Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Falvlun]

But the burden of proof is not an argument at all anyway. Atheists do not use the 'burden of proof' argument, because it is not an argument.

It is certainly used as an argument as to why atheists need not defend their position.

The simple fact is that the burden of proof for theism has not been met, and that disbelief does not bear a burden of proof.

It is not a "simple fact" that the burden of proof hasn't been met. I would say it is more like an opinion or a belief. Why? Because who decides this? After all, the theist likely would claim that he has met the burden.

Most people have replied that the individual that the theist is trying to convince decides. This makes the claim inherently subjective; and means that it could end up being arbitrary.

What I feel strongly about is the preposterous notion that the 'burden of proof' is an argument ever employed by atheists - it isn't an argument, it is just a convention that the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If the burden of proof for theism had been met, there would be no atheists.

"If the burden of proof for evolution had been met, then there would be no Creationists."

Do you see why that doesn't work?

 

[Falvlun]

For two good reasons.

1. It is the theists that expect others to surrender to their take on things.

This, of course, paints with too broad a brush. We've had a theist in this thread-- Christine-- who has stated that she isn't trying to convince people about her belief in God, and who believes that it would be a futile attempt anyway.

This of, course, also ignores that some atheists are trying to do the exact same thing. Many here are trying to make me surrender to their claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof, for instance.

2. It is also the theists who are making positive claims about the literal existence of deities.

The first reason explains why atheists must speak. The second is why the burden of proof is of the theists alone.

This explains why theists have a burden of proof, but it fails to explain why they have a burden of proof alone.

If positive claims are what is required to create a burden of proof, then the positive claim that "theists have not met their burden of proof" creates a burden of proof for the claimant.

 

[Falvlun]

Doesn't that need a premise that theism can be logically attained (or denied), though?

I don't think that is a reasonable premise to take.

I see no reason for that premise.

I was able to provide reasons why I disbelieve in Bob's Invisible Purple Dragon, who was created merely for the purposes of this thread. I don't see what is so difficult, or impossible, to come up with reasons to disbelieve in God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The burden of not thinking is precisely what this thread is against.

She actually seems to have more of a problem of contextualizing specific things people are saying, rather than what it is they're actually thinking. Regardless, once you apply Favlun's logic, the problem becomes infinite, as each person will have a successive burden of proof for what the other person just said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant in the context of a debate.

Of course, no one doesn't owe anyone their time. The theist doesn't "owe" any atheist proof for their beliefs. But the "burden of proof" is a debate convention. So, if you are claiming that the theist owes you something in a debate, then I don't see why there are such qualms about the idea of an atheist owing the theist something within a debate.

"Burden of proof" isn't just a debate convention. The term can also be used to describe a general skeptic approach: not accepting things as true until we have good reason to believe that they are true.

And the theist doesn't owe the atheist anything either. Nobody's forcing the theist to make arguments. The debate only happens because - for whatever reason - the theist decides that it's important to convince the atheist of his theistic position. The theist wouldn't be going against anything but his own subjective desires if he chose not to make his arguments.

 

[LuisDantas]

"If the burden of proof for evolution had been met, then there would be no Creationists."

Do you see why that doesn't work?

For what it is worth, I do not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Please note what I am claiming:

EDIT: And to make it even clearer, you could insert "to give" after the bolded "need".

And, I agree. There is no need to give reasons for rejecting someone's claims if you're not trying to convince anyone of your position.

Additionally, in practice, we don't need to give reasons for rejecting claims which are obviously fantastical. For example, in the case of Bob claiming that an invisible purple dragon sits on his head, it's rather ridiculous to say we have a "burden of proof" for rejecting Bob's claim. Bob's claim is fantastical, and needs no explicit reasons for rejecting his claim, as such a claim does not correspond in any way with our established view of reality. For atheists, the same thing applies to theists' claims of god(s). I don't need to supply a new reason for rejecting every notion of god that comes my way if said gods share traits that I have already established a reason for rejection for. I think this is what some people on here might not be saying, but what they mean, and what you're missing.

 

[LuisDantas]

This, of course, paints with too broad a brush. We've had a theist in this thread-- Christine-- who has stated that she isn't trying to convince people about her belief in God, and who believes that it would be a futile attempt anyway.

This of, course, also ignores that some atheists are trying to do the exact same thing. Many here are trying to make me surrender to their claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof, for instance.

I guess I should have been clearer. There is far more social pressure towards convincing atheists that they should believe than the other way around. That makes it necessary for atheists to express reasons for their refusal, even though atheism is inherent self-justifying.

Atheism itself needs no justification. Social pressure creates a need for justification anyway.

This explains why theists have a burden of proof, but it fails to explain why they have a burden of proof alone.

Then I guess it will not be possible to convince you of that. I don't know what else to say.

If positive claims are what is required to create a burden of proof, then the positive claim that "theists have not met their burden of proof" creates a burden of proof for the claimant.

That is not really true, just a play on words with no practical value.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see no reason for that premise.

But without it, there is no reason for the debate that you are basing your questions on, either. So what is the point?

I was able to provide reasons why I disbelieve in Bob's Invisible Purple Dragon, who was created merely for the purposes of this thread. I don't see what is so difficult, or impossible, to come up with reasons to disbelieve in God.

It is not impossible, but rather trivial and unnecessary. "I don't feel like believing" is plenty enough, even.

 

[Falvlun]

"You're wrong because the banana told me so" is a positive claim with its own burden of proof. However, generally yes: it's fair to Bob not to accept his conclusion unless you unequivocally agree with certainty to every single step in his argument. In fact, accepting his conclusion for anything less would miss the whole point of logical argument.

Your wording is unnecessarily stringent: "Unequivocally agree with certainty to every single step". :areyoucra

But regardless, I don't think you fully answered the question. Or rather, you seemed to answer "Yes" and "No". The question is whether the reasons you fail to accept the arguments are important or not.

 

[Willamena]

You might as well have given none, I am sorry to say.

I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This, of course, paints with too broad a brush. We've had a theist in this thread-- Christine-- who has stated that she isn't trying to convince people about her belief in God, and who believes that it would be a futile attempt anyway.

You've said that you're talking about debate tactics. Theists who don't try to convince people about their belief in God don't tend to get into debates where they try to convince people about their belief in God.

If positive claims are what is required to create a burden of proof, then the positive claim that "theists have not met their burden of proof" creates a burden of proof for the claimant.

If it's phrased that way. As I've pointed out, there are other ways to put it that don't create a burden of proof (e.g. "I don't find this convincing").

Also, it's worth pointing out that "burden of proof" just speaks to what ought to be convincing. We only take on this burden when we care about convincing someone else. If I don't really care whether the theist I'm debating understands how his argument doesn't meet the burden of proof, then I don't have to argue the point. I just have to keep in mind that he's entitled not to take my word for it and could very well continue to reasonably not accept my claim that he's failed to meet his burden of proof.

When the burden of proof has been met, any reasonable person privy to all the relevant facts and arguments has no choice but to accept the conclusion. If I don't meet the burden of proof when arguing that the theist hasn't met his burden of proof, all this means is that I've left some amount of room for the possibility that he could reasonably not accept my claim, given what he knows. If I'm okay with that, then I'm not obligated to pursue the matter further.

 

[Willamena]

2. It is also the theists who are making positive claims about the literal existence of deities.

The atheist, at least in debating setting, also makes a posit. It's needn't be about the literal existence of deities, but they do posit.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The atheist, at least in debating setting, also makes a posit. It's needn't be about the literal existence of deities, but they do posit.

Indeed. "I don't believe" is certainly a posit, albeit, one that doesn't carry much "burden of proof."

 

[Willamena]

She actually seems to have more of a problem of contextualizing specific things people are saying, rather than what it is they're actually thinking. Regardless, once you apply Favlun's logic, the problem becomes infinite, as each person will have a successive burden of proof for what the other person just said.

That's why I assert that the burden each bears is for their own claims, not the claims of others. The burden rests with the person who posits.

 

[Willamena]

Indeed. "I don't believe" is certainly a posit, albeit, one that doesn't carry much "burden of proof."

Every posit carries the burden of proof. That's how I've always understood the burden.

 

[Breathe]

So would it be fair to say I don't believe in atheism because they have failed to meet the burden of proof?

I suppose it would be possible. For me, I am (no longer) an atheist because it does not match up with my own experiences; to be an atheist for myself (now) would be intellectually dishonest for myself.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Every posit carries the burden of proof. That's how I've always understood the burden.

How do I prove to you that "I don't believe?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your wording is unnecessarily stringent: "Unequivocally agree with certainty to every single step". :areyoucra

I disagree. The whole point of a logical argument is to demonstrate that the conclusion is necessarily true, and any uncertainty in acceptance of the argument's premises means that the conclusion need not be completely accepted.

When we argue for X, we're not just saying "X is worth considering"; we're saying "X must be true." This conclusion is only as strong as the weakest link in the logical chain that supports it. If we react to even one intermediate step with "well, maybe that's true but maybe it isn't", then we can say the same thing about the conclusion... and the argument fails, since even before the argument was given, we were able to say "well, maybe X is true but maybe it isn't."

If we don't get unequivocal agreement with every single step of an argument, then we haven't done what we set out to do.

But regardless, I don't think you fully answered the question. Or rather, you seemed to answer "Yes" and "No". The question is whether the reasons you fail to accept the arguments are important or not.

If we're talking logically, then the person committed an error by accepting a false premise about bananas. If we're talking practically, then anyone giving an argument has to realize that everyone has false preconceptions, and part of convincing someone of an idea is working to overcome those preconceptions by showing how they're wrong (or at least unfounded).

 

[Falvlun]

She actually seems to have more of a problem of contextualizing specific things people are saying, rather than what it is they're actually thinking.

*waves hand* Hey! I'm right here. I can hear you. (lemurs are sneaky like that).

You could tell me what context I was missing in those quotes I slaved to provide you.

From what I see, my claim was accurate: Atheists claim that they have no need or responsibility to provide reasons for their position (in the context of the burden of proof argument.)

I disagree with this position. It's sloppy debating and seems to selectively ignore burden of proof when it applies to themselves. Outside of a debating context, it encourages the idea that we have no responsibility to ourselves to have good reasons to believe, or not believe, the things we do (as Willamena has so well discussed.)

Regardless, once you apply Favlun's logic, the problem becomes infinite, as each person will have a successive burden of proof for what the other person just said.

What is the problem with this?

Isn't that basically how debates work? Debates are infinite, at least until one party gives up or succeeds in convincing the other.