Theism is “the new position”. Atheism is the absence of theism, the default state of a human. You don’t have to look farther than our next of kin, the apes, to see my point. Apes aren’t theists.
Yes, and they also aren’t human. There’s no coherency in what you’ve said here.
The point I was trying to make is this.
People are ever evolving animals. Prior to this stage of evolution we werent theists. Thats what the ape reference was for. And since this concept is new, I believe that the burden of proof lies on theists.
(Is that coherent now, or should I elaborate more?)
Your points are well taken, however, the burden of proof is indeed an axiom of logic – more precisely, it’s a matter of legality (or a legal rule). The burden of proof is not necessarily relevant to normative discourses in theology. However, people – most notably apologists - often refer to the concept when in a dialectic, and it therefore becomes relevant to an issue. The burden of proof of God’s existence is a double-edged sword, for, it is logically fallacious to make an affirmative claim about God, and it is logically fallacious to make a negative proposition about God - irrespective of what evidence is used to support either type of claim.
However, if it is the case that someone wishes to make an affirmative claim about God, then it is that person’s obligation to make their case. Again, the burden of proof lies in the affirmative claimant’s lap, irrespective of who has pressed the issue at hand. Now, I’m not eliminating exceptions to the rule, for exceptions for every rule exist. However, it would be up to the participants of the discourse to come to some form of agreement over who the burden of proof lies on if they do wish to deviate from the norm of the rule.
Hello F(r)iends,
Yes. But I would argue that the sophisticated atheists is less desperate than the sophisticated theist. Atheists are the women in that the hottest women will be less desperate than the hottest guys… Sadly, it is also the reason that good looking women often date ugly guys and good looking guys date ugly women: The sophisticates are too cool to try and then everyone gets desperate.
-Thirst
faulty reasoning:
I'd need this explained to me. Why is this 'legal rule' in place? How does it serve the interest of getting to the truth of things? If someone breaks this rule, are they merely being impolite, or are they guilty of something more relevant than that? I'm admitting that I don't understand the nature of this sort of 'legal rule', so if I what I say from this point on is irrelevant or uninformed, I apologize.
The problem I keep coming back to his the following scenario:
Atheist: There is no God.
Theist: …
At this point, the theist has done nothing. Is the theist obligated [i]already [/i] to prove himself to this stranger, simply because he was close enough to hear the atheist? It couldn't be- this makes all theists Crusaders and all atheists magicians. All the atheist has done is made as as-yet unsupported statement, reason isn't sorcery- chanting this spell doesn't turn all the believers around him into unreasonable louts shirking their epistemic duties.
At this point, the atheist has [i]not[/i] provided a defeater for theism (an assertion without an argument is no defeater), so the theist's beliefs are not in question or at risk yet. The only things at risk are extra-logical things, like the theist's credibility to his peers, his pride in wanting to shoot down atheists, and so on. So, the theist's burden of proof [i]must[/i] begin at some point after they decide to participate in the discussion. This ties the burden to desire. The theist has a burden of proof [i]if he desires[/i] to defeat the Atheist's assertion. But of course, the atheist may be motived by similar desires.
Now what if the Theist replies like so:
Theist: Oh? How do you know that?
Now what? Has the theist cheated? Does the atheist [i]really[/i] have no burden on him to answer the question, and back up his claim? Keep in mind the atheist cannot say "There is no God because you have not yet convinced me that there is." This is of course a hideously poor argument, bordering on non-sequitor.
Uccisore: Faulty_Reasoning:
To your mind, what does this burden of proof govern? If an atheist and a theist are talking, it seems like you’re saying the theist always has the burden of proof. If that’s so, then what must the theist do to meet it? What are they guilty of if they don’t?
K: I would like to take a crack at these, if nobody minds.
The theist does have have the proof of burden for reasons
I have shown. About the guilt aspect, I don’t believe in guilt.
A theist is simple wrong, nothing more nothing less.
And quite frankly after listening to theist for 30 years,
I can tell you that they have no argument of any kind for
proof of god/deities.
UC: My problem is this- according to traditional thought, if the burden of proof is met, the skeptic must assent to the belief. This means there is no wiggle-room. If the theist meets the burden of proof, the atheist must accept theism. With only two people in the conversation, this is effectively reversable- if the atheist has not yet accepted theism, the theist must not have met the burdern of proof. Only an unbiased third party (or perhaps the Easter bunny, while we’re at it) could judge one from the other.
K: But there are clearly no arguments that successfully
defends the theist position. Not in over 2000 years of arguments
have the theist been able to defend their position. And in the end,
they returned to the position of “it is a matter of faith” as their final
defense. They have no where else to go.
UC: Clearly this ‘burden of proof’ rule is not an axiom of logic. So what kind of rule is it? Is it a logical fallacy for an atheist to try to prove the theist wrong or irrational? I don’t see how, and they certainly try to do it often enough. If it’s not an axiom of a regulation of fallacy, what’s left? All I can see is that it’s a rule of convention, and “convention” can certainly be challenged.
K: Umm, burden of proof is not a axiom of logic? The value of
logic is to provide guidelines, to eliminate possibilities to narrow
the choices down as it were. But this point of logic is pretty solid,
the burden of choice must exist with one who can prove the positive.
UC: The usual reasoning goes like this- we cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to demonstrate definitively that there is no God. Moreover, the default position when confronted with a new supposed entity is to doubt it’s existence until the existence is demonstrated. Two points here:
Firstly, if it is impossible that to demonstrate that there is no God, then doesn’t obligate the theist to anything. If anything, it means that atheists should stop making this unsupportable claim.
K: Unsupportable? It is not a claim, like god exist, it is simply
a real unarguable fact. You cannot prove the negative.
There is no way in the heaven or earth you can show me
unicorns have not existed. You simply can’t.
UC: Secondly, people are not confronted with entities in debates, they are confronted with positions. If I was raised in the right circumstances, the position that God doesn’t exist may be just as novel to me as the concept of God is novel to someone else. I maintain that the person proposing the new position is the one with the burden of proof, and greater minds than me certainly seem to agree. Bishop Berkeley, when he proposed that matter did not exist, didn’t rest on his laurels, confident he was right simply because his position was negative. His position was negative, but it was something more than that- it was novel. Because his position was novel, and because his intended audience was not naturally inclined to believe it, he had to argue for it."
K: The bishop is one of the great philosophers of all time,
I would hardly assume or expect anyone around to compete
with the kind bishop. And pray tell, how many people would consider
these arguments “novel”. Outside of some 15 years old, not many.
Kropotkin
Atheist: there is no god.
theist: prove your point
Atheist: Even objects billions of years old leave evidence
of some kind of their existence. usually in terms of sunlight or
x-rays or something. We have evidence of the universe close
to within seconds of its beginning. Matter leaves evidence.
We have evidence of dinosaurs, bones, eggs, footprints.
We know how they lived, we know what they ate, we even
(maybe) know what color they were and what sounds they
made. And yet dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
So where is the evidence of god? What footprints has he left?
K: Of, course you get the old usual tired arguments of existence
is proof, (nope, it is not) and the bible, and so on. But none of
this is evidence which can be examine, looked at, measured,
weighed. It cannot be examined in any way, shape or form.
And so on. It is a lost cause for the theist.
Kropotkin
Duder: and anyone else who wants to field this:
If you believe that the burden of proof lies on theists exclusively, universally, and absolutely, then you would have to believe that
Every theist on Earth is obligated to immediately write YOU a letter, personally explaining all the reasons they believe in God. If you don’t give them approval, they have to immediately renounce God and stop going to Church. Since you have no obligations, you don’t have to respond to or even read these letters, and if the theist gets no reply, they have to assume they have failed to live up to their burden.
Now, I'm going to assume you don't believe [i]that[/i], because that is stupid. So, you must believe that only [i]particular [/i]theists, in [i]particular[/i] situations have this burdern, and that if they fail to live up to it, there are [i]particular[/i] consequences.
So then tell me: Who, When, and What if I don't?
Kropotkin:
But you have to see a logical breakdown here. I am not [i]wrong[/i] about theism just because I fail to convince some arbitrary guy that I'm right. What if that guy is crazy, or stubborn? For that matter, I am not [i]wrong[/i] in my theism, necessarily, even if I refuse to engage the arbitrary atheist at all. I could greet his questions with silence or show-tunes, and it doesn't mean my beliefs in God are false, it simply means I wasn't interested in talking about them at the moment. It must be something else.
The quality of the defense is tied to the quality of the attack:
Atheist: All ducks have four wheels, Socrates was a duck, therefore God doesn’t exist.
Theist: Ducks don’t have wheels.
That is a successful defense of theism, against an exceedingly poor argument. My question to you is, are there any good attacks on theism that are so successful that they have never been defended against? I can’t think of any.
If anywhere, at any time, an atheist has been convinced to change sides based on the arguments of a theist, that is an example of a theist defending their position. I’m sure you would have to agree with me that this has happened many times, so what you say above seems obviously false.
Again, if this is true, it is as good a reason as any that atheists should stop proclaiming God doesn’t exist- they have no way to prove it. What, are theists obligated to present their case out of charity? If you delibrately take a position on something that we both know you can never prove, is that my fault?
Which arguments do you mean? What I'm saying is, the burdern of proof falls on whoever is providing a new position to an skeptical audience. Whether that position is phrased positively or negatively, makes no matter.
Also, consider that over the course of a debate, atheists and theists will often switch off as to which one is making the positive vs. negative claims. The atheist may make a positive claim about certai claims of science, or may claim that certain pagan religions are the primary influences of Christianity, and so on. Such things are positive claims, the claimant has an interest in supporting them (the 'burden of proof' as you put it). So even if positive claimants always have this burden, it's simply impossible to draw that line between theist/atheist.
I have four quick points.
Uccisore - This is an apt analogy, a nifty bit of writing. In the main, I agree. Not with your strictly logical point, which is either trivial or incorrect, depending the specific formulation of the statements in question, but with your description of something that is philosophically and sociologically more important - motive.
Faulty - The atheist’s claim can be formulated as “I am correct in being an atheist”. You are just playing with words.
Thirst - that is the best avatar I have seen on this site.
Peter - the abominable snowman does exist.
faust
If we’re on the subject of religion, then yes, I do want a letter explaining why I should worship somebody.
Uccisore, First, when I state that it is a legal rule, I literally mean that the rule’s primary function adheres to matters of legality – such as courtroom settings. The legal rule exists because it is a prosecutor’s duty to prove, beyond a shadow of [a] doubt, that a proposition (or accusation in cases of legality) is true – not simply feasible or plausible. Any “thing†can be feasible or plausible if the evidence is used to support that “thingâ€. When apologists, such as you and I, extend the idea of the burden of proof into theological and religious issues, we must also adhere to the same principles of the legal rules that govern the burden of proof because they best help both parties get to the truth. Why this fact is true is difficult to expand on, and I will get back to you in another post when I can properly express the thoughts I have in my mind.
It is not the case that if someone breaks this particular rule, then they are being impolite. But, in a very strict sense, they are stunting the discourse. There is not much someone can do with a negative claim, logically speaking (human language is quite insufficient in this sense). There are certain universal claims, which logic alone can determine to be true or false, however, we must also presuppose some real-world properties, or use very distinct categorical logic. “God†is a concept that cannot be determined by logic alone, and a negative claim about God is impossible to determine in a practical sense – even if we were to presuppose some real-world properties or use categorical logic.
To help resolve your last paragraph, and hopefully the problem you keep coming back to (and I hope you pay proper attention to this for future reference when arguing with atheists); asking a question and making a claim are not one in the same. Atheists are obligated to answer questions of the nature: “Oh? How do you know that?†The burden of proof is not necessarily applicable here - because a question of any kind cannot be judged to be an affirmative or negative claim. However, the atheist is obliged to answer, not because of a burden of proof, but as a matter of argument-etiquette.
Asking an atheist to support their negative claim, with at least some form of reasoning, is quite different from making a contradictory affirmative claim. And it is a reasonable request. For, even in refutations in proper debates, the author of the refutation must provide reasons for his refutation. And further, when there is a rebuttal, the author of the rebuttal also has to do the same. The latter is a component of argument-etiquette. If the atheist does not wish to partake in this form of exchange, then stop arguing with that atheist. Neither party has the obligation to enter into a discussion – even if they make affirmative or negative claims and press the issue.
Faust, I am not playing with words. Stating that “I am correct in being an atheist” is not the same proposition as “God does not exist”. I don’t want to get into pots and kettles, but it is you in this case who is toying with language.
Faulty - The two statements are the same in significance. The meaning of a statement speaks to language, its significance to logic. As logical propositions, their significance is, in the context of this discussion, the same.
Each is a factual claim. Every claim (at least) includes the assumption that the maker of the claim believes himself to be correct. Mine merely makes that assumption explicit. There is no affirmative statement that cannot be made in a negative way. And vice-versa. Surely you know this.
f
Duder, you completely missed the point, sorry.
Faulty Reasoning:
I agree with all this, and agree that it affects how discourse procedes. The way I’m conceptualizing it right now is still that both parties (positive and negative) have an obligation rooted in their aims (presumably the aim to sway the other person to their way of thought). This will led to the tendency of positive claimants to pose evidence, and negative claimants will tend to criticize that evidence- because as you point out, that is what postive and negative claims lend themselves to. I could call the usefulness of evidence to postive claims a ‘burden of proof’, I suppose.
What I reject is when ‘the burden of proof is on the theist’ is used to suggest that the theist must work harder in a debate, or that they are defeated by default if some arbitrary standard like convincing their opponent or gaining their respect is not achieved. You can refer to Duder and PK using the notion in just such a way.
Just to make sure I follow, they are obligated to answer these questions IF their aim is to convince the theist, yes? Like I mentioned to PK, if the theist is a 2 year old or a trained parrot, or the atheist is tired and just doesn't feel like getting into it, the atheist isn't shirking any duty by not answering the question.
Good then. I can see that, but I still have trouble seeing how this argument-ettiquette is different than the theist’s burden of proof. If a theist says “God Does Exist” and refuses to answer “Oh? How do you know that?” they are guilty of the same breech of obligation as the atheist in the above case, yes?
I’m being a bit grandiloquent here, but I don’t want to seem like I’m ramming the same information down your throat each and every time…
Uccisore, the burden of proof is sometimes used as a copout, and it does both parties well, then, to end the discourse. However, the reason why it is applied to the affirmer is because the issue must be resolved to such an extent where there is no room for objection, no doubt (negative claims in this instance). If there is no doubt, then we must all concede that the affirmer is not only correct, but the proposition the affirmer is making also exemplifies the true nature of the fact that is being expressed.
I will provide an example. The proposition “The sun exists†is considered axiomatic. The proposition is axiomatic because there is no doubt to the proposition’s truth, and the fact that the proposition reflects – for it is indeed the case that the sun exists and can be demonstrated to exist. When we say that something can be demonstrated, we are not necessarily identifying a concept that must be demonstrated physically. For, there are ways of using language alone to demonstrate that the sun exists. If it can be demonstrated that God (necessarily) exists, then we can say that the proposition “God exists†is axiomatic, in that there is no doubt to the truth of the claim, and the fact that the proposition expresses. That is why it is vital to the discourse, and to the affirmer’s position to carry the burden of proof.
If an atheist is asked to support his or her negative claim, then they “should†be obliged to give reasons for their claims. If it is the case that there are circumstances which prevent the theist, or the atheist from answering a question – and they are indeed valid circumstances, such as age, or mental or physical fatigue, or even a lack of knowledge – then they are not necessarily shirking their obligation.
The burden of proof is a rule that is necessary for any claimant of an affirmative proposition who wishes to present a stance, such that the one with the burden of proof “must defend their positionâ€, whereas, argument-etiquette can be surmised to be a matter of manners, such that a person “should feel the need to defend your positionâ€.
Faust, the claim “I am correct in being an atheist†implies that the claimant thinks that a person who has a disbelief in God is in the correct position. The claimant would have to reason why a disbelief in God is correct, and not disprove God’s existence. God’s existence is not a part of the issue. The issue is whether the atheist’s positions is correct.
The negative claim to the proposition “I am correct in being an atheist†is “It is not the case that I am correct in being an atheistâ€, not “God does not existâ€. “The affirmative claim to the proposition “God does not exist†is “It is the case that God existsâ€. Furthermore, their significance is a matter of aesthetics and not something worth sidetracking the main issue with.
I find I have to agree with you, Faulty. One final question:
If an atheist wants to convince a theist that God doesn't exist, is there a set of obligations, duties, and so on, a bar he must rise to in order to have met his aims? If so, what do we call it?
Faulty. I should have stopped reading when you said that “the sun exists” is axiomatic. We are reading two different logic books. That is not a logical axiom. The way you put it, it is a metaphysical (rationalist) axiom. Very different things. As I would then expect, your blathering about my point is incoherent. It is gobbledegook. You mistake meaning for significance. Read some Russell. I’m just not in the mood to talk to a rationalist. Thanks for your time.
f
This is a difficult question to answer. The atheist at some point will also have to take on a burden, and that is establishing unequivocably that a God of any type or kind can not ‘possibly’ exist. We can call it the “opposite burden”. For, atheists can establish reasons to doubt. But doubting does not necessarily infer that what is being doubted does not exist, and is therefore not sufficient. If atheists (I am an atheist as well if you haven’t guessed) can provide a sufficient and necessary reason for the non-existence of a God-concept, then the atheists have met that ultimate standard, which atheism subscribes to.
Faulty reasoning wrote:
Wait for morning. Go outside, and look up. Nothing about the empirical world is demonstrable without observation. You can draw all the inference you want, but sooner or later, you have to look around. If it were the case that language alone is all that is needed, there are ways of demonstrating that unicorns exist. All right - you got me. There are ways of demonstrating that unicorns exist. So much for demonstrations.
“It is the case that god exists” is equivalent to “God exists”, which is not the “affirmative claim” to “God does not exist” - it is the contradictory to “God does not exist”.
Significance is anything but an aesthetic concern. Two statements can have two different meanings and exactly the same significance. “I am my father’s son” has a different meaning than “I am my son’s father” and a different meaning than “I am Faust” and a different meaning than “I am the person who wrote this post” and a different meaning than “I am the person who is wearing a blue shirt”, but may have the very same significance - logical significance - in a given, larger statement. Each of these statements is meant to identify me. And if my identity is material to the argument, and the chosen statement is adequate to the task at hand, then the job can be done by any of these statements. Depending on exactly how I formulate my argument, any may do. Again, read Russell.
If a few believers or “God” forwarded a healthy amount of “proof”, the truth about “God” would become a scientific standard, and instead of science undoing religious lies, it would have been supporting “the Lord’s will”–all the way.
But with no proof, all there is is a claim, something that even a 5 year old could forward [and yes, a 5 year old can believe firmly in “God”].