Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does not the atheist have a responsibility to himself?

The atheist has a general responsibility to himself in all sorts of ways. He's also a limited human being with only limited time and resources. Why would we assume that this responsibility entails making theology a priority at the expense of other things he could study or do?

 

[Falvlun]

To anyone interested, Penguin and I started this discussion in the Fundamentalist Atheist thread. I thought the debate was interesting enough to deserve a wider audience.

Sure, if the atheist is phrasing it that way.

Well, atheists seem very fond of telling theists they haven't met their burden of proof. This thread is for those who do.

Another way of putting it would be to say "I have not been convinced." In that case, it would be up to the theist - if the theist chose to do it - to demonstrate why the atheist ought to have been convinced based on the evidence and arguments presented.

What does "I have not been convinced" mean? Is it not synonymous with "Your arguments are insufficient to gain my belief"?

"Ought to be convinced" has nothing to do with it. It is reasonable for someone who has had his argument rejected to respond with "Why are you not convinced?"

Do people need no reason to not be convinced? Or, the converse: Is any reason as good as the other?

What if your reason is because the banana told you the arguments were bad? What if your reason is because you have already made up your mind that god doesn't exist and nothing anyone can say will shake you from that?

I ask because the atheist position is often represented as the rational one, especially in conjunction with the "burden of proof" argument. If we are rejecting theist arguments for no reason, that does not strike me as particularly rational.

Except you just re-phrased the same idea of the burden of proof: the atheist doesn't need to come up with their own argument for why no gods exist; she only needs to recognize the problems with the arguments for god that she's carefully examined.

Yes, that is my argument, though I do think it all boils down to the same thing. Although, I would replace "carefully examined" with "arguments she has rejected (found unconvincing)."

.

.. and I think the "carefully examined" part is important. Hypothetically, if a theist throws twenty poor arguments for theism at an atheist, it's still reasonable for the atheist to continue not believing in gods before she's sorted through them all. And I'd argue that it's even reasonable for her to continue in her atheism if she says "screw it - I see no reason to believe any of these arguments are valid and I don't have time to wade through this crap" and doesn't bother to evaluate them at all.

I am not saying that an atheist needs a response to every single possible argument for the existence of god out there.

I am saying that the atheist should know why she hasn't accepted the claim that gods exist. This tends to boil down to, as you have said, "I haven't been convinced." So, the atheist should know why she hasn't been convinced of the claim-- for instance, the failures of the various arguments she has heard (and the ability to extrapolate).

 

[Falvlun]

If I claim that there is an elephant running around in that theater and you go in and see nothing are you justified in thinking I"m lying or crazy? Or at least, very mistaken! I'd think so. On the other hand, suppose I tell you there's a spider in there. You go in and look around, don't see it. Are you justified in the same judgement? No.

All of this in my mind is about the sorts of evidence we expect to see if a particular claim is true. If God exists, created everything whatsoever, cares about us and so on, what sort of evidence do we expect to see of that? What if we see nothing that particularly suggests God's existence? Is this like the elephant or spider scenario?

I think that's a very good argument for a lack of belief. Kudos!

(Note: I think most of you here do have reasons for your lack of belief. You know why the arguments haven't convinced you. I just don't know why so many pretend these don't exist in favor of a schoolyard taunt: "I don't have to prove it, you do!")

 

[Nakosis]

Does not the atheist have a responsibility to himself?

Of what? Verifying the truth of every claim that is made to them?

A lot of what religious folks claim can't be verified. People have tried usually with negative results.

Personally I think God has the burden of proof it he/she wants believers.

God apparently provides this truth to some and not others. Well, ok then, one can't blame an Atheist for being and atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

It does not matter what evidence an atheist brings to the table.


The best facts are hand waved away in favor of mythology.





Some theist are not worth an argument, because we already know that with the mythology of magic, no argument works against faith. They did not use reason or logic to gain their faith.

It is not something you owe theists. It's something you owe yourself.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think a lot of this might come down to context. For example, I would differentiate why I'm not a theist, from why I am an atheist. Theists failure to meet the burden of proof of their claims is sufficient for why I'm "not a theist." Whereas, why I "am an atheist" is more complex and has more to do with what I believe about people than it does with what I don't believe about god(s).

 

[Falvlun]

The burden of proof always lies with the person asserting a claim. It is not an obligation of anyone else to prove the claim wrong. Want to assert that marshmallows have a brain, then go ahead and prove it because I'm certainly not going to waste my time try to prove they don't.

As you've probably discovered from reading posts here on RF, not everyone has such an ability. Nor should this be expected.

Some people need to believe what they do, and this need can trump everything else, including facts and well reasoned arguments. Then there are situations in which a point of view has never been successfully challenged, and when another of these challenges resurfaces it simply isn't worth revisiting the reasons for its failure. Its quick dismissal is then taken as a unconsidered rejection when it's nothing of the kind. All of which is a matter of miscommunication.

And just what is the basis for insisting one prove a negative: "It's not true that X is Y"?

Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

It's a matter of philosophical principles. From Wikipedia

"The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim"
​

You don't have to accept it; however, please recognize that you have failed to make your case.

Nope.

When I care, I usually point out the fallacies.

Not at all, although if one cared enough they might do just that.

"This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning."
Source:ibid.
​

All the atheist need point out is the failure of the theist to make their case. The theist can either accept this or push for explanation, which the atheist is under no obligation to do.

Sorry you don't get it, although I hope my reply here has helped a bit.

And to repeat:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim"

​

There is no burden on anyone rejecting the claim to do anything.

Thanks for your post; you made a clear case.

I do think, however, you have glossed over an important part of my argument.

We both agree that theists have the burden of proof. They have made the claim, and they must support it.

The point is that theists have given many arguments, reasons, and evidences in support of their claim. What now? The theists will claim that they have fulfilled their burden of proof.

Atheists have rejected that proof. They have found it insufficient, unconvincing, and lacking.

Is this not a claim that should be supported: the claim that the theists have failed to meet their burden of proof?

 

[Falvlun]

Of what? Verifying the truth of every claim that is made to them?

No, of course not.

The responsibility I am talking of is the responsibility to understand your own position, and how you got there.

 

[Falvlun]

I think a lot of this might come down to context. For example, I would differentiate why I'm not a theist, from why I am an atheist. Theists failure to meet the burden of proof of their claims is sufficient for why I'm "not a theist." Whereas, why I "am an atheist" is more complex and has more to do with what I believe about people than it does with what I don't believe about god(s).

This is an interesting take.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

What if an atheist just points at the emptiness and says, "I see no God."

Doesn't that meet his burden of proof?

 

[Bunyip]

Thanks for your post; you made a clear case.

I do think, however, you have glossed over an important part of my argument.

We both agree that theists have the burden of proof. They have made the claim, and they must support it.

The point is that theists have given many arguments, reasons, and evidences in support of their claim. What now? The theists will claim that they have fulfilled their burden of proof.

Atheists have rejected that proof. They have found it insufficient, unconvincing, and lacking.

Is this not a claim that should be supported: the claim that the theists have failed to meet their burden of proof?

As I see it the problem is simply that theists present 'evidence' that is largely anecdotal, rather than actual empirical evidence.

If atheists were rejecting empirical or otherwise testable evidence, then perhaps there would be a burden of proof. But rejecting faith based apprehensions, anecdotes and frail philosophical arguments - most of which were contested centuries ago and found wanting does not.

In terms of reliable, empirical or testable evidence and sound and valid philosophical arguments leading to further such evidence - there is none for atheists to reject. If there was, I would not be an atheist and I doubt anybody else would be either.

 

[Falvlun]

That's not the burden of proof argument, or how it is employed. The burden of proof argument is used, in my experience, exclusively in the following situations:


Person A: God exists.
Person B: Can you prove it?
Person A: Can you prove that there isn't?
In this instance, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, Person A, since they have made the assertion and Person B is merely responding to that assertion.

You're right (well, minus the "exclusively"): I have seen both configurations.

To see how the "burden of proof" argument isn't employed as a means to providing "no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief", all you have to do is look all over these forums. Atheists are constantly explaining, defending and justifying their non-beliefs all of the time. The burden of proof argument is used to illustrate that atheism is not a claim in and of itself, but a response to one. It is not used in lieu of defense of the position of atheism, but as a response to claims made by theists that they have no more of a need to demonstrate their position as atheists do.

You write that atheists are constantly explaining, defending, and justifying on this forum, and I agree. But look at the flip side: Theists are also constantly explaining, justifying, and defending.

When you say that theists have a burden of proof, it means they must provide evidence or reasons for their position. They have, and atheists have rejected the arguments.

How much better would the conversation be if we just dropped this whole burden of proof canard:
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: Okay, here's Arguments X, Y, Z.
Atheist: Arguments X, Y, Z fail to convince me because of reasons A, B, C.

Or even:
Theist: God Exists
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: Prove that he doesn't
Atheist: Okay, I don't believe that he does because of Reasons A, B, C.

Except for the fact that "I don't feel the claim has met it's burden of proof" is a perfectly satisfactory answer to that question. It is a perfectly good reason as to why an individual may not believe in a God. In what way is the position of the atheist not being defended? The question is answered.

Because the atheist could be claiming that the burden of proof hasn't been met because the banana told him so.

Anyone can claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met for any reason whatsoever. Simply saying that the burden of proof hasn't been met doesn't prove that the burden of proof hasn't been met. Therefore, it is not a satisfactory defense of a position.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I don't really care how big or little the flaw in the argument is. As long as the atheist supports his claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

 

[Iti oj]

Hey lemur love. Sadly I disagree. Lets look at an American court of law. The prosecutor needs to prove the suspect guilty. The defense only needs to sow reasonable doubt. Why is God any different.

of course it can be over used.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Sure, it's a statement. But shouldn't your beliefs have support? Don't you want your beliefs to be rational? I am not asking you to prove that you haven't been convinced. I am asking you why you haven't been convinced.

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

Wouldn't you then have to prove that the theist position is merely drawn from faith and not evidence?

 

[Falvlun]

The atheist has a general responsibility to himself in all sorts of ways. He's also a limited human being with only limited time and resources. Why would we assume that this responsibility entails making theology a priority at the expense of other things he could study or do?

If atheists have time to debate online about how they don't believe in gods, then surely they have enough time to reflect on why they don't believe in gods.

 

[Falvlun]

What if an atheist just points at the emptiness and says, "I see no God."

Doesn't that meet his burden of proof?

How am I to know? There is no objective "burden of proof" arbiter to tell us when the burdens are met or not... which is a flaw in the burden of proof argument, don't you think?

While I personally don't think that your argument is sufficient on it's own (after all, there are many invisible things like gravity or consciousness), I do think it's loads better than "I don't need any reason at all because burden of proof".

 

[Bunyip]

Sure, it's a statement. But shouldn't your beliefs have support?

No, just my claims. Atheism is the absence of a specific belief.

Don't you want your beliefs to be rational? I am not asking you to prove that you haven't been convinced. I am asking you why you haven't been convinced.

Sure, atheism is the rational default.

Wouldn't you then have to prove that the theist position is merely drawn from faith and not evidence?

No, not at all. Theism is yet to propose any evidence that I would consider to be actual evidence.



If you have an example of theist evidence for god that is empirical, testable or otherwise objectively verifiable please identify it.

 

[Falvlun]

Hey lemur love. Sadly I disagree. Lets look at an American court of law. The prosecutor needs to prove the suspect guilty. The defense only needs to sow reasonable doubt. Why is God any different.

of course it can be over used.

:sad4: Bwaaaaw!

(I am heartbroken, but no worries. Just keep swimming.)

While I don't think the philosophical burden of proof and the judicial burden of proof are the exact same thing, examine what you have said.

The prosecutor needs to prove the suspect guilty. So they need to provide evidence, right? Theists need to prove that God exists. And they have provided evidence, right?

So, what does the defense do? Do they just sit there and say "The prosecutor has failed to prove that my client is guilty" and leave it at that? If I were the defendant, that would make me pretty worried. I would want my defense attorney to explain why the evidence provided by the prosecutor failed to prove my guilt.

You yourself said that the defense only needs to sow reasonable doubt. How is that done? I don't think it is accomplished by merely saying "You're wrong and I'm not convinced."

 

[Iti oj]

:sad4: Bwaaaaw!

(I am heartbroken, but no worries. Just keep swimming.)

While I don't think the philosophical burden of proof and the judicial burden of proof are the exact same thing, examine what you have said.

The prosecutor needs to prove the suspect guilty. So they need to provide evidence, right? Theists need to prove that God exists. And they have provided evidence, right?

So, what does the defense do? Do they just sit there and say "The prosecutor has failed to prove that my client is guilty" and leave it at that? If I were the defendant, that would make me pretty worried. I would want my defense attorney to explain why the evidence provided by the prosecutor failed to prove my guilt.

You yourself said that the defense only needs to sow reasonable doubt. How is that done? I don't think it is accomplished by merely saying "You're wrong and I'm not convinced."

Generally explain why the evidence is lacking or paint a different picture. So thats all circumstantial(anecdotal) does explain why its not enough. Also atheist general do offer a different story, like evolution and the big bang. Do you often see atheist spouting that? I feel its a bit of a strawmen. When does it ever happen that way ? "God exist" "No he doesn't" "Yes he does" "No he doesnt" "Prove it" "No way you have the burden of proof" "No i don't " "Yes you do" "The world is my evidence" ......"No the world and life are evidence e of these natural process.