Who Has The Burden Of Proof And When?

[DavidLeon]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

[otseng]

That's what they say just before they start crying like little girls

Moderator Warning


Uncivil comments about others are not allowed.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

How typically xenophobic and childish of you. Let's see if I can play ... your science is my female dog, as the homies say. You don't know what a deity is. What you should say is that the deity of the religion that burned you is unnecessary fiction. But it does something to add to reality or you wouldn't be wasting your time here you would be off doing science things.

Take up thy microscope and walk!

If I were you I would pray to your maker for REAL knowledge about how the world around you works because you and your science, well, can't even imagine what the grand creator God can do!

Let me hear an amen brother!

Yeah!

How's that? Did I impress you with my religion can beat up your religion playground mentality?

This is a debate site. Not a site for you to claim you have some special god understanding powers.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Everything confirms this.

Show me a real god, or at least offer something that necessarly would confirm one. If you cannot, you are just playing pretend to believe in a god concept. What's even more revealing is the odds that your chosen god concept would be different if you lived in Iran or India.

On one hand we have observations. On the other, we have religious belief via geography. How you arrived at your beliefs is certainly not a superior way of doing it, yet you pretend the playing field is level when clearly it isn't.

Keep in mind, I couldn't care less which god concept you decide to place your faith in. That is your business.
Also, please consider that if evolution (for example) was shown to be wrong tomorrow, such a thing would matter little to me (besides wanting to understand the other mechanic). This is NOT the case for religious people as they have a dog in the fight. Many religious people like to debate others and pretend that they are married to their beliefs like the religious are. This is not the case though as evolution (for example) is not promising some unevidenced live forever type of ecstasy that I would lose out on if evolution is ever shown to be false.

Needing a belief to be right leads to bad reasoning. An atheist has no need for evolution to be the mechanism for how life evolved on this planet. It would be good of you to take note of this major difference when justifying something. The reasoning behind a religious person and an atheist is very different and one allows questioning while the other requires obedience. The playing fields are not even close to being level. Again, I lose nothing if evolution is shown to be false. You cannot say the same thing when it comes to your god concept and your reasoing is affected due to this.

[Kylie]

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Everything confirms this.

That would be energy, not matter. Matter can be changed into energy and vice versa.

[brunumb]

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Everything confirms this.

That would be energy, not matter. Matter can be changed into energy and vice versa.

They can be interconverted but not destroyed or annihilated.

[Avoice]

It doesn't really make a difference who has the burden of proof as proof is unattainable.
If we could prove God existed then we really wouldn't have free will.
By that I mean, no one in their right mind goes driving past a cop at 90 miles an hour. Why not? Because they know they'll get a ticket or go to jail. You lose free will when you see a cop.
How many would add bacon to their hamburger if they knew God existed candy he really did say don't eat pig?

The only way God can find out who we love more, us or him is to provide enough room for doubt. One who wants to do what they want rather than obey God will show himself that way.

[Willum]

[Replying to Avoice in post #105]

I am afraid only theists these days claim proof is unattainable, and with the next breath say proof that works for every other situation, does not apply to God.

God does not get to be exempt from being disproven because it is God.
God is disproven exactly the same way everything else is disproven.

Though the one making the claim has the burden of proof, some of us anti-theist got annoyed enough to get proof there are no gods, in the traditional sense, anyway.

[Mithrae]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

In another recent thread we've been treated to the repeated insistence by a member that challenging a scholarly consensus does not incur a 'burden of proof'; that agreeing with this consensus does incur a burden of proof; that citing this consensus along with outlining four or five of the different lines of evidence used to reach that conclusion doesn't meet the burden of proof; and that there is no burden of proof required to justify these seemingly arbitrary epistemic standards (and asking for such is merely "trying to shift the burden of proof")

Obviously for some atheist apologists this 'burden of proof' is an important talisman or rhetorical tool, such that trying to situate yourself on the unburdened side of 'debate' is tantamount to a victory by default. The term debate there is obviously a rather loose one, since debate requires the engagement of two contrary points of view but this kind of tactic implies that the unencumbered party isn't offering a point of view to be proven at all. If I had to guess I would suppose that that this kind of approach has developed over the long term from explanatory analogies such as Russell's Teapot, taken out of context and blown out of all proportion; some atheists have even gone so far as claim that atheism is on par with the ignorance and essentially mindless state of infants, that we are all born atheists!

There's an amusing irony here in that, from this way of trying to frame discussion of religion and worldviews, proponents of theism arguably shouldn't be described as 'apologists' at all since theistic and particularly Christian apologetics has for many centuries generally been regarded as building a positive case for one point of view and/or against others, whereas the defensive position is clearly the one which many atheists seek to occupy:

• The term apologetics derives from the Ancient Greek word apologia (ἀπολογία).[1] In the Classical Greek legal system, the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), the accusation or charge, and the defendant replied with an apologia, the defence.[5] The apologia was a formal speech or explanation to reply to and rebut the charges.
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Etymology

We might read the title of this subforum as one for discussion of Christianity and the apologetics against it

Personally I think we should all try to more or less forget about this fetishization of burden of proof as being - in many cases - simply a rhetorical tool to try to 'win' a discussion, rather than viewing discussion as an opportunity to learn, exchange ideas with others and in the process refine and improve one's own. No doubt there are exceptions but I think that in most cases mature discussion should be a two-way street. If someone takes pains to disavow any 'burden of proof' they're essentially admitting that they have nothing of substance to contribute to the exchange. And that's okay of course, not everyone has taken the time to form coherent perspectives on every issue, and it needn't always mean that a productive discussion cannot be had; but it's surely an admission which invites wariness of the possibility that the supposedly burdenless individual may be interested in little more than trolling or in some kind of superficial rhetorical 'win.'

[Clownboat]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

In another recent thread we've been treated to the repeated insistence by a member that challenging a scholarly consensus does not incur a 'burden of proof'; that agreeing with this consensus does incur a burden of proof; that citing this consensus along with outlining four or five of the different lines of evidence used to reach that conclusion doesn't meet the burden of proof; and that there is no burden of proof required to justify these seemingly arbitrary epistemic standards (and asking for such is merely "trying to shift the burden of proof")

Obviously for some atheist apologists this 'burden of proof' is an important talisman or rhetorical tool, such that trying to situate yourself on the unburdened side of 'debate' is tantamount to a victory by default. The term debate there is obviously a rather loose one, since debate requires the engagement of two contrary points of view but this kind of tactic implies that the unencumbered party isn't offering a point of view to be proven at all. If I had to guess I would suppose that that this kind of approach has developed over the long term from explanatory analogies such as Russell's Teapot, taken out of context and blown out of all proportion; some atheists have even gone so far as claim that atheism is on par with the ignorance and essentially mindless state of infants, that we are all born atheists!

There's an amusing irony here in that, from this way of trying to frame discussion of religion and worldviews, proponents of theism arguably shouldn't be described as 'apologists' at all since theistic and particularly Christian apologetics has for many centuries generally been regarded as building a positive case for one point of view and/or against others, whereas the defensive position is clearly the one which many atheists seek to occupy:

• The term apologetics derives from the Ancient Greek word apologia (ἀπολογία).[1] In the Classical Greek legal system, the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), the accusation or charge, and the defendant replied with an apologia, the defence.[5] The apologia was a formal speech or explanation to reply to and rebut the charges.
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Etymology

We might read the title of this subforum as one for discussion of Christianity and the apologetics against it

Personally I think we should all try to more or less forget about this fetishization of burden of proof as being - in many cases - simply a rhetorical tool to try to 'win' a discussion, rather than viewing discussion as an opportunity to learn, exchange ideas with others and in the process refine and improve one's own. No doubt there are exceptions but I think that in most cases mature discussion should be a two-way street. If someone takes pains to disavow any 'burden of proof' they're essentially admitting that they have nothing of substance to contribute to the exchange. And that's okay of course, not everyone has taken the time to form coherent perspectives on every issue, and it needn't always mean that a productive discussion cannot be had; but it's surely an admission which invites wariness of the possibility that the supposedly burdenless individual may be interested in little more than trolling or in some kind of superficial rhetorical 'win.'

If someone claimed that the world was flat, should the burden of proof really not matter?
Many people find that to discuss such a thing would be to give it credit that it doesn't yet deserve. Therefore appealing to burden of proof (or not meeting it) would be logical.

The burden of proof may not always be a comfortable thing to have to deal with, but it does allow anyone to disregard flat earth claims or claims about corpses reanimating. I could submit Smurfs as a mechanism for something and you would be right refuse to discuss my idea until I have met the burden of proof to at a minimum show that it deserves to be discussed.

Perhaps those purporting that dead bodies can reanimate and return to life should be happy that there are those willing to discuss such a notion when sense puts it right up there with the summation that the earth is flat or Smurf's do XYZ (equal in that all these claims are claims that have never been shown to reflect reality).

It is not a default position that claims need to be respected obviously. As we know, some claims don't even deserve to be discussed. Would a flat earthers hypothetical anger be justified just because people don't respect their position that has not met the burden of proof? Should religious claims be treated any differently?

[bjs1]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

In another recent thread we've been treated to the repeated insistence by a member that challenging a scholarly consensus does not incur a 'burden of proof'; that agreeing with this consensus does incur a burden of proof; that citing this consensus along with outlining four or five of the different lines of evidence used to reach that conclusion doesn't meet the burden of proof; and that there is no burden of proof required to justify these seemingly arbitrary epistemic standards (and asking for such is merely "trying to shift the burden of proof")

Obviously for some atheist apologists this 'burden of proof' is an important talisman or rhetorical tool, such that trying to situate yourself on the unburdened side of 'debate' is tantamount to a victory by default. The term debate there is obviously a rather loose one, since debate requires the engagement of two contrary points of view but this kind of tactic implies that the unencumbered party isn't offering a point of view to be proven at all. If I had to guess I would suppose that that this kind of approach has developed over the long term from explanatory analogies such as Russell's Teapot, taken out of context and blown out of all proportion; some atheists have even gone so far as claim that atheism is on par with the ignorance and essentially mindless state of infants, that we are all born atheists!

There's an amusing irony here in that, from this way of trying to frame discussion of religion and worldviews, proponents of theism arguably shouldn't be described as 'apologists' at all since theistic and particularly Christian apologetics has for many centuries generally been regarded as building a positive case for one point of view and/or against others, whereas the defensive position is clearly the one which many atheists seek to occupy:

• The term apologetics derives from the Ancient Greek word apologia (ἀπολογία).[1] In the Classical Greek legal system, the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), the accusation or charge, and the defendant replied with an apologia, the defence.[5] The apologia was a formal speech or explanation to reply to and rebut the charges.
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Etymology

We might read the title of this subforum as one for discussion of Christianity and the apologetics against it

Personally I think we should all try to more or less forget about this fetishization of burden of proof as being - in many cases - simply a rhetorical tool to try to 'win' a discussion, rather than viewing discussion as an opportunity to learn, exchange ideas with others and in the process refine and improve one's own. No doubt there are exceptions but I think that in most cases mature discussion should be a two-way street. If someone takes pains to disavow any 'burden of proof' they're essentially admitting that they have nothing of substance to contribute to the exchange. And that's okay of course, not everyone has taken the time to form coherent perspectives on every issue, and it needn't always mean that a productive discussion cannot be had; but it's surely an admission which invites wariness of the possibility that the supposedly burdenless individual may be interested in little more than trolling or in some kind of superficial rhetorical 'win.'

If someone claimed that the world was flat, should the burden of proof really not matter?
Many people find that to discuss such a thing would be to give it credit that it doesn't yet deserve. Therefore appealing to burden of proof (or not meeting it) would be logical.

The burden of proof may not always be a comfortable thing to have to deal with, but it does allow anyone to disregard flat earth claims or claims about corpses reanimating. I could submit Smurfs as a mechanism for something and you would be right refuse to discuss my idea until I have met the burden of proof to at a minimum show that it deserves to be discussed.

Perhaps those purporting that dead bodies can reanimate and return to life should be happy that there are those willing to discuss such a notion when sense puts it right up there with the summation that the earth is flat or Smurf's do XYZ (equal in that all these claims are claims that have never been shown to reflect reality).

It is not a default position that claims need to be respected obviously. As we know, some claims don't even deserve to be discussed. Would a flat earthers hypothetical anger be justified just because people don't respect their position that has not met the burden of proof? Should religious claims be treated any differently?

The flat earth argument is a strange one to bring up at this point. In his first paragraph Mithrea suggested that “challenging a scholarly consensus” would require taking on a heighted burden of proof. Mithrea seemed somewhat disgusted by those who think that they do not have burden of proof when they challenge a consensus.

Since the consensus is that the earth is round, I’m not sure what is gained by bringing up an argument about a flat earth.

The problem comes when we apply this to religion, where there is not a clear consensus. Or, if there is a consensus, then it favor theism.

So while there is a consensus that the earth is round, challenging religious claims is more of a personal claim than any meaningful consensus.

[Mithrae]

Personally I think we should all try to more or less forget about this fetishization of burden of proof as being - in many cases - simply a rhetorical tool to try to 'win' a discussion, rather than viewing discussion as an opportunity to learn, exchange ideas with others and in the process refine and improve one's own. No doubt there are exceptions but I think that in most cases mature discussion should be a two-way street. If someone takes pains to disavow any 'burden of proof' they're essentially admitting that they have nothing of substance to contribute to the exchange. And that's okay of course, not everyone has taken the time to form coherent perspectives on every issue, and it needn't always mean that a productive discussion cannot be had; but it's surely an admission which invites wariness of the possibility that the supposedly burdenless individual may be interested in little more than trolling or in some kind of superficial rhetorical 'win.'

If someone claimed that the world was flat, should the burden of proof really not matter?
Many people find that to discuss such a thing would be to give it credit that it doesn't yet deserve. Therefore appealing to burden of proof (or not meeting it) would be logical.

If discussing an idea gives it credit that it doesn't deserve, then maybe don't discuss it? I've never debated or gone to a flat-earth forum because unless it somehow gained some real social traction it really doesn't deserve to be discussed, but if I did put myself out there to debate it then sitting around saying "I don't think you have sufficiently proven your case yet" would not exactly be putting 'em in their place, would it? I have debated topics like climate change and occasionally young-earth creationism - as I'm sure many of us have - mostly for fun and learning, obviously, but also because their social influence however irrational warrants serious treatment. And there too I didn't passively claim that my personal epistemic standards had not yet been met by their arguments and evidence, but presented a strong contrary position positively demonstrating the implausibility of their views.

The burden of proof may not always be a comfortable thing to have to deal with, but it does allow anyone to disregard flat earth claims or claims about corpses reanimating. I could submit Smurfs as a mechanism for something and you would be right refuse to discuss my idea until I have met the burden of proof to at a minimum show that it deserves to be discussed.

What are the criteria by which something 'deserves' to be discussed? And what's going to happen to people who discuss things that don't deserve discussion, or who don't discuss things which do deserve it? Seems to me this is a claim which might incur some kind of burden of proof? I hinted at it only passingly in my post above, but since emphasis on a 'burden of proof' implies a particular established epistemic perspective - one which is presumably not shared, if that emphasis was necessary to begin with - it would seem that the person emphasizing 'burden of proof' would by their own standards be required to justify their epistemic approach before expecting anyone to give it a second thought!

As it turns out however, I have not often seen burden of proof advocates even attempting such an epistemic justification, much less succeeding. Consider the following options for example:
A - Accepting only ideas for which there is absolute, 100% positive proof
B - Accepting only ideas for which there is some 'sufficient' level of justification
C - Accepting ideas which are the most reasonable available on that issue
D - Accepting ideas which seem to offer the greatest pragmatic benefits
E - Accepting ideas which one already holds, unless and until they are overturned

Of these I would say that C, D and E have the most (and overlapping) merit, leaning mostly towards C... yet invoking a 'burden of proof' seems to imply something more along the lines of B. Focusing primarily on burden of proof is pretty explicitly contrary to C and D, obviously, and at least as far as atheist criticism of the unreasonableness of folk continuing in their childhood theistic beliefs goes, contrary to E also.

But what is it that makes B even a reasonable epistemic approach, let alone one so good that anyone else should respect it?