Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[stubbornone]

...Until strong evidence is available one way or the other, it would seem premature to jump to either conclusion...

The evidence is already here, right before our eyes. Our universe and our selves are the only evidence we have to work with.

...In the meantime I think "I don't know" is the reasonable position.

"I don't know" is a starting point for investigation. We can experiment with the consequences derived from theistic assumptions, and compare them with the consequences derived from non-theistic assumptions.

What the lazy non-theist does (in contrast to the due-diligent non-theist) is simply assert that non-theism is the "default position," failing to realize that non-theism involves a very real claim, and then refusing to evaluate and compare the respective consequences which derive from the alternative starting points.

Atheism IS the default position - you agree that "I don't know" is the starting point, right? The default position? If our default position is that we don't know what caused the universe, then our default position is agnostic atheism.

The default position would then be agnosticism ... as in, I don't know. That could either be, I have studied and find the position indeterminate, or ... I haven't bothered to check out the actual debate/investigation one way or the other ... and thuse my 'evidence' is that my definitive denial (which contrasts with, "I don't know,") is that my determined position is merely the default ... and we've truned the rules of logic onto their head by demanding other prove to "us", rather than to a set of objective standards, what is and is not ...

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...If you say we know that the cause is either God or not God, then you are saying that we know the cause is... something...

I am not saying, "Either God or not God." Rather, I am saying, "Either personal agency, or else strictly impersonal causation." This is a critical difference which you continue to ignore, and if you persist I shall have to again cease interacting with you. If you cannot get yourself to say, "Either personal agency, or else strictly impersonal causation," then you are not addressing my argument at all, and there is simply no benefit to continuing the discussion with you.

I assure you that I am not intentionally ignoring any critical difference, I have simply not realized that there was any difference until you mentioned it just now. I was under the impression that personal/impersonal causation, theism/nontheism, God/not God were all different ways of saying the same thing. So please, make it clear - what's the difference? And is your distinction between "personal agency" and "strictly impersonal causation" a true dichotomy or not?

...you are saying that we do not know what the cause is...

If I know that either Julie slapped the mailman in the face, or else Mary slapped him, then I am not exactly "ignorant." I might not know (at the start of the inquiry) which of the two slapped him, but at least I know he was slapped in the face, and at least I know that the culprit is either Julie or Mary. This is a pretty fair amount of knowledge, and it would be wrong to say that I am completely ignorant.

Starting from my position of minimal knowledge, I can proceed to evaluate the respective possibilities; I do not need to wait helplessly and passively for a smoking gun which will likely never come. The mailman is tall, and Mary is too short to be able to reach his face without either him bending over or else her standing on some object. There is no such object in sight; the mailman has a bad back and can't bend over. Thus, the most likely culprit is Julie. The fact that Julie has a sore hand further lends support to the "Julie slapped the mailman" hypothesis. This argument may or may not convince every member of the jury, but it is at least reasonable to suppose that the option which has most support should be preferred over the option which has no support.

Can you now see why "Either Julie or else Mary" is quite different from, "Either Julie or not Julie"? If I say "not Julie" rather than "Mary," I have dropped a valuable bit of knowledge. If Julie didn't slap the mailman, then I know it could only be Mary who did. I need evaluate Julie only against Mary, and not against every other person in the world.

Now perform the following substitutions:

1. Substitute "strictly impersonal causation" for "Mary."
2. Substitute "personal agency" for "Julie."
3. Substitute "our universe and our selves" for "slapped the mailman in the face."

So if "personal agency" and "strictly impersonal causation" are not a true dichotomy, then what are the other potential explanations that you have ruled out? Personal agency is a category that includes any number of personal causes that we might call God, does it not? "Strictly impersonal causation" is a category that includes any number of potential causes that are not personal, is it not?

You've taken all the potential causes, whatever they might be, and put them into two categories. You don't know which category contains the actual cause. It seems to me that this is equivalent to not knowing what the cause is.

If I am utterly misunderstanding you here I assure you I mean no offense.

Thus for me, and for theists generally, theism is preferred over the only alternative (which has been weighed and found wanting). You might disagree, but so what? You are the member of the jury who won't be convinced. There will always be such, and if the consequences of making the decision are severe then perhaps it is best to withhold legal judgment. But in the case of theism vs. non-theism, there is no severe consequence to adopting one philosophical view--at least tentatively, for the sake of honest and thorough intellectual inquiry.

The main thing, from my point of view, is not to prove that I am right, but rather only that theism is a justified belief. That being the case, all the labels such as "irrational" or whatever, all of these labels which are hurled at theists on this forum, are nothing more than rhetorical pablum.

Be that as it may, the topic we are discussing is the default position and the burden of proof. Where do you stand on that? Do you agree that those who argue for theism bear the burden of proof? Do you agree that agnostic ignorance (that is, agnostic atheism) is the default position and does not bear the burden of proof?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

[d.thomas]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

I don't believe you when you say there are invisible ancient gods out there because your claims are unsupported, that makes me an atheist.

To say there are no tooth fairies or that leprechauns don't exist is never questioned, but as soon as one says invisible gods don't exist people talk about burden of proof as if it suddenly matters. Well it doesn't, the only difference is that a lot of people believe that nonsense about gods.

[stubbornone]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

And it is, repeatedly. Why is yours not?

[d.thomas]

.






Asking for proof of an invisible entity not existing separates the believers from those that actually think these things through.

.

[Danmark]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

And it is, repeatedly. Why is yours not?

Again, the 'default' position is that we have no knowledge. We have built on that position thru logic and reason and by experiment. The result of that tradition yields a supportable view of nature that that requires no supernatural explanation.

When one posits a 'god' or some other supernatural phenomenon, the burden is on he who alleges. When we add to that the fact that this supernatural 'being' and the 'evidence' of him/her/it requires us to defy all of the other theories, principles and knowledge that man has arrived at rationally and empirically, that burden of proof should be by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that far exceeds a subjective 'belief.'

And with that background, the soft (or 'weak' or negative) atheism that simply says 'not likely' is a more reasonable default position than 'I don't know.' The same would be said of phrenology or astrology or creationism or any other belief system that in order to exist must defy so much of what we already agree we know, and claim 'exception.'

[EduChris]

...I was under the impression that personal/impersonal causation, theism/nontheism, God/not God were all different ways of saying the same thing. So please, make it clear - what's the difference?...

The critical issue is whether non-contingent reality involves personal agency. If it does, then theism is the ontological reality. If only impersonal causation is involved, then non-theism is the ontological reality.

...And is your distinction between "personal agency" and "strictly impersonal causation" a true dichotomy or not?...

Per the norms of the English language it is a true dichotomy.

...So if "personal agency" and "strictly impersonal causation" are not a true dichotomy, then what are the other potential explanations that you have ruled out?...

The dichotomy is true, and therefore your question is irrelevant.

...Personal agency is a category that includes any number of personal causes that we might call God, does it not?...

Whatever personal cause you can think of, personal agency will be an apt description.

..."Strictly impersonal causation" is a category that includes any number of potential causes that are not personal, is it not?...

For any causation which does not involve personal agency, impersonal agency will be an apt description. If an entire set of causes lacks any personal agency, then that set of causes will be strictly impersonal.

...You've taken all the potential causes, whatever they might be, and put them into two categories. You don't know which category contains the actual cause. It seems to me that this is equivalent to not knowing what the cause is...

Suppose I have a lottery ticket. Suppose I know, somehow, that my ticket is the grand prize winner if and only if the number on my ticket is an even number. Do I really care what the actual number is? All I need to know is whether the final digit is even or odd. That's all that matters.

...the topic we are discussing is the default position and the burden of proof. Where do you stand on that? Do you agree that those who argue for theism bear the burden of proof? Do you agree that agnostic ignorance (that is, agnostic atheism) is the default position and does not bear the burden of proof?

Those who argue for theism bear the same burden of proof as those who argue for non-theism. Those who rest in the comfort of their familiar ignorance bear no burden of proof unless and until they attempt to critique the actual arguments for or against either position. Once they enter the fray, they shoulder an intellectual responsibility to weigh the relative merits of each side of the dichotomy. In such case they might decide that one side has the better argument. The side with the better argument will then become the "default position." On the other hand, if they decide that the respective arguments are equivalent, they will have become a slightly less ignorant agnostic.

[d.thomas]

.



God's invisible, prove he doesn't exist. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

[stubbornone]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

I don't believe you when you say there are invisible ancient gods out there because your claims are unsupported, that makes me an atheist.

To say there are no tooth fairies or that leprechauns don't exist is never questioned, but as soon as one says invisible gods don't exist people talk about burden of proof as if it suddenly matters. Well it doesn't, the only difference is that a lot of people believe that nonsense about gods.

Once again, this is a dodge. To say that you have concluded that there is no God because no one has ever given you a solid argument for it it simply dishonest ... indeed simply comparing God to a leprechaun is a fallacy ... the guilt by association fallacy. As in, we already know you think that God is fake, but simply comparing it something false and claiming the evidence is identical is, once again, intellectually dishonest.

The reverse? If I said God was real because surely grass is obviously green ... I rather doubt it that atheists would smack themselves in the forehead and claim, "Of course, of course ... its so obviously true!"

To claim that statements such as this should be treated not just as an intellectually valid position, but positive proof in support of a claim is patently silly.

The fact that you disagree with Christianity does bot automatically make your position the correct one.