Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[AmbiguousGuy]

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".

I guess I feel like it's just a wording thing. And maybe a bit of a personal issue for you -- a personal peeve, I mean.

I think I can defend most of my beliefs, including my suspicion that the Biblical God doesn't exist as described or as believed to exist by most Christians and Jews.

In one dialogue I might go through my paces, countering every evidence and argument put forth by my theistic opposite. In another dialogue I might shrug and declare that he has the burden of proof and hasn't met it.

Don't mean to disrespect your thread or anything. I'm just saying how it seems to me.

 

[Falvlun]

I guess I feel like it's just a wording thing. And maybe a bit of a personal issue for you -- a personal peeve, I mean.

I think I can defend most of my beliefs, including my suspicion that the Biblical God doesn't exist as described or as believed to exist by most Christians and Jews.

In one dialogue I might go through my paces, countering every evidence and argument put forth by my theistic opposite. In another dialogue I might shrug and declare that he has the burden of proof and hasn't met it.

Don't mean to disrespect your thread or anything. I'm just saying how it seems to me.

Oh, disrespect away!

That's just it: I do think that most atheists can defend their beliefs. Admittedly, it irritates me when, instead of doing so, the claim is made that they have nothing to defend, or have no need to defend anything. That seems pointless to me on a personal level. But, what I was hoping to demonstrate in this thread, is that it's not just pointless personally: it doesn't seem to stack up philosophically either.

 

[Quintessence]

It was pointed out earlier - and forgive me, but I forget by whom - that "burden of proof" really only applies if you're trying to convince the other person that you're right and they're wrong. Any time you fail to change the other person's mind, for whatever reason (be it adequately articulated or not), they've failed "burden of proof." Essentially: "you haven't convinced me, personally, so you have failed to burden of proof."

Or have they? Is it fair to say that if the argument doesn't convince some specific individual that burden of proof has not been met? Is it fair for the YEC to say "you haven't convinced me that evolution is true, so you've failed burden of proof?" then proceed to dismiss the whole thing as a bunch of ruddy nonsense?

What would be nice is if we could follow and see the merit in arguments that are not our own and recognize that the other party has indeed provided proofs. Whether or not you personally agree with all of it is a separate thing entirely. I do not agree with classical monotheism, but their theologians have fantastic argumentation to buttress their theology. As far as I'm concerned, they've satisfied "burden of proof." Claiming they haven't is just silly to me, and something that I find quite off-putting in a discussion. Honestly, the moment someone throws that phrase "burden of proof" out there in the context of informal, online discussions or debates my usual response is to roll my eyes and wait for the inevitable "but you didn't convince me, so you failed burden of proof."

 

[steeltoes]

The burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the atheist until God is defined in falsifiable terms by the theist. Until then it is literally impossible to even attempt to disprove God's existence and therefore perfectly reasonable to reject the existence of God and anything else that is not defined in falsifiable terms.

 

[Quintessence]

The burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the atheist until God is defined in falsifiable terms by the theist. Until then it is literally impossible to even attempt to disprove God's existence and therefore perfectly reasonable to reject the existence of God and anything else that is not defined in falsifiable terms.

I don't think this standard works for a large number of philosophical or religious discussions, though. Relatively few philosophical or religious ideas are falsifiable, but this does not mean there are not adequate proofs or arguments for these ideas.

In other words, I do not believe it makes much sense to demand that philosophy and religion adhere to falsifability; it's not applicable in many (if not most) cases.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It was pointed out earlier - and forgive me, but I forget by whom - that "burden of proof" really only applies if you're trying to convince the other person that you're right and they're wrong. Any time you fail to change the other person's mind, for whatever reason (be it adequately articulated or not), they've failed "burden of proof." Essentially: "you haven't convinced me, personally, so you have failed to burden of proof."

Or have they? Is it fair to say that if the argument doesn't convince some specific individual that burden of proof has not been met? Is it fair for the YEC to say "you haven't convinced me that evolution is true, so you've failed burden of proof?" then proceed to dismiss the whole thing as a bunch of ruddy nonsense?

This is the whole purpose of debate. When I say that theism "hasn't met its burden of proof", I am specifically saying "no piece or pieces of evidence, nor no argument, ever presented to me for the existence of a God or Gods has, I feel, been convincing enough to me, personally". I feel that the claim of the existence of a God is a particularly extraordinary one, and thus requires an extraordinary degree of evidence that has yet to be provided. I've seen lots of arguments, and every single one I have found significant flaws with. I've seen lots of supposed evidence, and I have found every single one to be either lacking or completely erroneous.

What would be nice is if we could follow and see the merit in arguments that are not our own and recognize that the other party has indeed provided proofs. Whether or not you personally agree with all of it is a separate thing entirely.

Again, this is the point of the whole "burden of proof" argument - it's that you have to support the claim you are making with positive proofs. If someone makes a claim, you cannot just assume that there is proof for it - the claim needs to be sufficiently supported before it can reasonably be believed.

I do not agree with classical monotheism, but their theologians have fantastic argumentation to buttress their theology. As far as I'm concerned, they've satisfied "burden of proof."

This makes no sense. If they have met their burden of proof, you would agree with their claims. Evidently, you aren't convinced of their position, so you cannot say that their claims have met their burden of proof for you, personally. Having arguments that support your position does not mean that those arguments are sufficient to satisfy that particular argument's burden of proof.

Claiming they haven't is just silly to me, and something that I find quite off-putting in a discussion. Honestly, the moment someone throws that phrase "burden of proof" out there in the context of informal, online discussions or debates my usual response is to roll my eyes and wait for the inevitable "but you didn't convince me, so you failed burden of proof."

Sorry, that's just how burden of proof - or any argument anywhere ever about anything - works.

There is a difference between "having" burden of proof, and "meeting" a burden of proof. Here is the difference:

Person A makes a claim.
Person B questions claim.
Person A must support their claim with evidence, as they hold the burden of proof to support their position. This is having the burden of proof.

Person A makes a claim that the sky is green.
Person B questions claim.
Person A presents evidence for his claim by showing a picture of the sky being green. The picture has clearly been photoshopped, and is therefore insufficient evidence on which to reach the conclusion that Person A's claim is accurate. Person A has not met their burden of proof.

I don't think this standard works for a large number of philosophical or religious discussions, though. Relatively few philosophical or religious ideas are falsifiable, but this does not mean there are not adequate proofs or arguments for these ideas.

In other words, I do not believe it makes much sense to demand that philosophy and religion adhere to falsifability; it's not applicable in many (if not most) cases.

And it is for those exact reasons that I, and people like me, simply do not believe in such religions or philosophies, and feel that it is irrational to do so.

 

[Erebus]

I would argue that both burden of proof and the whole "I simply lack belief" thing are fine at their most basic level. After all, if somebody has failed to convince you of something why should you then accept it anyway? We probably exercise some form of the burden of proof argument on a day to day basis. "I lack belief" is a good way of correcting some people's assumption that atheism is the claim that no god exists.

Where the problem with both of these lines (in my opinion) is when they are used either to avoid introspection or as an evasive maneuver in a debate.

I've seen the burden of proof used to try and "win" debates in which belief in a deity is only vaguely relevant at best. Doesn't happen often, but it pops up now and again. It can also lead to general laziness, why explore for yourself when you can insist other people satisfy their burden of proof to you?

I've seen people outright state that belief in deity is ridiculous, that no god exists, that it's wishful thinking/delusion/stupidity. These same people will then claim to "simply lack belief" if backed into a corner. That strikes me as dishonest at best and cowardly at worst.

 

[Quintessence]

This makes no sense. If they have met their burden of proof, you would agree with their claims.

No, I wouldn't. And neither would you. Ignoring for a moment that humans are hardly "rational" creatures - meaning if they are presented with sound proofs they will in many (if not most) cases continue believing what they believed earlier - I quite firmly insist that presenting a decent argument or case for your position more than satisfies the demand placed regardless of whether or not some specific individual personally agrees with it. That a given presentation fails to be compelling for some specific individual doesn't mean that it lacks merit, and doesn't mean it isn't compelling for someone else.

Basically, what I'm saying is that just because one individual isn't convinced doesn't mean the person hasn't provided adequate proof on the whole. "I find your case for X uncompelling" =/= "X is false." Remove the egos and I's from the picture and look at the landscape. That's how I'm approaching this.

 

[Quintessence]

I've seen people outright state that belief in deity is ridiculous, that no god exists, that it's wishful thinking/delusion/stupidity. These same people will then claim to "simply lack belief" if backed into a corner. That strikes me as dishonest at best and cowardly at worst.

I'm not sure that's fair. I think in many cases, people simply wish to be left alone to their beliefs, practices, and way of life. It's not exactly fun to have who and what you are or what you do attacked left and right. Some people don't want to deal with it, and so they won't get into arguments. In other cases, the person lacks the capability of articulating what they believe or do. English might not be their first language, or they lack finesse in some particular mode of communication.

Long and short, I'd be careful about making negative judgements about someone just because they don't stand up and defend themselves.

But I do have much less sympathy for the people who spew venom about things and then use this tactic. That speaks of virtues I find... disagreeable.

 

[Erebus]

I'm not sure that's fair. I think in many cases, people simply wish to be left alone to their beliefs, practices, and way of life. It's not exactly fun to have who and what you are or what you do attacked left and right. Some people don't want to deal with it, and so they won't get into arguments. In other cases, the person lacks the capability of articulating what they believe or do. English might not be their first language, or they lack finesse in some particular mode of communication.

Long and short, I'd be careful about making negative judgements about someone just because they don't stand up and defend themselves.

But I do have much less sympathy for the people who spew venom about things and then use this tactic. That speaks of virtues I find... disagreeable.

I might have been a bit unclear about what I meant. I was referring more to the part I've highlighted here. A person absolutely can lack belief and it's perfectly valid to explain their stance in that manner. When a person makes some of the claims I described above and then tries to claim "simple lack of belief"... hmmm. Sorry, but at that point we've moved on a few levels.

 

[steeltoes]

I don't think this standard works for a large number of philosophical or religious discussions, though. Relatively few philosophical or religious ideas are falsifiable, but this does not mean there are not adequate proofs or arguments for these ideas.

In other words, I do not believe it makes much sense to demand that philosophy and religion adhere to falsifability; it's not applicable in many (if not most) cases.

I beg to differ, philosophies can be formed by drawing from conclusions that are grounded in evidence, religions not so much if at all.

No standard renders the very idea of a burden of proof as meaningless. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something that is not defined in falsifiable terms so why ask the atheist to partake in what would otherwise be an exercise in nonsense?

 

[Bunyip]

The problem here is that Christianity is a faith based religion. Followers are not convinced by the available evidence, but through an act of faith.

So why would atheists need to explain why they find the evidence and arguments for god lacking, when those same evidences and arguments are not what convinced people to believe anyway?

 

[Sir Doom]

I beg to differ, philosophies can be formed by drawing from conclusions that are grounded in evidence, religions not so much if at all.

No standard renders the very idea of a burden of proof as meaningless. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something that is not defined in falsifiable terms so why ask the atheist to partake in what would otherwise be an exercise in nonsense?

If I'm not mistaken disciplines such as psychology, sociology and anthropology do not deal in falsifiable hypotheses. I think you'd be hard pressed to call them 'exercises in nonsense'.

 

[steeltoes]

The problem here is that Christianity is a faith based religion. Followers are not convinced by the available evidence, but through an act of faith.

So why would atheists need to explain why they find the evidence and arguments for god lacking, when those same evidences and arguments are not what convinced people to believe anyway?

Beats me.

 

[steeltoes]

If I'm not mistaken disciplines such as psychology, sociology and anthropology do not deal in falsifiable hypotheses. I think you'd be hard pressed to call them 'exercises in nonsense'.

It is the attempt to prove the non-existence of God that would be an exercise in nonsense.

Why wouldn't psychology, sociology and anthropology not deal in falsifiable hypotheses, are they not based on objective observations?

 

[Bunyip]

If I'm not mistaken disciplines such as psychology, sociology and anthropology do not deal in falsifiable hypotheses. I think you'd be hard pressed to call them 'exercises in nonsense'.

Like all fields of science - hypothesis in psychology, anthropology and sociology must all be falsifiable.

 

[Willamena]

There can be no evidence of non-existence, thatiswhy the burden of proof is upon the theist.

That's precisely incorrect. That there is no evidence of non-existence places no burden on anyone.

 

[steeltoes]

That's precisely incorrect. That there is no evidence of non-existence places no burden on anyone.

Then please tell us how one could prove the non existence of invisible.

 

[Bunyip]

That's precisely incorrect. That there is no evidence of non-existence places no burden on anyone.

How is that incorrect? It is not that there is no evidence of non-existence, it is that evidence of non-existence can not exist.

Proving that god exists is possible, proving that it does not is not possible.

So the burden of proof must always be upon the party making the positive claim, that is why there is no such thing as a burden of disproof.

 

[Quintessence]

I beg to differ, philosophies can be formed by drawing from conclusions that are grounded in evidence, religions not so much if at all.

No standard renders the very idea of a burden of proof as meaningless. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something that is not defined in falsifiable terms so why ask the atheist to partake in what would otherwise be an exercise in nonsense?

I'm... starting to get the impression that you and I are not using the words "proof" or "evidence" in the same fashion.

When I speak of evidence, I do not restrict or limit it to empirical evidence. I don't know of any religion, theistic or otherwise, that isn't grounded in evidence to some degree. When I speak of proof here, I mean conclusions that follow when granting certain premises. I'm not using the term to mean it is "The One and Only True Absolute Truth" or something, like you seem to be?

Like all fields of science - hypothesis in psychology, anthropology and sociology must all be falsifiable.

No, Doom is right. That these disciplines deal in non-falsifiable theories is why they are regarded as "soft" sciences. Many of the theories used to explain trends are impossible to falsify for various reasons. They don't rely strictly on empirical evidence as the "hard" sciences do. This was actually one of the major discussion points of a personality psychology class I took in undergrad: that there are many competing theories of personality, and given the lack of falsifiability in the discipline, all of them have explanatory power.