Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Sir Doom]

I'll just disengage thanks. There are plenty of people I can talk to here who are a lot more polite.

Suit yourself. :namaste

 

[Bunyip]

I would like to agree with you, but I think science has also gotten ahead of itself in this regard as well. The 'need' to disassociate with religion is greater than the honest debate of theism/atheism...it basically ain't gonna happen.

I don't think that is true. There are some brilliant scientists who are religious. Scientists with religious beliefs have contributed enormously to science. The Vatican for example employs some incredibly talented cosmologists, physicists and biologists and takes no issue with the sciences of cosmology, evolution etc.

So for more than half of the world's Christians, there is no real conflict between faith and science. The only area in which the two conflict is in the scientific claims of creationists and other fundamentalist sects.

 

[Desert Snake]

Also, I think the very nature of atheism is demanding proof.
It's a 'declarative' statement, I don't believe in deities/deity

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think that is true. There are some brilliant scientists who are religious. Scientists with religious beliefs have contributed enormously to science. The Vatican for example employs some incredibly talented cosmologists, physicists and biologists and takes no issue with the sciences of cosmology, evolution etc.

So for more than half of the world's Christians, there is no real conflict between faith and science. The only area in which the two conflict is in the scientific claims of creationists and other fundamentalist sects.

Lol The Bible is creationistic...it's just a fact. If Christians disregard everything in the bible that isn't 'scientific', theres no religion.
you have a philosophy of sorts, that's all.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol The Bible is creationistic...it's just a fact. If Christians disregard everything in the bible that isn't 'scientific', theres no religion.
you have a philosophy of sorts, that's all.

My apologies, by creationist I meant Young Earth Creationism, which is not in fact biblical.

As to atheism, in my experience atheists do not demand proof at all. They just find the arguments and evidences insufficient.

I would just wish for enough evidence to make a good case for faith, not proof, not certainty - just a reasonably sound case.

 

[Desert Snake]

My apologies, by creationist I meant Young Earth Creationism, which is not in fact biblical.

As to atheism, in my experience atheists do not demand proof at all. They just find the arguments and evidences insufficient.

I would just wish for enough evidence to make a good case for faith, not proof, not certainty - just a reasonably sound case.

Well, I don't think we can just dismiss ID, I think that's a big mistake.
we can be skeptical, but dismiss......I don't think so.

 

[cottage]

In your strawman argument didn't you just provide proof against what the Theist claimed?

Given the thrust of the theist’s own reasoning, yes, I think I did!

You took the burden to provide a counter argument.

‘Burden? I made no assertions and I didn’t set out with a ‘position’ that I needed to justify. The theist made a statement, I questioned it and evident conclusions were demonstrated. Read it again?

Actually your are showing specifically why the burden of proof is a bad argument. Neither Theist nor Atheist should find it's use acceptable.

Actually I‘ve not seen anything so far that shows why the theist doesn’t have the full responsibility to demonstrate what is claimed, i.e. the existence of a supernatural being that supposedly has done and will do in the future all manner of extraordinary acts. To insist that the burden of proof is shared with the sceptic is naïve and mischievous, especially when it is pretended that that otherwise the sceptic isn’t obliged to respond to a given argument. There is an obvious distinction between making a fantastic and other-worldly assertion that carries with it a burden of providing exceptional proof or evidence and the polite convention to respond to an opponent’s argument.

 

[cottage]

This position holds that pain and suffering are contradictory to love. Since a contradiction has arisen in the mind of the questioner, he poses a counter-argument.

But he’s not posing a counter argument. He’s posing a question. It isn’t being stated straight off that ‘love and suffering are contradictory’ (and they aren’t, necessarily).

If someone asks ‘Is the river deep?’ it doesn’t mean ‘The river is deep’, and it doesn’t even mean that they think it might be deep.

Not sure what inspired this, it seems a non sequitur: how receiving or rejecting love reflects back on the person allegedly loving I do not know.

On that account there is a God who loves conditionally.

This position is based soundly on the problem of suffering, an acceptance of its logic.

Okay

This position holds that because of the problem of suffering a loving god cannot exist.

That’s right, and it follows from the 3rd exchange (that God is not ‘All Loving’)

Yes, but regardless, the skeptic's burden is clearly shouldered in most of his arguments.

There is no ‘burden’ on the part of the sceptic; he responded to the theist’s statement with a question and self-evident conclusions.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

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.

This is very very true.
As you admitted in my one thread to being bias yourself to the supernatural,
This whole burden of proof thing revolves around bias.

I really admire the people that can be bias and still understand they are even bias to begin with.
It takes a lot of respect for oneself to have that ability.
Those types of people are few and far in between.
These are the people we need running our world for us, the ones that can do it flawlessly.

For starters, we wouldn't have big businesses destroying our planet due to their greed and the Gov allowing them to line their pockets.

Laurence Krauss even admitted it of himself(being bias not being big business that lines the Gov's pockets) and how hard it is for him to be a scientist, keep an open mind, and be willing to accept that he may be wrong, and how hard it is to to accept brute facts that destroy his bias, when he can no longer hold said positions.
He gave the example of the 1+1=3 (sometimes) theory.
He then screamed at the audience and said 1+1 DOES EQUAL 3 SOMETIMES.... YOU DON'T LIKE IT?.... TOUGH %$#@!!!!

 

[Bunyip]

Well, I don't think we can just dismiss ID, I think that's a big mistake.
we can be skeptical, but dismiss......I don't think so.

There is nothing to dismiss. ID is an interesting idea that has yet to be supported by any evidence. I would happily consider ID when there is evidence to consider.

ID proponants need to do the science first.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is nothing to dismiss. ID is an interesting idea that has yet to be supported by any evidence. I would happily consider ID when there is evidence to consider.

ID proponants need to do the science first.

No, it isn't related to 'doing the science' lol. The existing biological examples are the reason for ID possibility, not the scientific experiments we do.

 

[Bunyip]

No, it isn't related to 'doing the science' lol. The existing biological examples are the reason for ID possibility, not the scientific experiments we do.

Sure, I accept it as a possibility, same with god.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure, I accept it as a possibility, same with god.

Then your not an atheist, dude. You're agnostic.

 

[Bunyip]

Then your not an atheist, dude. You're agnostic.

Like most atheists I am agnostic. Atheism is essentially agnostic.

 

[Nakosis]

‘Burden? I made no assertions and I didn’t set out with a ‘position’ that I needed to justify. The theist made a statement, I questioned it and evident conclusions were demonstrated. Read it again?

You asserted that God cannot be love.

Actually I‘ve not seen anything so far that shows why the theist doesn’t have the full responsibility to demonstrate what is claimed, i.e. the existence of a supernatural being that supposedly has done and will do in the future all manner of extraordinary acts. To insist that the burden of proof is shared with the sceptic is naïve and mischievous, especially when it is pretended that that otherwise the sceptic isn’t obliged to respond to a given argument. There is an obvious distinction between making a fantastic and other-worldly assertion that carries with it a burden of providing exceptional proof or evidence and the polite convention to respond to an opponent’s argument.

Why should the Theist demonstrate what they claim if no one questions it?

Theist "God is love"
Bystander "Ok, sounds good to me".

The claim was made and accepted. What need is there for a demonstration?

 

[Willamena]

But he’s not posing a counter argument. He’s posing a question. It isn’t being stated straight off that ‘love and suffering are contradictory’ (and they aren’t, necessarily).

If someone asks ‘Is the river deep?’ it doesn’t mean ‘The river is deep’, and it doesn’t even mean that they think it might be deep.

The counter argument is rhetorically stated. It's quite obvious.

On that account there is a God who loves conditionally.

Hmm.

There is no ‘burden’ on the part of the sceptic; he responded to the theist’s statement with a question and self-evident conclusions.

And yet, he's met the burden that you deny exists. Good enough.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no ‘burden’ on the part of the sceptic; he responded to the theist’s statement with a question and self-evident conclusions.

As far as the Theist goes, "God is love" is also a self-evident conclusion. At least until someone makes a counter assertion.

 

[Nakosis]

The point is that I don’t have to take a position, e.g. of doubt, to question an asserted belief. See the argument I’ve given below. (I also question things that I’m broadly in agreement with.) But inescapably the onus is on the one making the assertion for supernatural beings to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed.

Ok....

A theist states: ‘God is love’
.
So the sceptic asks:

‘But how can God be “‘love’” when there is so much pain and suffering in the world?’

The Theist asks: "What do pain and suffering in the world have to do with God being love?"

Maybe you can ask questions back a forth but at some point I think you'd have to make some assertion as the basis for the question.

If, of course, the theist accepts your question without questioning in being a valid question, as in your example, then I suppose you wouldn't have to support a reason for the question. Though I'd think you'd have to be prepared to. Otherwise no need for the theist to respond to it.

 

[cottage]

You asserted that God cannot be love.

No! There was no antecedent negative predication, or assertion; all the replies and the conclusions were derived from propositions or statements uttered by the theist.

Why should the Theist demonstrate what they claim if no one questions it?

But it was questioned, and a perfectly reasonable question it was too.

Theist "God is love"
Bystander "Ok, sounds good to me".

The claim was made and accepted. What need is there for a demonstration?

The assertion was neither accepted nor denied. The question sought an explanation or clarification of what was meant.

 

[cottage]

Ok....

A theist states: ‘God is love’
.
So the sceptic asks:

‘But how can God be “‘love’” when there is so much pain and suffering in the world?’

The Theist asks: "What do pain and suffering in the world have to do with God being love?"

Sceptic replies: But your answer was ‘God gave us free will; we have the choice to receive his love or reject it’. Therefore, in the case of rejection, there is pain and suffering in the world in the face of a God that is love. And from which it follows that ‘God is always loving, even when we sin and turn against him’ is a demonstrably false statement.

Ok....Maybe you can ask questions back a forth but at some point I think you'd have to make some assertion as the basis for the question.

If, of course, the theist accepts your question without questioning in being a valid question, as in your example, then I suppose you wouldn't have to support a reason for the question. Though I'd think you'd have to be prepared to. Otherwise no need for the theist to respond to it.

That argument I gave dates from 2008 when I debated on the now defunct AOL Religious forum, and on that site I was known rather irritatingly as a ‘Closet theist’ for asking questions from both sides of a particular quandary. And in this case, indeed the theist need not respond but then the burden is clearly unmet.