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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...You don't know if impersonal causes could, in principle, cause the universe, and by implication you don't know if they couldn't. That puts you at the default starting point of agnostic atheism...

No, it simply means I don't know, and therefore I can't just assume that one of the only two available options enjoys some debating advantage over the other.

I am not assuming that one of the only two conclusions enjoys some advantage over the other. I am pointing out that the the default position enjoys advantages over the two conclusions that you present.

...These are conclusions, not default positions...I am not saying that either of these two alternative positions is the default position. I am saying that..."I don't know"...is the default position.

We do know that either there was personal agency, or else there was strictly impersonal causation. Knowing that options 1 and 2 are the only available options does not give one option an epistemic advantage over the other.

"I don't know" is a starting point, sure, but the point of debate is not to vigorously cling to our state of ignorance, but rather to explore and test and evaluate and (perhaps even) make a tentative assessment of the available options.

When you start to do these things, then you are arguing for the existence or nonexistence of God. When you argue for the existence or nonexistence of God, you carry the burden of proof. There is no burden of proof held by the default "I don't know" position.

...I am saying that agnostic atheism - "I don't know" - is the default position.

Why shouldn't agnostic theism be the default? Why shouldn't we assume, however tentatively, that the personal agency which we experience ourselves in umediated fashion can only arise from some prior personal agency? After all, we have never observed any unambiguous instance of personal agency arising from strictly impersonal causation. If the contingent personal agency we experience always seems to derive from some prior contingent personal agency, why should we not start with the assumption that all contingent personal agency most likely derives from some ultimate non-contingent personal agency?

The default position would not be that the personal agency we experience ourselves comes from God, the default position would be that we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from (agnostic atheism). Positing a God as the source of the experience of personal agency is a positive assertion for which one would have the burden of proof.

[EduChris]

...The default position would not be that the personal agency we experience ourselves comes from God, the default position would be that we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from (agnostic atheism)...

I suppose this might work if you are willing to equate "agnostic atheism" with simple, unswerving ignorance. However, your claim that "we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from" is not quite correct. We do know that it either comes from personal agency (theism) or else it doesn't (non-theism). Given that we do know at least this much, there is at least as much reason to be an agnostic theist as there is to be an agnostic non-theist.

...Positing a God as the source of the experience of personal agency is a positive assertion for which one would have the burden of proof.

There is no proof available, either for the theist or the non-theist; instead, we must all deal with degrees of epistemic justification. Still, adamant, unswerving ignorance is not a viable condition for us to live our daily lives. In our daily activities we will invariably demonstrate how we really view our selves and our world.

But anyway, I can easily start from a position of agnostic ignorance. Then I can look at the only two available options and try each one on for size. When I do this, it becomes clear to me that non-theism lacks any support, whereas theism enjoys some support (though not enough to convince those who refuse to stray from the comforts of unswerving ignorance). Thus, theism is the more rational option--even if I start from a position of agnostic ignorance.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...The default position would not be that the personal agency we experience ourselves comes from God, the default position would be that we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from (agnostic atheism)...

I suppose this might work if you are willing to equate "agnostic atheism" with simple, unswerving ignorance. However, your claim that "we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from" is not quite correct. We do know that it either comes from personal agency (theism) or else it doesn't (non-theism).

What are you "correcting"? Yes, we know it either comes from God or it doesn't. We also know it either comes from cosmic radiation or it doesn't. This is another way of saying "we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from." That is the default position (agnostic atheism). If you want to argue that personal agency does or does not comes from God, or that personal agency does or does not come from cosmic radiation, you take up the burden of proof.

...Positing a God as the source of the experience of personal agency is a positive assertion for which one would have the burden of proof.

There is no proof available, either for the theist or the non-theist. Still, adamant, unswerving ignorance is not a viable condition for us to live our daily lives.

I disagree. It's working pretty well for me. If there is no proof available, the rational thing to do is remain at the default position (agnostic atheism).

But anyway, I can easily start from a position of agnostic ignorance. Then I can look at the only two available options and try each one on for size. When I do this, it becomes clear to me that non-theism lacks any support, whereas theism enjoys some support, (though not enough to convince those who refuse to stray from the comforts of unswerving ignorance). Thus, theism is the more rational option--even if we start from a position of agnostic ignorance.

I have no problem with this, so long as you recognize that you are using "agnostic ignorance" as a euphemism for agnostic atheism. If you wish to make argument for theism from the starting point of agnostic "ignorance" (atheism), you hold the burden of proof.

[EduChris]

...Yes, we know it either comes from God or it doesn't. We also know it either comes from cosmic radiation or it doesn't. This is another way of saying "we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from."

Not exactly. I am simplifying the options to their most basic level, whereas you are obfuscating through unnecessary multiplication. At root, we know of only two methods of causation--personal agency or necessity (the third option of "chance" is in fact the lack of causation). So personal agency (which we all experience in unmediated fashion) and necessity (which to some extent is ambiguous, since we cannot experience it directly and cannot discern its ultimate source) are the only options we need to deal with. In essence, I am saying that either something makes a sound, or else it doesn't, and you are arguing, "Not true: either it makes a screech, or else it is silent; either it makes a hum, or else it is silent; either it makes a toot, or else it is silent." You are multiplying options unnecessarily.

...adamant, unswerving ignorance is not a viable condition for us to live our daily lives.

I disagree. It's working pretty well for me. If there is no proof available, the rational thing to do is remain at the default position (agnostic atheism)...

The problem here is twofold: 1) there is no "proof," but rather only degrees of justification; and 2) by adopting the "atheism" moniker you have aligned yourself with strictly impersonal causation. You have slyly shifted from admitted ignorance to a practical working bias toward strictly impersonal causation, even though you have adduced no reason for preferring that over personal causation.

...you are using "agnostic ignorance" as a euphemism for agnostic atheism...

No, either you are using "agnostic atheism" as a euphemism for "agnostic ignorance," or else you have slyly shifted from ignorance to the practical, working assumption of "strictly impersonal causation" without even attempting to supply any justification for such a move.

...If you wish to make argument for theism from the starting point of agnostic "ignorance"...you hold the burden of proof.

You keep talking about "proof" when there is none for either side. There are only relative degrees of rational justification. But since theism has some justification, and since non-theism has no justification, it logically follows that theism is the rationally preferred option even if we start from the default position of agnostic ignorance.

[Danmark]

Much of this argument seems to rest upon the idea that the default position is 'I don't know.' I think this is wrong. The default position is 'there is nothing.'

Then bit by bit we construct hypotheses by arguing from what we do know or can trust. Descartes' cogito ergo sum. We posit there is 'something' because we sense there is more than us. We build from there.

Therefore the burden of proof being on 'he who alleges,' results in that burden falling on the one who alleges a supernatural explanation. It is the leap to the supernatural that does not flow naturally from other knowns or rationally argued conclusions.

This should be particularly true when we have a general theory or theories that are consistent with each other, which rely on each other and can explain so very much that is in the natural world. When we need to take that extra leap into the supernatural to explain things, the burden of proof should be higher and naturally falls upon he who alleges the supernatural.

[Star]

You keep talking about "proof" when there is none for either side. There are only degrees of rational justification. But since theism has some justification, and since non-theism has no justification, it logically follows that theism is the rationally preferred option even if we start from the default position of agnostic ignorance.

All these pages into a thread on the default position and we still don't understand what it is.

The default position isn't an option, it's the default position.

It doesn't need to have any evidence or proof. It doesn't necessarily need to be a position of ignorance, either. Like you said, there's no proof on either side, so the default position in that case would the most logical.

Being ignorant is to ignore the available evidence. For example, thinking you can catch AIDs from shaking hands with an infected person is ignorant because it's ignoring the readily-available evidence to the contrary. If there's no evidence for or against god, we cannot be considered ignorant for taking a default position. We're not ignoring anything.

[Star]

Much of this argument seems to rest upon the idea that the default position is 'I don't know.' I think this is wrong. The default position is 'there is nothing.'

Then bit by bit we construct hypotheses by arguing from what we do know or can trust. Descartes' cogito ergo sum. We posit there is 'something' because we sense there is more than us. We build from there.

Therefore the burden of proof being on 'he who alleges,' results in that burden falling on the one who alleges a supernatural explanation. It is the leap to the supernatural that does not flow naturally from other knowns or rationally argued conclusions.

This should be particularly true when we have a general theory or theories that are consistent with each other, which rely on each other and can explain so very much that is in the natural world. When we need to take that extra leap into the supernatural to explain things, the burden of proof should be higher and naturally falls upon he who alleges the supernatural.

Correct. This is well established in science and statistics. For anyone interested in learning more, Google the null hypothesis, which is usually associated with the default state. There is no other way that makes sense.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Yes, we know it either comes from God or it doesn't. We also know it either comes from cosmic radiation or it doesn't. This is another way of saying "we do not know where the personal agency we experience comes from."

Not exactly. I am simplifying the options to their most basic level, whereas you are obfuscating through unnecessary multiplication. At root, we know of only two methods of causation--personal agency or necessity (the third option of "chance" is in fact the lack of causation). So personal agency (which we all experience in unmediated fashion) and necessity (which to some extent is ambiguous, since we cannot experience it directly and cannot discern its ultimate source) are the only options we need to deal with. In essence, I am saying that either something makes a sound, or else it doesn't, and you are arguing, "Not true: either it makes a screech, or else it is silent; either it makes a hum, or else it is silent; either it makes a toot, or else it is silent." You are multiplying options unnecessarily.

How am I multiplying options? I count two, just like yours. I am not saying anything equivalent to "either something makes a screech or else it is silent" because that is not a true dichotomy. Cosmic radiation vs. not cosmic radiation is a true dichotomy, just like God vs. not God.

So, again, I ask what you think you are "correcting." 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. In other words, you are saying that we do not know what the cause is.

...adamant, unswerving ignorance is not a viable condition for us to live our daily lives.

I disagree. It's working pretty well for me. If there is no proof available, the rational thing to do is remain at the default position (agnostic atheism)...

The problem here is twofold: 1) there is no "proof," but rather only degrees of justification;

If I do not find the justifications convincing then it is most reasonable for me to remain at the default position.

2) by adopting the "atheism" moniker you have aligned yourself with strictly impersonal causation. You have slyly shifted from admitted ignorance to a practical working bias toward strictly impersonal causation, even though you have adduced no reason for preferring that over personal causation.

Agnostic atheism is the default position. The default position is, as you correctly point out, not aligned with belief in God. That is why those who argue for the existence of God hold the burden of proof. Of course we are "biased" towards maintaining the default position, that's the whole point of the concept - we stick with the default until we have compelling reason to go elsewhere. If I don't know where personal agency comes from, obviously I am not going to live my life as if personal agency comes from God or cosmic rays or anything else. I am just going to live my life as if I don't know.

...you are using "agnostic ignorance" as a euphemism for agnostic atheism...

No, either you are using "agnostic atheism" as a euphemism for "agnostic ignorance," or else you have slyly shifted from ignorance to the practical, working assumption of "strictly impersonal causation" without even attempting to supply any justification for such a move.

"Ignorance" is not a word that describes a position with regard to belief in gods. Either you believe in gods or you don't. Ignorance is atheism by definition.

...If you wish to make argument for theism from the starting point of agnostic "ignorance"...you hold the burden of proof.

You keep talking about "proof"when there is none for either side. There is only degrees of rational justification. But since theism has some justification, and since non-theism has no justification, it logically follows that theism is the rationally preferred option even if we start from the default position of agnostic ignorance.

If there are only two possible poorly evidenced solutions, then there is no reason to jump to either conclusion - even if one of them is slightly better. It is more reasonable to remain at the default position until a stronger justification for moving away from it comes along.

[Danmark]

Much of this argument seems to rest upon the idea that the default position is 'I don't know.' I think this is wrong. The default position is 'there is nothing.'

Then bit by bit we construct hypotheses by arguing from what we do know or can trust. Descartes' cogito ergo sum. We posit there is 'something' because we sense there is more than us. We build from there.

Therefore the burden of proof being on 'he who alleges,' results in that burden falling on the one who alleges a supernatural explanation. It is the leap to the supernatural that does not flow naturally from other knowns or rationally argued conclusions.

This should be particularly true when we have a general theory or theories that are consistent with each other, which rely on each other and can explain so very much that is in the natural world. When we need to take that extra leap into the supernatural to explain things, the burden of proof should be higher and naturally falls upon he who alleges the supernatural.

Correct. This is well established in science and statistics. For anyone interested in learning more, Google the null hypothesis, which is usually associated with the default state. There is no other way that makes sense.

Yes.
BTW, perhaps I should have stated the default position is, "We know nothing," as opposed to "there is nothing." Not sure this makes a difference. What you wrote put me in mind of the possible distinction.

[EduChris]

...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.

...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."

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.