Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Skwim]

Actually, most of the combatants in this thread are atheists, and we've had this dispute before in other threads. And a fair number of those 500 posts have been yours,

18 or 3.4% to be exact, a figure I would never characterize as "a fair amount." (Yours is 15 or 2.8%---only three less than mine )

which suggests that your feelings about this issue are as strong as anyone else's.

And. . . ?

I will concede that those atheists who think BoP is a weak argument strategy seem to be in the minority.

which kind of conflicts with your statement above that: "most of the combatants in this thread are atheists,"

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think there is much of a point in an endless recursion of burdens of proof for each side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.)

I think I figured out the issue here: you're conflating different contexts.

My obligations to some random theist who decides to argue with me have nothing to do with my obligations to myself.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Couldn't the same thing be said of atheists? "Atheists don't tend to get into debates where they try to convince people that theists haven't met their burden of proof unless they are trying to convince people that theists haven't met their burden of proof."

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").

And as others have pointed out (even, and especially, those who on your "side" of this debate), the two are synonymous.

"The claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met just means that the evidence offered has failed to convince me personally."

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.

I'm really not sure where this whole "the burden of proof applies only if you are trying to convince someone" has come from. I've looked up "burden of proof" a bunch of times in the course of this debate, and I haven't run across that caveat.

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.

That seems reasonable to me. You gave it your best shot, and the other party isn't convinced. What more can you do? Everyone's free to walk away from a debate.

 

[Falvlun]

I think I figured out the issue here: you're conflating different contexts.

My obligations to some random theist who decides to argue with me have nothing to do with my obligations to myself.

I'm not conflating them. I have clearly talked about the two contexts the whole time. It's in the first sentence of my OP.

EDIT:

I do think the two are related. I mean, if you spend all your time in debates saying how you need no reason for your beliefs (or non-beliefs), then how could that not trickle into your consciousness? Or, in other words, why would you make a claim in a debate that you don't believe in "real life"?

 

[outhouse]

.

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.

.

Which hits the nail on the head.


Not only has it not been met, we have a very clear track record of errors in mans definition of said deities, giving thiest a strong lack of credibility in any claim made.

The BoP on an atheist is not on equal footing as a theist who lacks credibility from the gate.


With education and knowledge, we see ONLY man creating deities.


The real question is if any thiest could ever provide any BoP that would overcome the factual mistakes already attributed to deities. Not if its a bad arguement or not for atheist. Only if it is a credible tactic on any theist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

*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.

As I already said, I don't see how any of those imply that atheists don't have reasons for rejecting theists' claims.

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.)

And I think you've invented a caricature of an atheist who doesn't actually exist.

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

You can't even get the debate started if you can't get past the first claim made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not conflating them. I have clearly talked about the two contexts the whole time. It's in the first sentence of my OP.

It's in this?

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

EDIT:

I do think the two are related. I mean, if you spend all your time in debates saying how you need no reason for your beliefs (or non-beliefs), then how could that not trickle into your consciousness? Or, in other words, why would you make a claim in a debate that you don't believe in "real life"?

That's not the claim.

And I can't speak for others, but I've never confused "I'm not going to accept your position without a good reason" with "I don't need good reasons for my positions." In fact, I can't really see why this would be an issue.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I debate like I think about things in real life. This doesn't strike me as necessary for a rational argument. I suspect that there are many things that we believe that we have not applied such rigorous assessment of. I'm a fan of "good enough"; I don't think perfection is attainable or all that necessary. But, I may just be quibbling about how you're choosing to word this. (You seem to like to word things in order to make (what I think to be) reasonable requests of atheists seem to be insurmountable obstacles. Probably just a difference in worldviews clashing here.)

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).

So not only to theists have the burden of proof for their claim, they also need to guess why their audience is going to reject their evidence, and make sure they address their audience's concerns without the audience ever having to say what those concerns are!

Really. What is so wrong with a theist presenting their arguments, and the atheist explaining why they do not find those arguments convincing? This isn't rocket science. It isn't sacrificing babies. It's pretty basic stuff. I don't know why there is so much resistance.

 

[Falvlun]

It's in this?

Yes. Philosophically referred to my issues with the "burden of proof" within a debate. Ethically referred to my issues with the "burden of proof" for people personally.

That's not the claim.

And I can't speak for others, but I've never confused "I'm not going to accept your position without a good reason" with "I don't need good reasons for my positions." In fact, I can't really see why this would be an issue.

I'm not talking about the former at all. I'm only talking about the latter.

 

[Musty]

I don't think there is much of a point in an endless recursion of burdens of proof for each side.

This does seem to be a common theme in these kind of debates.

It seems the crux of the matter comes down to what each individual consider to be sufficient grounds to consider counter-evidence necessary. The atheist generally thinks God is nonsense so doesn't see the need to disprove it, while the theist believes God is real and demands proof that it doesn't exist.

 

[Falvlun]

As I already said, I don't see how any of those imply that atheists don't have reasons for rejecting theists' claims.

:banghead3 That is not my claim!

And I think you've invented a caricature of an atheist who doesn't actually exist.

And it seems like you've invented a caricature of what I am saying.

Do atheists claim that they don't need to provide reasons for rejecting the arguments made by theists? Yes or no?

If Yes, then you and I agree and I have not invented anything.

If No, then please explain how I can have quotes from so many atheists, just within this thread, claiming that very thing!

You can't even get the debate started if you can't get past the first claim made.

Debates about the existence of gods are about the arguments for and against anyway. All I'm trying to do is remove the stumbling block for the "against" arguments.

 

[outhouse]

Really. What is so wrong with a theist presenting their arguments, and the atheist explaining why they do not find those arguments convincing? This isn't rocket science. It isn't sacrificing babies. It's pretty basic stuff. I don't know why there is so much resistance.

I understand as an atheist we should take the higher ground and hold their hands and give them more then they ever give in a debate.

But many theist are way beyond a rational debate, so BoP is thrown out.

 

[outhouse]

, while the theist believes God is real and demands proof that it doesn't exist.

Which is not logical, or reasonable.

As in a scientific view you cannot prove imaginative creations do not exist.

 

[outhouse]

The atheist generally thinks God is nonsense

.

Some might.

I see exactly how he was created and evolved every step of he way.


For me, its just a matter of education. Want to remain faithful? dont study the bible honestly.

 

[Falvlun]

"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.

Do you think that the burden of proof for the TOE has been met?
I'm assuming "Yes". But lo! There are people who do not believe that evolution is correct. Which means that even if the burden of proof is met, there still can be people who disagree. Which means that the mere presence of those who disagree cannot be used as proof that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

But wait! You might say.

The Burden of Proof is an individual thing. If Johnny finds the arguments convincing, then it has been met for him. But if Andy rejects the same arguments, then it has not been met for him.

In that case, as I've said before, claiming that the burden of proof has or hasn't been met is meaningless in any objective sense.

 

[outhouse]

Do you think that the burden of proof for the TOE has been met?
I'm assuming "Yes". But lo! There are people who do not believe that evolution is correct. Which means that even if the burden of proof is met, there still can be people who disagree. Which means that the mere presence of those who disagree cannot be used as proof that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

But wait! You might say.

The Burden of Proof is an individual thing. If Johnny finds the arguments convincing, then it has been met for him. But if Andy rejects the same arguments, then it has not been met for him.

In that case, as I've said before, claiming that the burden of proof has or hasn't been met is meaningless in any objective sense.

There is no debating facts though. Your arguement is a strawman.

Evolution is now considered fact, and refusal to accept these facts is a personal problem.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Your understanding is wrong.

the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I disagree. From my perspective, yes it is. Hero-worship still has religious undertones, and it is idealistic.

Idealistic doesn't mean religious. What are the overtones specifically?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think that the burden of proof for the TOE has been met?

Sure, several times over and for several decades at least.

I'm assuming "Yes". But lo! There are people who do not believe that evolution is correct. Which means that even if the burden of proof is met, there still can be people who disagree. Which means that the mere presence of those who disagree cannot be used as proof that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

Sure.

But wait! You might say.

The Burden of Proof is an individual thing. If Johnny finds the arguments convincing, then it has been met for him. But if Andy rejects the same arguments, then it has not been met for him.

Sort of. The BoP for testable hypothesis such as the ToE is far less individual than that for theism, which is ultimately in and of itself an individual matter.

In that case, as I've said before, claiming that the burden of proof has or hasn't been met is meaningless in any objective sense.

That is true for theism, because theism itself is strictly subjective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I debate like I think about things in real life. This doesn't strike me as necessary for a rational argument. I suspect that there are many things that we believe that we have not applied such rigorous assessment of. I'm a fan of "good enough"; I don't think perfection is attainable or all that necessary.

Neither do I, necessarily. The standard is dictated by what's being claimed. The theist who's arguing "God exists" has a lot more work to do than the theist who's arguing "God's existence is more likely than his non-existence" or "the possibility that God exists can't be completely excluded." Each one still has to demonstrate the truth of their conclusion, but the arguments have more or fewer obstacles to clear depending on exactly what that conclusion is.

But, I may just be quibbling about how you're choosing to word this. (You seem to like to word things in order to make (what I think to be) reasonable requests of atheists seem to be insurmountable obstacles. Probably just a difference in worldviews clashing here.)

How reasonable a request is depends entirely on what's being asked. I'd consider a request to not dismiss theists as irrational to be reasonable; I'd consider a request to accept that the Earth is 6,000 years old not to be.

So not only to theists have the burden of proof for their claim, they also need to guess why their audience is going to reject their evidence, and make sure they address their audience's concerns without the audience ever having to say what those concerns are!

Not guess; ask and find out. This is just effective communication. It's just that the other person isn't obliged to communicate back.

Really. What is so wrong with a theist presenting their arguments, and the atheist explaining why they do not find those arguments convincing? This isn't rocket science. It isn't sacrificing babies. It's pretty basic stuff. I don't know why there is so much resistance.

There's nothing wrong with it, if that's what the atheist wants to do. It's your argument that the atheist HAS to do this, or that he's somehow unethical if he doesn't do this, that I'm objecting to.