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]

...There is no analogous need to consider the existence of God. If you don't contemplate it, you go about living your life as normal. If you do contemplate it, you will never come to a definitive conclusion...

There is no need to postpone consideration of personal agency at the root of all human existence.

The extreme paucity of evidence would be a very good reason to postpone such consideration, as would the impossibility of reaching a conclusion.

If you do not contemplate it, you will remain mired in a state of passive apathy toward ultimate concerns (or you will fill your life with lesser concerns) and you will never arrive at a more enlightened working framework for human existence.

What do you mean by "a more enlightened framework for human existence"? Would Christianity be an example of such a framework? What frameworks do you have in mind that are more "enlightened" than agnostic atheism? I wonder whether you can show your ideas of what counts as "enlightened" or what counts as "lesser concerns" are anything more than personal taste.

If I do not take the time to contemplate the imminent invasion of earth by hostile space aliens, I am also filling my life with "lesser concerns." But while an alien invasion might be characterized as an extremely important event far outweighing any of my daily concerns, we rationally need some reason to consider it in the first place. It is fallacious to appeal to the consequences of God's existence as a reason for jumping to conclusions in lieu of evidence.

...The detective must solve the mystery, the hungry person must eat. These examples are not analogous to the existence of God, because these examples have outside pressures exerted upon the situation forcing action to be taken on insufficient evidence...

We are meaning-seeking, meaning-finding, meaning-making creatures. That is our common lot, though some people are more drawn to this pursuit than others. Given that God is the highest possible source of ultimate meaning, it is reasonable for people to pursue God via whatever means available, even if we cannot ever find certainty in this life.

We are also pleasure-seeking, pleasure-finding, pleasure-making creatures. By your reasoning, should we also pursue the highest possible pleasures by any means available? That we are biologically motivated to find meaning is not a rational reason to pursue it beyond where the evidence takes us. If anything it should caution us - we are so good at finding meaning that we often find it where it does not exist (pareidolia).

We humans are able to recognize and resist our various urges if we so choose. The detective must do her job, the hungry man must eat - thus these are false analogies.

...Anyone claiming that god exists or doesn't exist has the burden of proof...

And anyone who claims that theism need not be true also has the burden of proof.

It seems to me that the position of complete, abject, apathetic ignorance is the one which entails no burden of proof. But only the comatose can qualify for such a condition, and the comatose don't generally participate on Internet forums such as this.

That means that those of us who participate on this forum do have an obligation to defend their positions.

This is false. The burden of proof is only held by the person making a positive assertion. "God may or may not exist" is not a positive assertion and bears no burden of proof - it is simply an acknowledgement of the full spectrum of possible answers to a particular question. Agnostic atheism is the default position, makes no positive assertions, and as a result holds no burden of proof.

[EduChris]

...The extreme paucity of evidence would be a very good reason to postpone such consideration, as would the impossibility of reaching a conclusion...

There is an abundance of evidence--viz, our universe and our selves. And I (not to mention theists generally) believe that one conclusion is more rational than any other candidate yet proposed. If you feel differently--so what? You have nothing better to offer, and so I need not be bothered that you choose to bow out of the debate.

...What do you mean by "a more enlightened framework...wonder whether you can show your ideas of what counts as "enlightened" or what counts as "lesser concerns" are anything more than personal taste...

I used "enlightened" in the sense of more educated, more critically aware of the available options.

...The burden of proof is only held by the person making a positive assertion. "God may or may not exist" is not a positive assertion and bears no burden of proof...

"God may or may not exist" is simply a roundabout way of making the positive assertion that "Theism need not be the case." As such, and whichever way you phrase the statement, this positive claim must be defended (in debate) via rational argument.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...The extreme paucity of evidence would be a very good reason to postpone such consideration, as would the impossibility of reaching a conclusion...

There is an abundance of evidence--viz, our universe and our selves. And I (not to mention theists generally) believe that one conclusion is more rational than any other candidate yet proposed. If you feel differently--so what? You have nothing better to offer, and so I need not be bothered that you choose to bow out of the debate.

The issue, again, is that even if one conclusion appears more rational than any other, this does not mean it is rational to jump to it. The burden of proof must still be met for us to prefer one conclusion or the other over the default position of agnostic atheism.

...What do you mean by "a more enlightened framework...wonder whether you can show your ideas of what counts as "enlightened" or what counts as "lesser concerns" are anything more than personal taste...

I used "enlightened" in the sense of more educated, more critically aware of the available options.

In what way do you believe theism to be more educated and critically aware of the available options than agnostic atheism?

I asked you for an example of a "more enlightened framework" than agnostic atheism - do you have one in mind or not?

...The burden of proof is only held by the person making a positive assertion. "God may or may not exist" is not a positive assertion and bears no burden of proof...

"God may or may not exist" is simply a roundabout way of making the positive assertion that "Theism need not be the case." As such, and whichever way you phrase the statement, this positive claim must be defended (in debate) via rational argument.

"Theism need not be the case" is not a positive assertion, as it is the equivalent of saying "God may or may not exist." It is not a positive assertion to acknowledge all the possible answers to a particular question. For example, take this question: is it going to rain tomorrow? "It is going to rain tomorrow" is a positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. "It is not going to rain tomorrow" is a positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. "It might rain tomorrow and it might not rain tomorrow" is not a positive assertion, it is an acknowledgement of all possible answers to the question. Likewise with "God might or might not exist."

[EduChris]

...If I do not take the time to contemplate the imminent invasion of earth by hostile space aliens, I am also filling my life with "lesser concerns." But while an alien invasion might be characterized as an extremely important event far outweighing any of my daily concerns, we rationally need some reason to consider it in the first place...

It is fairly easy to support the positive assertion that "hostile space aliens need not be invading." Space aliens are by definition contingent entities, and that is all you need say to rationally justify deferring consideration of them.

...It is fallacious to appeal to the consequences of God's existence as a reason for jumping to conclusions in lieu of evidence...

I make no such appeal. The pursuit of truth regarding the ultimate origin of our universe and our selves is all the reason we need.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...If I do not take the time to contemplate the imminent invasion of earth by hostile space aliens, I am also filling my life with "lesser concerns." But while an alien invasion might be characterized as an extremely important event far outweighing any of my daily concerns, we rationally need some reason to consider it in the first place...

It is fairly easy to support the positive assertion that "hostile space aliens need not be invading." Space aliens are by definition contingent entities, and that is all you need say to rationally justify deferring consideration of them.

"Hostile space aliens need not be invading" is not a positive assertion. It is simply an acknowledgement of the possibility of space aliens invading or not invading. An acknowledgement that either x or not-x must be the case.

...It is fallacious to appeal to the consequences of God's existence as a reason for jumping to conclusions in lieu of evidence...

I make no such appeal. The pursuit of truth regarding the ultimate origin of our universe and our selves is all the reason we need.

"The pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if the evidence is unobtainable. Such behaviour would impede our pursuit of truth by allowing us to build our worldviews on unstable foundations.

[EduChris]

...even if one conclusion appears more rational than any other, this does not mean it is rational to jump to it...

Given that there are no negative consequences for tentatively adopting various frameworks, so as to test the cogency consistency and explanatory scope of that framework, there is no need to passively sit on the fence. And in any event, none of us can really sit on the fence: we implicitly adopt one framework or another as we live out our daily lives.

...The burden of proof must still be met for us to prefer one conclusion or the other over the default position of agnostic atheism...

Certainly I and other theists believe the burden of argument has already been adequately met. If you believe differently--so what? The "burden of argument" criteria is necessarily a subjective and personal decision.

...In what way do you believe theism to be more educated and critically aware of the available options than agnostic atheism?...

Educated theism is more critically aware than uneducated theism (or uneducated non-theism). Educated non-theism is more critically aware than uneducated non-theism (or uneducated theism). The point is, if the non-theist just sits on the fence all day, waiting for an argument to bowl him over, he's not going to learn very much--he's not going to become more critically aware of all the options.

..."Theism need not be the case" is not a positive assertion...It is not a positive assertion to acknowledge all the possible answers to a particular question...

The claim that non-theism is possible is a positive assertion. How do you know it is possible? What evidence do you have?

...For example, take this question: is it going to rain tomorrow? "It is going to rain tomorrow" is a positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. "It is not going to rain tomorrow" is a positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. "It might rain tomorrow and it might not rain tomorrow" is not a positive assertion, it is an acknowledgement of all possible answers to the question...

We know from experience that it doesn't rain every day, and we lack the technology to predict tomorrow's weather. Therefore, "it might or might not rain tomorrow" is an accurate assessment of what we know to be true based on current technology and past experience.

...Likewise with "God might or might not exist."

We have experience in comparing days "with and without rain." We have no experience in comparing universes "with and without God." Therefore, your analogy fails.

[EduChris]

..."The pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if the evidence is unobtainable...

The evidence is all around us. The evidence is our universe and our selves.

...Such behaviour would impede our pursuit of truth by allowing us to build our worldviews on unstable foundations.

All our worldviews are necessarily tentative and unstable. Yet, we cannot do without some worldview or another. Such is the human condition.

I should note that non-theism is a particularly unstable foundation, given that it undercuts the very notion of rationality itself. But that I suppose is another argument altogether.

[Star]

...Anyone claiming that god exists or doesn't exist has the burden of proof...

And anyone who claims that theism need not be true also has the burden of proof.

It seems to me that the position of complete, abject, apathetic ignorance is the one which entails no burden of proof. But only the comatose can qualify for such a condition, and the comatose don't generally participate on Internet forums such as this.

That means that those of us who participate on this forum do have an obligation to defend their positions.

No, I'll explain this one last time. The person making the claim is the person with the burden of proof. Any claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is logic 101 which can be learned at any university.

[EduChris]

...The person making the claim is the person with the burden of proof. Any claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

What evidence do you have that theism need not be true? Non-theism is a complete non-starter unless there is some valid reason to suppose that theism need not be true. If you cannot provide evidence that theism need not be true, then (by your own admission) I can just dismiss your claim, leaving theism as the only option remaining.

I should add here that science cannot provide evidence for the assertion that theism need not be true, since science deals only with the physical, whereas theism and non-theism deal with the metaphysical.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...even if one conclusion appears more rational than any other, this does not mean it is rational to jump to it...

Given that there are no negative consequences for tentatively adopting various frameworks, so as to test the cogency consistency and explanatory scope of that framework, there is no need to passively sit on the fence. And in any event, none of us can really sit on the fence: we implicitly adopt one framework or another as we live out our daily lives.

Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?

...The burden of proof must still be met for us to prefer one conclusion or the other over the default position of agnostic atheism...

Certainly I and other theists believe the burden of argument has already been adequately met. If you believe differently--so what? The "burden of argument" criteria is necessarily a subjective and personal decision.

If you believe the burden of proof for God has been met, then you will believe in God, yes.

...In what way do you believe theism to be more educated and critically aware of the available options than agnostic atheism?...

Educated theism is more critically aware than uneducated theism (or uneducated non-theism). Educated non-theism is more critically aware than uneducated non-theism (or uneducated theism). The point is, if the non-theist just sits on the fence all day, waiting for an argument to bowl him over, he's not going to learn very much--he's not going to become more critically aware of all the options.

Sure, but there is nothing about remaining at the default position of agnostic atheism that implies a lack of education or critical awareness. I would also disagree that you don't learn very much by "sitting on the fence" and listening to various arguments. To the contrary, I think disinterested observation is the ideal way to learn.

..."Theism need not be the case" is not a positive assertion...It is not a positive assertion to acknowledge all the possible answers to a particular question...

The claim that non-theism is possible is a positive assertion. How do you know it is possible? What evidence do you have?

It is not a positive assertion. "It could be x or it could be not-x" is not a positive assertion. Besides, since agnostic atheism is the default position, the burden of proof is on those who would argue for God's existence. To ask for evidence that "theism need not be true" is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

...For example, take this question: is it going to rain tomorrow? "It is going to rain tomorrow" is a positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. "It is not going to rain tomorrow" is a positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. "It might rain tomorrow and it might not rain tomorrow" is not a positive assertion, it is an acknowledgement of all possible answers to the question...

We know from experience that it doesn't rain every day, and we lack the technology to predict tomorrow's weather. Therefore, "it might or might not rain tomorrow" is an accurate assessment of what we know to be true based on current technology and past experience.

It is also not a positive assertion with regard to the question whether or not it is going to rain tomorrow. Right? You don't need to bring in past experience of rain in order to answer that it might or might not rain; the question already contains the assumption that we know what rain is.

...Likewise with "God might or might not exist."

We have experience in comparing days "with and without rain." We have no experience in comparing universes "with and without God." Therefore, your analogy fails.

That's not relevant, we have no experience of whether or not it will rain tomorrow. Tomorrow hasn't happened yet. We don't know whether it will rain tomorrow, we just know that it will either rain or not rain. We likewise don't know whether or not God exists, we just know that either God exists or God doesn't exist.

..."The pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if the evidence is unobtainable...

The evidence is all around us. The evidence is our universe and our selves.

Correct. I will rephrase: even if proof is not available.

...Such behaviour would impede our pursuit of truth by allowing us to build our worldviews on unstable foundations.

All our worldviews are necessarily tentative and unstable. Yet, we cannot do without some worldview or another. Such is the human condition.

This is true. But as we build more unproven assumptions into the foundations of our worldviews, they become more problematic (Occam's razor).

I should note that non-theism is a particularly unstable foundation, given that it undercuts the very notion of rationality itself. But that I suppose is another argument altogether.

It is, and you will have to make that argument if you wish to use it as a supporting point in this discussion.