Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Kilgore Trout]

And then there is the more important argument: That of the responsibility to yourself. I worry that the use of the "burden of proof" argument convinces people that they do not have to have any reasons for their disbelief. You owe it to yourself (at least, if you want a rational worldview), to understand why you reject the arguments made in favor of god's existence. And this has nothing to do with convincing other people.

I'm certain that most atheists have sufficiently good reason to reject the claims put forth by theists. However, "burden of proof" is something specific, and if the atheist isn't making a claim they are trying to convince others of, then there is no burden of proof. I understand what it is that you're trying to argue. However, I think your point is getting watered-down and lost in your attaching it to the idea of a "burden of proof."

 

[outhouse]

We are talking about debates on RF where a theists asks an atheist to provide proof for their non-belief, and the atheist replies "I don't have to because you have the burden of proof".

.

I don't see that all that often, but im sure it comes up.


In that case, it would be weak for the atheist to cop out, ever though he has that right.


It would only answer to those theist who are actually willing to debate. How often does that happen when you get to that level?


Many I would just throw the BoP if I felt a debate would not take place, or a thread has gone way beyond a real debate into ignorance and insults.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If I'm talking to someone and they claim that there is an invisible purple dragon sitting on their head, do I have a burden of proof to not believe their claim? If so, exactly what would that "burden of proof" entail, and if I didn't meet that "burden of proof," would I be justified in not believing their claim?

 

[Skwim]

Well, technically, no one has to do anything. I mean, everyone can just throw the rules of debate out the window. No one can force anyone to provide reasons for their beliefs, and everyone's free to believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

But everyone does seem to be forgetting the context.

We are talking about debates on RF where a theists asks an atheist to provide proof for their non-belief, and the atheist replies "I don't have to because you have the burden of proof". (NB: the wording does not need to be exact, but that's the gist of it.)

In such a context, if you are using the "burden of proof" argument as essentially a premise in your argument in the debate, I would think that you have an assumed responsibility to support the truth of your claim. Otherwise, even the theist could simply fire back "I'm not trying to convince you that god exists" too, and the debate would be at an impasse. The whole thing just causes a whole bunch of silliness.

But I believe it's rare that the theist says this only to express his personal belief, but rather to convince others of its truth.

And then there is the more important argument: That of the responsibility to yourself. I worry that the use of the "burden of proof" argument convinces people that they do not have to have any reasons for their disbelief. You owe it to yourself (at least, if you want a rational worldview), to understand why you reject the arguments made in favor of god's existence. And this has nothing to do with convincing other people.

And in the face of the prevailing belief (90% in America) that god does exist I think almost every atheist has arrived at his position by seriously considering his options. That he just plucked it out of the air as you suggest goes against typical human behavior. Aside from knee-jerk reactions, almost all of what we do is the result of reasoning, no matter how brief it may be.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I think you may have misunderstood me because this is precisely what I am asking for.

The claim that atheists (or whoever) have a burden for is the claim that the evidence provided is no good.

(Which, if you think about it, just boils down to supporting the disbelief in god, which is why the whole burden of proof thing is a little silly imo, but that's neither here nor there.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, technically, no one has to do anything. I mean, everyone can just throw the rules of debate out the window. No one can force anyone to provide reasons for their beliefs, and everyone's free to believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

But everyone does seem to be forgetting the context.

We are talking about debates on RF where a theists asks an atheist to provide proof for their non-belief, and the atheist replies "I don't have to because you have the burden of proof". (NB: the wording does not need to be exact, but that's the gist of it.)

The wording of this is somewhat nonsensical. You cannot "provide proof for a disbelief". You can provide reasons as to why you do not believe something, or provide evidence to convince other people of your position, but asking for "proof of disbelief" makes no sense. Also, I very much doubt that the burden of proof is used in this sense. I have already explained the situations in which the burden of proof is utilized, and it is to do specifically with who is making the claim - whether atheist or theist. It has nothing to do with atheists saying that they don't have to support their position: we do. Every day.

And then there is the more important argument: That of the responsibility to yourself. I worry that the use of the "burden of proof" argument convinces people that they do not have to have any reasons for their disbelief. You owe it to yourself (at least, if you want a rational worldview), to understand why you reject the arguments made in favor of god's existence. And this has nothing to do with convincing other people.

Once again, this is not what "the burden of proof" actually means or why it is used. It is a technique of debate that basically means "the person making the claim has to support that claim with reasoned evidence if they wish to convince others of its validity". It is not (and, to my knowledge, has never been used) as a means of dodging requests for atheists to support their views. Atheists on these forums are constantly supporting and explaining their views in countless threads - to assert that the burden of proof is somehow a means for atheists to not do this is completely and utterly absurd when you read the vast number of threads and posts made by the atheists on these forums alone and the time they take in explaining and rationalizing their disbelief.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

This sounds a little "no true scotsmanish". I suspect that any evidence provided by a theist won't be considered "real" evidence.

But regardless, it's funny that you don't even realize you are doing precisely what I am asking for: I am asking for atheists to provide the reasons they reject the proof offered by theists. Your reason, apparently, is that none of it meets your criteria of "hard evidence." It would, of course, be nice if you defined what you considered "hard evidence" and how none of the arguments meets that. But it's a start.

Also, by and by, I don't really understand all this hating on anecdotal evidence. I mean, I do: anecdotal stuff is hard to confirm, is often personal in nature, etc. But at the same time, you could argue that nearly all evidence is anecdotal. We believe a ton of stuff that we personally have not studied or experienced, but take it on faith that those who have studied or experienced it are describing it accurately. Science could basically be considered "organized anecdotal evidence".

 

[steeltoes]

The wording of this is somewhat nonsensical. You cannot "provide proof for a disbelief". You can provide reasons as to why you do not believe something, or provide evidence to convince other people of your position, but asking for "proof of disbelief" makes no sense. Also, I very much doubt that the burden of proof is used in this sense. I have already explained the situations in which the burden of proof is utilized, and it is to do specifically with who is making the claim - whether atheist or theist. It has nothing to do with atheists saying that they don't have to support their position: we do. Every day.

This.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

1. I don't think that's usually how it goes. Usually atheists have pretty definite flaws in mind.

2. If the atheist doesn't know why he rejects the argument, I don't think it can then be claimed that the theist hasn't met the burden of proof. All you could say, then, is "I don't know whether the theist has met the burden of proof or not".

 

[steeltoes]

In as much as I don't think there's anything new to say about the theist/atheist BoP issue I'm going off point here to comment on your post.

I generally think of faith as trust in belief. One's belief is so strong that you're willing to act on it. Consider: your drive up to a four-way stop intersection and there are other cars doing the same. Now, having arrived first you you believe you have the right of way. Past experience has shown that in similar situations other drivers have granted you just this: the right of way. Now, there is no guarantee that this time they will do the same; however, you take your belief that they will, and turn it into a faith and act on this belief, and move forward. The virtue of this faith is that it accommodates your intent and allows you to get on with your life expeditiously.

This why I feel that faith can have a very practical application in life. In other cases, not so much. In fact it can blind one to reality by pushing one to ignore the contradictions and evidence against the belief on which the faith rests.

Agreed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This sounds a little "no true scotsmanish". I suspect that any evidence provided by a theist won't be considered "real" evidence.

Accusing other people of bias is not a strong debating tactic.

But regardless, it's funny that you don't even realize you are doing precisely what I am asking for: I am asking for atheists to provide the reasons they reject the proof offered by theists.

We do this all the time.

Your reason, apparently, is that none of it meets your criteria of "hard evidence." It would, of course, be nice if you defined what you considered "hard evidence" and how none of the arguments meets that. But it's a start.

Again, this is something that we do all the time.

Also, by and by, I don't really understand all this hating on anecdotal evidence. I mean, I do: anecdotal stuff is hard to confirm, is often personal in nature, etc. But at the same time, you could argue that nearly all evidence is anecdotal. We believe a ton of stuff that we personally have not studied or experienced, but take it on faith that those who have studied or experienced it are describing it accurately. Science could basically be considered "organized anecdotal evidence".

Different claims have different burdens of proof. If you told me you had a dog, I would believe your claim even though I only have your word for it, because the claim that you have a dog is not an exceptional claim. If a historian tells me that the battle of the Bulge lasted around 40 days, I would believe their claim at face value because I have reason to believe that they would have sufficient knowledge of that particular battle to make an accurate assessment of it. If someone comes along and tells me that they have a magical, invisible best friend who rides a pony, I'm not going to believe them, and am going to need a lot more evidence to convince me that what they're saying is true beyond just their word.

This statement of yours falls apart as soon as you realize that, while there are lots of things you believe based on anecdotal evidence, there are also countless things you don't believe, despite having just as much reason to. You differentiate between those things all the time, so you must understand that some things are more worth believing based on anecdotal evidence than other things. To assert that all these claims are equal is absurd.

 

[outhouse]

2. If the atheist doesn't know why he rejects the argument, I don't think it can then be claimed that the theist hasn't met the burden of proof. All you could say, then, is "I don't know whether the theist has met the burden of proof or not".

If your god does not exist scientifically, and by all standards it does not exist.

The BoP has never been met, EVER.


You have overstepped the rules of a debate, not the atheist.

 

[steeltoes]

Accusing other people of bias is not a strong debating tactic.


We do this all the time.


Again, this is something that we do all the time.


Different claims have different burdens of proof. If you told me you had a dog, I would believe your claim even though I only have your word for it, because the claim that you have a dog is not an exceptional claim. If a historian tells me that the battle of the Bulge lasted around 40 days, I would believe their claim at face value because I have reason to believe that they would have sufficient knowledge of that particular battle to make an accurate assessment of it. If someone comes along and tells me that they have a magical, invisible best friend who rides a pony, I'm not going to believe them, and am going to need a lot more evidence to convince me that what they're saying is true beyond just their word.

This statement of yours falls apart as soon as you realize that, while there are lots of things you believe based on anecdotal evidence, there are also countless things you don't believe, despite having just as much reason to. You differentiate between those things all the time, so you must understand that some things are more worth believing based on anecdotal evidence than other things. To assert that all these claims are equal is absurd.

"To assert that all these claims are equal is absurd."

Precisely why I rarely, if ever, debate the existence/non-existence of God anymore.

 

[Falvlun]

Not sure if you are missing the obvious that you are in fact not only arguing against atheists but also against all other known religions. (If you follow one you most likely reject all the others)

So you are arguing that if a Mormon says XYZ they first have to prove Mormonism just as an atheist would have to first prove there is no god... Its all irrational. I see how you ended up down this path but Burden of proof arguments are good arguments and not bad.

IMHO, you're mileage may vary. (Check wikipedia?)

I'm not arguing against anyone. I am arguing for people owning their positions, which includes understanding why you believe what you do. That goes for everyone.

 

[Falvlun]

To be honest buddy, I have no idea what you are whinging about. Nor did I misuse or misunderstand any word I used.

Weren't you the guy who claims he doesn't "believe" anything, he only accepts things that are facts, or some such nonsense?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If your god does not exist scientifically, and by all standards it does not exist.

The BoP has never been met, EVER.


You have overstepped the rules of a debate, not the atheist.

You realize the OP is an atheist, right?

 

[Falvlun]

Well I’m sorry but I think presenting the burden of proof concept as a bad argument is itself a bad argument, at least in the way it is implied in the OP.

To me it seems straightforwardly the case that any initial statement or proposition carries with it the burden of proof. To be confronted with ‘Why don’t you believe in God?’ is a statement that presumes one should believe in a supernatural being unless the other party can prove otherwise and this to shift the burden of proof from the questioner, who is making the claim, to the one who is being questioned, which is preposterous. The proper approach is ‘God exists because…’ And to which the sceptic can now respond in the specific, instead of the general which was what the theist was unreasonably demanding.

I am not arguing that theists don't have a burden of proof.

But, don't you think it's a bit unlikely that the atheist in a debate is completely ignorant of any of the reasons theists have offered over hundreds of years?

Then there is the other scenario: a sceptic says ‘I don’t believe in God’ and the theist asks ‘Why’. The sceptic replies that he/she can see no reason or evidence to believe in supernatural beings. And that is a perfectly reasonable and adequate response. Note that (as in the paragraph above) it isn’t required of the sceptic to now come up with a whole litany of explanations to justify his/her scepticism; it for the theist, as the advocate, to provide evidence or give reasons why the sceptic should be convinced. And if that is done then we have a dialogue because it is now incumbent upon the sceptic to answer the theist’s arguments. The burden of proof, however, still remains with the advocate, and a poor argument made by the sceptic doesn’t make ‘God exists’ a true statement by default.

I ask you the same questions I have asked others:

How do you know it's a poor argument? Who decides? What's the criteria?

If, as you have argued above, we need not give any reasons to label something a poor argument, or insufficient evidence, or whatever, then any reason is as good as another.

You could be rejecting the arguments because the banana told you to. How is that fair to the theist?

 

[outhouse]

You realize the OP is an atheist, right?

Im not dealing with the OP's personal belief or not.


Just focusing on the debate at hand regarding the BoP

 

[Falvlun]

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.

You have made a whole bunch of claims there.

 

[Falvlun]

Can you explain to me how skepticism requires evidence?

If you want your skepticism to be rational, or well-founded, then it should.

"I am skeptical of that the Earth moves around the sun." Is this well-founded skepticism? Aren't you interested in why I'd be skeptical of such a thing?