Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[2PhiloVoid]

I found the study of those things to be particularly unhelpful in maintaining religious beliefs. In fact I find the study of things like philosophy quite humbling in that you start to realize exactly how difficult things are when you give some serious thought to them.

I find it humbling as well; intensive philosophical thought can also, in some ways, not always necessarily Christian ways, be empowering, although there are also some things in philosophy, that for me, make it more possible to believe. The upshot of this is that the range of cognitive affect will be different for each individual.

So, again, I'm not like one of my former pastors who challenged the congregation one Sunday morning by saying, "THE EVIDENCE IS IN...NOW IS TIME TO MAKE YOUR DECISION!!!" By which he meant that he thought the evidence was in clear support of the bible and would remain so to any person who cared to peruse its contents and think about it. The funny thing is, I often wonder why that if it was so 'clear' for him, he also got divorced from his wife within that same year (for moral faults of his own from what I understand). Anyway, I for one don't feel I have the right to say to other people, "Look here...........the evidence is in!!! Get with the program!!!

What I would do is invite people (whether Christian or Atheist) to challenge their assumptions, or to look at or read something with me that might give us another angle by which to consider the nature of things.

It happens, people get defensive when questioned. It's also pretty easy to become irritated during the process of explaining things to people who don't seem to be listening.

I know why I think things and I am sure there are intelligent people who disagree with me.

I get called arrogant and closed minded a lot, which is surprising to me given the actual time I've spent on these problems trying to understand where I differ from people like you.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but I also take a beating from other Christians here on CF from time to time; and I'm also the one who gets slapped with 'heretic' and the likes because....well....I want to think about things a bit more deeply. But, I do stand up for the fact that I have my own intellectual journey I've been on and I'm not just going to let other people slap me down when they have taken the initiative to do so.

 

[zippy2006]

And the reason the claims are not in dispute is because the burden has already been met. The only time a claim doesn't have a burden is if it is already in evidence. In that case the burden is just satisfied. It's not the agreement that makes it so though, the agreement is secondary.

Three points:

First, there are claims which do not have the burden of proof and have never had the burden of proof, therefore it is not necessarily true that "the claims are not in dispute because the burden has already been met" (e.g. the middle three propositions here).

Second, agreement can determine that something does not have the burden of proof even if that agreement is no longer connected to evidence in favor of the claim. That is to say, agreement itself constitutes a kind of evidence in favor of a claim. For example, the vast majority of people believe that the Earth is a sphere and that the universe is heliocentric. These claims were originally disputed and thus had a burden of proof, which was satisfied. But the majority of people would not be able to produce the concrete burden-of-proof-satisfying evidence for these claims. Such people believe that these claims do not have the burden of proof because they are widely held, and especially because they are widely held by the community of experts on the topic. In a word, they believe they do not have the burden of proof precisely because they are not disputed, which is in perfect accord with the definition. If something is not disputed, then it doesn't have the burden of proof, regardless of how the agreement came about.

Third, and perhaps most crucial, your first sentence above implies that you hold the belief, "Every new claim has the burden of proof." But by definition only disputed claims have the burden of proof. Therefore a further implication of your claim is, "Every new claim is disputed." Yet this is clearly false, even apart from the three propositions linked above. Claims such as, "The Earth exists," "The sun is hot," and "Humans breathe" all come into existence without being disputed. Indeed all of the basic premises and intuitions on which foundational human rationality rest are of this kind.

If the burden is not met, consent that is lacking in proof is an appeal to popularity. So, either way, uninteresting.

When the other poster told you that all claims carry it regardless they likely mean that the burden must be met regardless. This is neither absurd nor difficult, and only requires you to understand the issue.

Addressed above.

It did though. That is where you are wrong. Before people believed it, it would have had to be demonstrated somehow.

Addressed above. There are some claims which are contemporaneous with human existence and others which are self-evident upon being originally thought.

The only way to remove the burden of proof is to prove something.

True, but not everything is subject to the burden of proof, either now or ever.

If something is obviously true then it has already met the burden.

There are things which are obviously true and never had the burden. To say that every proposition has or had the burden of proof by its very nature is to confuse the burden of proof with the principle of sufficient reason.

I really don't think so, please explain if you still feel this way.

I think we are on the same page now.

 

[variant]

I find it humbling as well; intensive philosophical thought can also, in some ways, not always necessarily Christian ways, be empowering, although there are also some things in philosophy, that for me, make it more possible to believe. The upshot of this is that the range of cognitive affect will be different for each individual.

Philosophy for me tends to just yeild a better understanding of the churn of human effort in thought. I get some nuggets here and there about things that kept various people up at night.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but I also take a beating from other Christians here on CF from time to time; and I'm also the one who gets slapped with 'heretic' and the likes because....well....I want to think about things a bit more deeply. But, I do stand up for the fact that I have my own intellectual journey I've been on and I'm not just going to let other people slap me down when they have taken the initiative to do so.

I haven't noticed, but it's probably because I consider most arguments between believers to be petty and not really all that uplifting to study deeply.

I don't think religion has a good grasp on the nature of the God that it supposes to describe, so the certitude with which believers dismiss each others ideas is remarkably galling.

 

[zippy2006]

You said that every atheist believed this - how is that not a claim about the mental state of non-believers?

To say that all atheists believe X is not to say that X is a claim about the internal mental state of atheists.

Did you not want to talk about what atheists believe when you mentioned what you think they all believe? Why bring it up?

I brought it up because we were having a discussion about whether such a claim is part of the definition of atheism. If you had taken the time to read the context you would have understood this. The context was the definition of atheism, not the burden of proof.

How about talking about the ways it is actually "rendered" by actual non-believers rather than trying to put words in their mouth?

Every atheist in the conversation except you was able to answer my questions affirmatively, so there is no reason to believe I have mischaracterized anyone. You were unable to answer the questions at all.

 

[variant]

First, there are claims which do not have the burden of proof and have never had the burden of proof, therefore it is not necessarily true that "the claims are not in dispute because the burden has already been met" (e.g. the middle three propositions here).

There is plenty of evidence for those three claims, whether they can be proven or disproved beyond doubt is debatable, but of questionable utility.

Second, agreement can determine that something does not have the burden of proof even if that agreement is no longer connected to evidence in favor of the claim. That is to say, agreement itself constitutes a kind of evidence in favor of a claim.

Yeah no. If people believe something and they don't know why, their viewpoint does not have any authority, it is just something they think. Their trust is as good as any trust in anything they don't really understand. It will be as well placed as they have become practiced in placing trust in others.

Whomever they have seceded authority/expertise on the subject is the one who would have the authority here, and to only the extent that they understand the subject matter.

For example, the vast majority of people believe that the Earth is a sphere and that the universe is heliocentric. These claims were originally disputed and thus had a burden of proof, which was satisfied. But the majority of people would not be able to produce the concrete burden-of-proof-satisfying evidence for these claims. Such people believe that these claims do not have the burden of proof because they are widely held, and
especially because they are widely held by the community of experts on the topic. In a word, they believe they do not have the burden of proof precisely because they are not disputed, which is in perfect accord with the definition. If something is not disputed, then it doesn't have the burden of proof, regardless of how the agreement came about.

This only holds when we are relying on experts who actually understand their field.

Third, and perhaps most crucial, your first sentence above implies that you hold the belief, "Every new claim has the burden of proof." But by definition only disputed claims have the burden of proof. Therefore a further implication of your claim is, "Every new claim is disputed." Yet this is clearly false, even apart from the three propositions linked above. Claims such as, "The Earth exists," "The sun is hot," and "Humans breathe" all come into existence without being disputed. Indeed all of the basic premises and intuitions on which foundational human rationality rest are of this kind.

And regardless, without a good reason to believe something, you shouldn't.

True, but not everything is subject to the burden of proof, either now or ever.

There are things which are obviously true and never had the burden. To say that every proposition has or had the burden of proof by its very nature is to confuse the burden of proof with the principle of sufficient reason.

Not every claim is going to need to be proven, true. Some things are obvious. But they are obvious because they are evidently true.

Axiomatic truths might be necessary if you get to very base propositions, but they are usually so fundamental that it is hard to argue about them at all.

I think we are on the same page now.

Good.

 

[zippy2006]

There is plenty of evidence for those three claims, whether they can be proven or disproved beyond doubt is debatable, but of questionable utility.

Of course there is evidence for them, but that doesn't mean that they ever had the burden of proof, it just means they adhere to the principle of sufficient reason. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Yeah no. If people believe something and they don't know why, their viewpoint does not have any authority, it is just something they think. Their trust is as good as any trust in anything they don't really understand. Whomever they have seceded authority/expertise on the subject is the one who would have the authority here, and to only the extent that they understand the subject matter.

This only holds when we are relying on experts who actually understand their field.

I disagree, and we could have a long discussion on this as I did with Archaeopteryx, but I will postpone that for now. An undisputed claim does not have the burden of proof. That's what the definition says. Are you disputing this? If so, provide your own new definition.

And regardless, without a good reason to believe something, you shouldn't.

Sure, but what does this have to do with my claim or the burden of proof?

Not every claim is going to need to be proven, true. Some things are obvious. But they are obvious because they are evidently true.

"Of course there is evidence for them, but that doesn't mean that they ever had the burden of proof, it just means they adhere to the principle of sufficient reason."

The burden of proof and the principle of sufficient reason are related in some ways, but they certainly aren't the same thing.

 

[variant]

Of course there is evidence for them, but that doesn't mean that they ever had the burden of proof, it just means they adhere to the principle of sufficient reason. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

We believe them because of the evidence, the burden is met. Sufficient reason is what happens when we show something to be true.

I disagree, and we could have a long discussion on this as I did with Archaeopteryx, but I will postpone that for now. An undisputed claim does not have the burden of proof. That's what the definition says. Are you disputing this? If so, provide your own new definition.

It depends on why it is undisputed. If it is in evidence then it has met the burden, if not then it carry's the burden when it becomes disputed. We shouldn't be disputing things in evidence unless we have some evidence that disputes it, at which point we would be making a new claim that carried a burden to show the old evidence incorrect.

Sure, but what does this have to do with my claim or the burden of proof?

It's the basis for the discussion.

We only talk about burdens of proof when people make claims without supporting them sufficiently and then turning around to us and saying it is our job to disprove them.

The burden of proof and the principle of sufficient reason are related in some ways, but they certainly aren't the same thing.

Yes sure, it's contextual, but you can look at any given situation from either angle.

 

[zippy2006]

We believe them because of the evidence, the burden is met.

There was no burden; they were never disputed.

It depends on why it is undisputed.

Not according to the definition. Therefore you must be using a different definition. What is it?

If it is in evidence then it has met the burden,

This is false, and I've explained why many times. The fact that there is evidence for a claim does not imply that the claim ever had the burden of proof.

We shouldn't be disputing things in evidence unless we have some evidence that disputes it, at which point we would be making a new claim that carried a burden to show the old evidence incorrect.

This is true.

It's the basis for the discussion.

We only talk about burdens of proof when people make claims without supporting them sufficiently and then turning around to us and saying it is our job to disprove them.

I'd say we talk about burdens of proof when we believe that someone has "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge," and that this happens simply when someone puts forward a disputed assertion absent evidence.

Since we seem to be running on tangents, and you raised several issues, I will just pick one at random to ground the conversation. Undisputed claims do not have the burden of proof, therefore if a claim is undisputed we are justified in believing that it does not have the burden of proof. This follows from the definition.

 

[variant]

There was no burden; they were never disputed.

Because there was already proof.

Not according to the definition. Therefore you must be using a different definition. What is it?

The simple fact that a claim is not at this moment being disputed will not mean that it will not carry the burden of proof when it is.

The difference between a disputed and undisputed claim is a dispute.

This is false, and I've explained why many times. The fact that there is evidence for a claim does not imply that the claim ever had the burden of proof.

It doesn't matter, it has proof and thus is unburdened in disputes.

I'd say we talk about burdens of proof when we believe that someone has "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge," and that this happens simply when someone puts forward a disputed assertion absent evidence.

It depends on what the claim is about. In the case we always bring up, the one we are always talking about. You don't have to show something is not in evidence when someone else asserts it without evidence in the first place.

Since we seem to be running on tangents, and you raised several issues, I will just pick one at random to ground the conversation. Undisputed claims do not have the burden of proof, therefore if a claim is undisputed we are justified in believing that it does not have the burden of proof. This follows from the definition.

Which changes the moment a dispute happens.

 

[zippy2006]

I am just going to answer your questions since I am unsure of where this is going.

Because there was already proof.

Right, and proof does not imply a burden of proof that was met.

The simple fact that a claim is not at this moment being disputed will not mean that it will not carry the burden of proof when it is.

Okay.

The difference between a disputed and undisputed claim is a dispute.

Hard to disagree with that.

It doesn't matter, it has proof and thus is unburdened in disputes.

Okay.

It depends on what the claim is about. In the case we always bring up, the one we are always talking about. You don't have to show something is not in evidence when someone else asserts it without evidence in the first place.

It depends if you have the burden of proof. Just because I assert the idea that "Humans breathe" without evidence does not mean I have the burden of proof.

Which changes the moment a dispute happens.

The idea of "disputed" is elaborated here.

It seems that you would prefer a new definition for the burden of proof. The definition you have been implicitly giving is, "the duty of proving an unproved assertion or charge." For you, the burden of proof is on claims that are unproved, not disputed. You think the fact that something is disputed is just a sign that it is unproved (or lacking in evidence; proof and evidence are being used somewhat interchangeably here). And you think that if something is proved then it has met the burden of proof--you said this multiple times contrary to the actual definition. This also explains why you seem to think that an unproved and undisputed claim is still subject to the burden of proof. Like I said, I think you are describing the principle of sufficient reason rather than the burden of proof. In any case, does this describe your position?

 

[bhsmte]

Burden of proof and all of the different religious positions in the world just don't seem to jive. To me, the religious folks who are willing to acknowledge, I can't provide proof of my personal religious beliefs and they are based on my personal faith, are likely the folks that have the healthiest view of their personal positions.

 

[variant]

I am just going to answer your questions since I am unsure of where this is going.

It's OK I think we're just arguing semantics without a proper difference of opinion at this point.

 

[zippy2006]

It's OK I think we're just arguing semantics without a proper difference of opinion at this point.

I was thinking that too, but did you read the last paragraph of my response? Am I incorrect in thinking that you would subscribe to such a definition? Or do you think that such a difference is merely one of semantics?

 

[variant]

I was thinking that too, but did you read the last paragraph of my response? Am I incorrect in thinking that you would subscribe to such a definition? Or do you think that such a difference is merely one of semantics?

I would say that all assertions require some evidence or reasoning before they are acceptable, and that this is at the heart of why we would dispute claims that are lacking.

But, I don't think this makes for a fundamental difference in position.

 

[zippy2006]

I would say that all assertions require some evidence or reasoning before they are acceptable, and that this is at the heart of why we would dispute claims that are lacking.

I agree, but I still think the burden of proof is more a function of the status quo than of evidence. Evidence will always constitute the root of a status quo, but the burden of proof isn't about the root (perhaps largely because the root is less accessible). So I don't disagree with your explanation but we may disagree on what exactly "burden of proof" refers to.

I was thinking about scenarios where the two conceptions clash, such the model of a heliocentric universe which lacks evidence at the popular level but yet is undisputed. Or something like the theory of evolution, which has evidence and yet is disputed. Which way does the burden of proof go on such topics? It's hard to say.

But, I don't think this makes for a fundamental difference in position.

There may be a slight difference if you are actually committed to defining the burden of proof as something unproven rather than disputed, but this subtlety is probably not a fundamental difference.

 

[variant]

I agree, but I still think the burden of proof is more a function of the status quo than of evidence. Evidence will always constitute the root of a status quo, but the burden of proof isn't about the root (perhaps largely because the root is less accessible). So I don't disagree with your explanation but we may disagree on what exactly "burden of proof" refers to.

I seem to be focusing on the idea of evidencing ones claims and you seem focused on how people think about ideas already.

In my life I have never had much reason to care about what people thought "in general", so this might just be my bias.

I was thinking about scenarios where the two conceptions clash, such the model of a heliocentric universe which lacks evidence at the popular level but yet is undisputed. Or something like the theory of evolution, which has evidence and yet is disputed. Which way does the burden of proof go on such topics? It's hard to say.

So, the theory of evolution (which contains a set of predictions as that is what a theory is) has a continual burden as it's predictions are tested with every new piece of evidence. It's acceptance has to do with how well it explains new evidence, not that some might dispute it.

So did Geo-centrism, it just, well failed when new evidence came to light that contradicted it.

Geo-centrism was abandoned because the previous theory could not continue to be held when new evidence came about.

Does it matter what people in general think? Does it matter what the status quo is? I would say no, I would say that the veracity of the claims has to do with the evidence.

There may be a slight difference if you are actually committed to defining the burden of proof as something unproven rather than disputed, but this subtlety is probably not a fundamental difference.

It is probably because I consider the idea that disputes can be raised more easily than evidence can be presented.

 

[zippy2006]

Does it matter what people in general think? Does it matter what the status quo is? I would say no, I would say that the veracity of the claims has to do with the evidence.

To talk about the burden of proof you have to talk about the idea of disputed claims, and to talk about the idea of disputed claims you have to talk about what people think. So it's inevitable that a thread about the burden of proof will cover things like the status quo.

I think the problem is that the concept of the burden of proof isn't robust enough to warrant 15 pages. It's like talking about a rock for 15 pages. Inevitably you go off topic and start talking about geology and archaeology.

 

[bhsmte]

To talk about the burden of proof you have to talk about the idea of disputed claims, and to talk about the idea of disputed claims you have to talk about what people think. So it's inevitable that a thread about the burden of proof will cover things like the status quo.

I think the problem is that concept of the burden of proof isn't robust enough to warrant 15 pages. It's like talking about a rock for 15 pages. Inevitably you go off topic and start talking about geology and archaeology.

How people think and what objective independent evidence shows, can be completely different things.

 

[KCfromNC]

To say that all atheists believe X is not to say that X is a claim about the internal mental state of atheists.

Hmm, you were the one that brought up the claim that atheists believe something. Now you seem to not want to discuss that belief. That's kinda strange.

I brought it up because we were having a discussion about whether such a claim is part of the definition of atheism.

Good for you!

Every atheist in the conversation except you was able to answer my questions affirmatively, so there is no reason to believe I have mischaracterized anyone.

Which poster in this thread were you quoting here : "No one is justified in believing in the existence of a God"?

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree, but I still think the burden of proof is more a function of the status quo than of evidence.

Given that no particular religious beliefs make up a majority of the world's population it seems to me that this puts the burden of proof on them against the larger majority of people who don't accept their particular claims.