the existence of god is unproven - so why would atheism bear a burden of proof unmet by theism?