Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Iti oj]

I remember trying to convince my fiance they narwhales were real. H

 

[Quintessence]

Favlun, I know I already fruballed you, but I want to double-thank you for this post.

 

[Sir Doom]

I don't think the burden of proof is necessarily a bad argument. I just think some people are bad at presenting it. It is often used as a cop-out in arguments where the existence of God is not even in question. Its used as a derailment. As in, "I can't win this debate about moral question #36236, but since my opponent mentioned God, I can now endlessly repeat the burden of proof rather than address the actual topic."

Its not all that frequent, but its frequent enough to understand why this thread exists.

 

[Nakosis]

Seems simple. The burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to convince the other party of something that is true.

An atheist who is not trying to convince someone there is no God has nothing to prove.

So if an Atheist is not trying to convince anyone there is no God, why should believers care. They can go on their happy way believing to their hearts content.

However I suppose a Christian, trying to convince others their God is the "one true God" would have the burden of proof.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't think the burden of proof is necessarily a bad argument. I just think some people are bad at presenting it. It is often used as a cop-out in arguments where the existence of God is not even in question. Its used as a derailment. As in, "I can't win this debate about moral question #36236, but since my opponent mentioned God, I can now endlessly repeat the burden of proof rather than address the actual topic."

Yeah, I get that a lot in the Historical Jesus debates. It goes like this:

Since the scholarly consensus is stoutly in favor of an historical Jesus (or whatever I believe about Jesus), then the burden is on you to demonstrate that they are wrong!

It reminds me of abortion:

Since it is (il)legal to perform abortions (right here and right now), then you have the burden of proof to show why the current status is wrong.

To me, the burden-of-proof seems mostly just a way to dodge the debate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

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

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.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

Your argument has failed to meet the burden of proof.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your argument has failed to meet the burden of proof.

But the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

Prove it. The burden's on you now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Prove it. The burden's on you now.

You. You.

You... plus one more You, no matter what you say, to eternity.

Plus one.

No matter what you say.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You. You.

You... plus one more You, no matter what you say, to eternity.

Plus one.

No matter what you say.

Plus two.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Plus two.

Damn!

 

[Falvlun]

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 don't see the distinction. If you prefer the second way you phrased it, that's all I'm asking for. :yes:

 

[Falvlun]

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

All that matters to us is what we personally believe is the most reasonable understanding of the universe.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Again, I do not think this accurately captures our scenario.

In the atheist-theist scenario, the atheist has been exposed to the various reasons, evidences, and arguments that theists make to support their beliefs in gods, and they have rejected them as insufficient.

The claim the atheist needs to support isn't "I don't believe you are an acrobat". It's "None of the arguments you have told me to support you being an acrobat are good enough evidence for me to accept your claim."

 

[Falvlun]

Seems simple. The burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to convince the other party of something that is true.

An atheist who is not trying to convince someone there is no God has nothing to prove.

So if an Atheist is not trying to convince anyone there is no God, why should believers care. They can go on their happy way believing to their hearts content.

However I suppose a Christian, trying to convince others their God is the "one true God" would have the burden of proof.

Does not the atheist have a responsibility to himself?

 

[Falvlun]

Your argument has failed to meet the burden of proof.

I knew I was missing something. olarbaby:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, I do not think this accurately captures our scenario.

In the atheist-theist scenario, the atheist has been exposed to the various reasons, evidences, and arguments that theists make to support their beliefs in gods, and they have rejected them as insufficient.

The claim the atheist needs to support isn't "I don't believe you are an acrobat". It's "None of the arguments you have told me to support you being an acrobat are good enough evidence for me to accept your claim."

Again, the atheist doesn't even have that high a bar to clear. All the atheist needs to support is the claim "I can't see how your conclusion flows from your premises."

You don't need to be able to point out a specific flaw in the argument; you just have to be *unsure* about at least one step. Even if your claim is only "I can't tell whether your argument is sufficient or not", then the theist hasn't met his burden of proof.

 

[Falvlun]

I believe the only way I would need to have proof is if I were to say that "There is a God, no question" rather than "I believe in God".

While I know that "proof" is generally used to denote 100% certainty, I'm using it more to refer to evidence, arguments, and reasons used to support a position. Many things can't be proven, but we believe in them anyway. Our beliefs deserve to be supported too.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I knew I was missing something. olarbaby:

Don't worry. I'm here now.

 

[Bunyip]

Again, I do not think this accurately captures our scenario.

In the atheist-theist scenario, the atheist has been exposed to the various reasons, evidences, and arguments that theists make to support their beliefs in gods, and they have rejected them as insufficient.

The claim the atheist needs to support isn't "I don't believe you are an acrobat". It's "None of the arguments you have told me to support you being an acrobat are good enough evidence for me to accept your claim."

But that doesn' t make sense - you either believe something or you don't. You do not need to prove that you have failed to be convinced,. That you have not been convinced and thus do not hold a given belief is not a claim - it is a statement.

Atheists do not need evidence or bear a burden of proof to disbelieve a position drawn from faith rather than evidence.