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”].