Saturday, December 3, 2011

Burden Of Proof

If you have ever talked about God to an Atheist, you probably heard the saying, "Burden Of Proof."

These words are often thrown at theists in an attempt to force them to prove that God does exist.  Atheists say, "You claim God exists, so the 'Burden of Proof' rests on the one making the claim - so show me the proof."  The intention of this is not to ingest knowledge and truth regarding God's existence.  It is an attempt to trap a theist by setting up a "debunking" session of any evidence provided in regards to God's existence.
Of

In other words, atheists do this in order to step outside of the debate and become a sort of outsider questioning the theist.  By doing this, the atheist does not have any obligation to defend atheism and prove God does not exist.  It is a safety mechanism used by them to protect them from trying to do the impossible: disprove the existence of God.

So Who has the Burden of Proof?   

Well this depends on the situation.  But first let me give you a bit of history as to why atheists use this sophistry during discussions/debates regarding God's existence.

In the mid-twentieth century, Anthony Flew, a prominent philosopher who was an atheist and later a theist presented the idea of atheism being the 'default' position.  This is also labeled the, "Presumption of Atheism."  What this means is that we all should be atheists until evidence for God is presented.

Despite being fallacious, many atheists adopt this trend of thought.  There is no evidence that atheism is the 'default' position.  On the contrary, with the discovery of the VMAT2 gene, Flew's argument goes out the window.  If atheism is the 'default' position or we must 'presume atheism,' then why do we all have a gene that predisposes us to belief in God and the supernatural?  Moreover, if atheism is the 'default' position, then how did belief develop from a default non-belief mental state?  In order to disbelieve something, one must first be aware of that something.  The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on.

In reality, atheists use this fallacious argument to stall during a debate.  By stating that atheism is the 'default' position, atheists are attempting to force believers to go on the defensive.

For example, if 99% of the people in a town are democrats and the one person who makes up the 1% is republican, then it is obvious that the 'default' position is the democratic one.  This puts the republican on the defensive because he/she is outnumbered.  Similarly, if atheists claim that atheism is the 'default' position by nature, then believers must defend why they are adopting a radical one.  This is a set up for the shifting of burden.  

Now back to the burden of proof:  

The Burden of Proof falls on either party depending on the situation.  Here is a scenario:

If an Atheist approaches a Theist saying that he/she lost faith or cannot believe in God because of whatever reason, then the Atheist puts the Theist on the defensive.  The Theist then can either ignore the Atheist or respond by attempting to restore this Faith in God or answering whatever reason for the loss of belief.

However, if the Atheist approaches a Theist claiming, "there is no God, God is a myth, a superstition,"  then the Atheist is making a claim and the Theist has the right to request proof of this claim.  The Atheist must then provide evidence for this confident claim that there is no God.  

The Burden of Proof always rests with the Prosecution who needs to support the case with evidence.
The Atheist site (http://www.positiveatheism.org/) seems to push for Atheists to take the former position in order to engage a Theist in a debate.

More examples:

Let's say there are two individuals, a believer (B) and a non-believer (NB).


  • If B wants to convince NB that God exists, then the burden rests on B.
  • If NB wants to convince B that God does NOT exists, then the burden rests on NB.
  • If both B and NB are trying to convince each other, then the burden rests on both.
  • If both B and NB are just discussing God and have no intention to convince either that his/her position is wrong, then neither have the burden.



So in reality, in a serious dialog the Burden of Proof rests on both.  The Atheist and Theist should be able to provide evidence for his/her claim.  This makes the discussion more fruitful.  By having one side provide proof as the other listens, then this is not a debate but an interview.  Atheists can say all they want that their position is not a claim; this is intellectually dishonest.  The presumption that there is No God, God is a myth or superstition IS a claim.  It has to be backed up with proof.

Even the atheism section of about.com has this to say:

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
 Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support."

So there you have it.  Any claim that someone may 'consider rational... must provide some support.'  Atheists are not exempt from this.  

Atheists who play this shift the Burden of Proof game only make themselves look intellectually weak. They attempt to distort logic in order to mask their lack of intellectual confidence.








15 comments:

  1. But surely then, if we go on numbers, the default system is atheism? Every single god is disbelieved in by at least twice as many people who believe in it and many of them more. Every single human disbelieves in thousands more gods than they believe in.

    This does not work anyway. Was the world flat when everyone thought it was? Was thunder an angry god when that was the majority opinion? No.

    I am an atheist and like nearly every atheist an agnostic. If an atheist says they know gods don't exist then they have the responsibility to show how they know this. If, like most of us, gods are just 30,000 of hundreds of thousands of supernatural beings for whom there is no evidence and so must be assumed not to exist for the sake of sanity, there can be no burden of proof.
    What proof can I offer you that I disbelieve in things for which there is no evidence? I invite you to see that you also disbelieve in 99.99999% of them for the same reason and question why you think the ones you do believe in are any different. I do not require you to prove the 99.9999% of beings you disbelieve in do not exist but simply show why you make an exception.
    Disbelief is clearly the default position unless you genuinely do believe in everything anyone has ever claimed is real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The default position cannot be atheism merely because one group might disbelieve in another's god. The concept is already there in both: God. The only difference is how they define or describe God. If my people believe God is a letter A and yours believes God is a letter C, the only difference is our interpretation of God. The common factor is that you and I believe in God.

      The thousands of god names that exist are just man's effort to define the one God. The people had the right idea, but their limited capacity to understand the Divine lead them to all kinds of conclusions regarding the aforementioned.

      This is how you solve your disbelief vs different gods issue.

      Delete
  2. You believe that the thousands the god names which exist and thousands of god qualities are all part of the same being? A god which is and is not a creator? Which is and is not interested in humanity? Which does and does not send people to an afterlife? Which is and is not good? Which is and is not immortal? Omnipotent? Omniscient? No, these are not the same beings. These are a variety of supernatural beings and everyone disbelieves in most of them. If you claim the one true God is eternal, good, omniscient, omnipotent and created our world and someone claims that the being they believe is the most powerful is and does none of those things, you are defining god differently and have different beliefs about gods.
    You cannot define their god as a god when you want to argue with atheists and then say your god is the only true one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, all these designations and descriptions are how man has tried for centuries to understand the reality called God. These gods are not the same being in description and designation obviously, but are directed towards the One reality that is being contemplated upon. Think of it as a poem. A poem exists, it is written; however, readers will have different takes on it. The different takes does not mean there are different poems. It just means that the poem was interpreted differently. There is ONE God, different cultures have interpreted that God differently based on their experiences and how they understood creation via the senses.

      Delete
  3. I'm sorry but this line.
    " The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on."
    Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry but this line.
    " The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on."
    Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sorry but this line.
    " The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on."
    Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm sorry but this line.
    " The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on."
    Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would it "kill" you? I think you misunderstood. Atheists throw around fallacy accusations and when closely examined, they just simply did not get the idea of what they have read. What I mean with what you quoted is that our brains need data on something before we are even aware of it and can contemplate it.

      For example, we learn 123, addition etc in elementary. This is preparation for algebra and then calculus, trigonometry etc. No one can do either of these math concepts without having prior exposure of them. How can you add 2+2 when you never saw or heard of the concept of "2?" You need to know what "2" is as a symbol and have an abstract before you can work with it.

      So in order for me to disbelieve in something, I have to know that something first.

      Delete
  7. "For example, if 99% of the people in a town are democrats and the one person who makes up the 1% is republican, then it is obvious that the 'default' position is the democratic one."

    No the 'default' position is neither side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because we haven't decided yet if a god exists or not. Though I'm fairly sure the god of the bible Isn't real. Here, I gave my self the burden of proof.
      Why? Might you ask.
      Because the bible claims that god is omnipotent and omniscient.
      If your god is both of those things he could have prevented original sin but he choose not to do so.
      In the bible story of genesis. God had placed the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and told Adam & Eve not to eat from it. If he were omniscient and omnipotent (and christians claim he's loving) he would have never placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place, because he knew Adam & Eve would take the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place. Thus either the god of the bible is false, or the god of the bible is true but not a loving god but rather a hating god because he set man-kind up to make this mistake fully knowing they would do it beforehand. I'd rather believe he's false.

      Delete
    2. The default position is that you still have to choose between the two and if you decide neither of them suits your needs, you create your own group.

      Delete
    3. You've made me wait for an answer for more then 2 months, I'm starting to think you won't be coming with a rebuttal to these arguments.

      Delete
  8. The burden of proof lies on the theist to prove their claim. Atheism is the default position because the default position to take in any matter is to withhold judgement. An atheist who asserts that there is no god certainly carries a burden of proof, just like all theists do.

    When the theist provides evidence, and the atheist claims that the evidence is invalid the atheist takes on a burden of proof to show that the evidence is invalid. Therefore it is enough for the atheist to show that any reasons to believe in god are invalid. It's not necessary for the atheist to disprove god. When all the evidence the theist has supplied has been refuted by the atheist, the theist can only hold on to their belief for irrational reasons.

    I agree that we must justify atheism given the strong cultural context of theism, but such a burden of justification only requires a demonstration that the evidence presented for theism is inadequate or invalid.

    Let's not get confused either, most western atheists are fairly strong atheists with regards to narrow gods such as yahweh, just negative atheists with regards to all the others.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (445) God (306) Atheism (230) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (208) Bible (171) Pope Francis (164) Atheist (140) LGBT (127) Science (110) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (83) Rosa Rubicondior (75) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (64) President Obama (55) Prayer (54) Vatican (39) Christian (36) Physics (35) New York City (33) Philosophy (33) Blessed Virgin Mary (32) Christmas (31) Psychology (30) Women (29) Politics (28) Biology (26) Liturgy (26) Baseball (24) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Protestant (16) Police (15) Donald Trump (14) Christ (12) Death (12) Health (12) Priesthood (12) Astrophysics (11) Blog (11) Marriage (11) Pedophilia (11) Poverty (10) Racism (10) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Illegal Immigrants (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Autism (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) academia (7) Apologetics (6) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Jewish (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)