Should theists have the burden of proof?

[variant]

I just think, too, that when we bring Occam's Razor into the middle of the fray, we need to be more careful with our consideration than we typically are as to stating what it really can do in contradistinction to what is often posed for it (as per the video, for instance, in post #30 above).

Do we? Need to be more careful?

The issue in theological debates is whether we NEED the idea of God to explain anything. I think the principle works pretty well as a back drop.

When we're talking about God as an explanation, the idea is going to come up.

Even if it weren't explicitly brought up, it would still be an elephant in the room in such a discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do we? Need to be more careful?

The issue in theological debates is whether we NEED the idea of God to explain anything. I think the principle works pretty well as a back drop.

When we're talking about God as an explanation, the idea is going to come up.

Even if it weren't explicitly brought up, it would still be an elephant in the room in such a discussion.

Personally, I think the issue of whether we NEED God to explain various levels of things is superfluous for most of what we want to know about our universe; we also have to recognize that even IF there was a God that Created the Universe, we have to ask ourselves: can we indeed recognize the level or extent to which we are actually able to discern God's influence and/or causative acts in the fabric of the reality in which we find ourselves? Unlike other Christians, I would say that (in line with Methodological Naturalism), it is problematic to do so.

However, there are those on the others side of this debate, made up of both atheists and Christians, who who hold a particular Ontological assertion that we can discern the signs in the universe that tell of God's interaction, or of what seems to be a clear lack thereof, such as is proffered by both Philosophical Naturalists [Richard Dawkins] on the one side, and proponents of Intelligent Design [Michael Behe] on the other. Both of these parties think we are able to discern whether or not there are scientific signs of God's handiwork in the universe.

So, it is the way in which Occam's Razor comes to play in the middle of this debate. The truth is, William of Ockham's approach in describing how conceptualizations, labels, explanations, and language play a part in our understanding of existence in our universe is more in line conceptually with Methodological Naturalism than it is with Philosophical Naturalism. At least, that is my contention.......

And who has the Burden of Proof in dealing with and explaining God and a possible connection to our universe?......no one really, because God isn't the kind of entity that can be controlled for experimentally, or comprehensively understood rationally, which is what Ockham would say.

 

[variant]

Personally, I think the issue of whether we NEED God to explain various levels of things is superfluous for most of what we want to know about our universe; we also have to recognize that even IF there was a God that Created the Universe, we have to ask ourselves: can we indeed recognize the level or extent to which we are actually able to discern God's influence and/or causative acts in the fabric of the reality in which we find ourselves? Unlike other Christians, I would say that (in line with Methodological Naturalism), it is problematic to do so.

That's fair. However, what you're talking about here is the problem that you can't find a method to demonstrate truth from false (on this subject) in an observable way for everyone.

However, there are those on the others side of this debate, made up of both atheists and Christians, who who hold a particular Ontological assertion that we can discern the signs in the universe that tell of God's interaction, or of what seems to be a clear lack thereof, such as is proffered by both Philosophical Naturalists [Richard Dawkins] on the one side, and proponents of Intelligent Design [Michael Behe] on the other.

I find this position rather specious. And, regardless, you need some way to demonstrate your position, so the issue with ID, and Dawkins, what others I've read from either of these kinds positions is demonstrating that indeed they have some.

So, it is the way in which Occam's Razor comes to play in the middle of this debate. The truth is, William of Ockham's approach in describing how conceptualizations, labels, explanations, and language play a part in our understanding of existence in our universe is more in line conceptually with Methodological Naturalism than it is with Philosophical Naturalism.

True, Ockham was a skeptic, were he alive today methodological naturalism would be more available to him.

He actively stated that much of what people believed about God couldn't be known or demonstrated in much the same way as Karl Popper would.

At least, that is my contention....... And who has the Burden of Proof in dealing with and explaining God and a possible connection to our universe?......no one really, because God isn't the kind of entity that can be controlled for experimentally, or comprehensively understood rationally.

Then why should we care what people assert about God?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's fair. However, what you're talking about here is the problem that you can't find a method to demonstrate truth from false (on this subject) in an observable way for everyone.

I find this position rather specious. And, regardless, you need some way to demonstrate your position, so the issue with ID, and Dawkins, what others I've read from either of these kinds positions is demonstrating that indeed they have some.

True, Ockham was a skeptic, were he alive today methodological naturalism would be more available to him.

He actively stated that much of what people believed about God couldn't be known or demonstrated in much the same way as Karl Popper would.

Yep. Good comments, Variant.

Then why should we care what people assert about God?

Good question. However, I'd say that we'd have to establish the extent to which any one individual "could" care about the existence of God (and/or some phenomenon like the essence of human morality) before we say that he/she "should" care about it. And because I'm skeptical that we can establish the extent to which any one individual can find it in themselves 'to care,' then I have to mediate and moderate the way in which I think we can 'expect' people to care about any truth that may apply to the existence of God.

Besides, the epistemological indices of the Bible don't tell us to expect equal responses on the part of all human beings without exception, as if there is only one factor involved in a person's being able to believe in the Biblical contents surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. No, there's many cognitive factors involved, or that could be involved. Also, I think that what often throws us and places us all in divisive factions of thought is Paul's 1st chapter in Romans, and that there are too many Christians, despite perhaps good intentions, who allow that chapter to be the primary and defining epistemological frame by which any of us thinks we can and should discern how God Reveals Himself in reality to humanity. I, on the other hand, while taking Paul seriously, don't see his statements as comprehensive or necessarily expressed with sheer clarity...or necessarily focused upon the aspects of revelation that we think he is focused upon.

Something to think about.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[variant]

Good question. However, I'd say that we'd have to establish the extent to which any one individual "could" care about the existence of God (and/or some phenomenon like the essence of human morality) before we say that they "should" care about it. And because I'm skeptical that we can establish the extent to which any one individual can find it in themselves 'to care,' then I have to mediate and moderate the way in which I think we can 'expect' people to care about any truth that may apply to the existence of God.

I think many people care about the idea of God quite a bit.

Or, at least that is how it appears to me.

I think this may be a differn't discussion.

Besides, the epistemological indices of the Bible don't tell us to expect equal responses on the part of all human beings without exception, as if there is only one factor involved in a person's being able to believe in the Biblical contents surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. I think what throws us is Paul's 1st chapter in Romans, and that there are too many Christians who, despite perhaps good intentions, allow that chapter to be the primary epistemological frame by which any of us thinks we can and should discern how God Reveals Himself in reality to humanity. I, on the other hand, while taking Paul seriously, don't see his statements as comprehensive or necessarily expressed with sheer clarity.

Well when I say "what people assert about God", I include the Bible first and foremost.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think many people care about the idea of God quite a bit.

Or, at least that is how it appears to me.



Well when I say "what people assert about God", I include the Bible first and foremost.

Sure......................................but what seems to be the simple identification of "what" people assert about God, and/or "what" the Bible fully means by what we 'think' its writers mean, may be fraught with some level of difficulty on our part in our attempts to fully understand all those various "whats" we encounter both in, and outside of, the Biblical text.

2PhiloVoid

 

[zippy2006]

I'm sure this topic might be addressed in other threads such the "tricks" threads. As most people know, atheists will typically place the burden of proof on the theists in a debate. Atheism becomes the default when theists fail to persuade the atheists.

In the past, I thought this was unfair. Now I agree that atheism should be the default. I believe this, because atheist beliefs are a subset of theist beliefs. Atheists believe in science, history, etc. Theists also believe in these things, but they want to add extra beliefs such as gods, life after death, angels, etc. It is the theists who are trying to increase the shared set of beliefs with new beliefs, therefore the theists have the burden of proof.

Opinions?

This thread has recently covered this topic in some depth. As pointed out there, Wikipedia claims:

"If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative."​

This is a simple extrapolation of the definition of the burden of proof:

"Burden of Proof: the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge"​

The one who disputes has the burden of proof, and this will be the person who challenges the status quo from the perspective of any given societal narrative. Thus the burden of proof is on the atheist.

If we avoid New Atheist echo chambers, this really isn't very controversial. An atheist who admits that the atheist has the burden of proof has written two posts on the topic (here and here).

 

[bhsmte]

This thread has recently covered this topic in some depth. As pointed out there, Wikipedia claims:

"If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative."​

This is a simple extrapolation of the definition of the burden of proof:

"Burden of Proof: the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge"​

The one who disputes has the burden of proof, and this will be the person who challenges the status quo from the perspective of any given societal narrative. Thus the burden of proof is on the atheist.

If we avoid New Atheist echo chambers, this really isn't very controversial. An atheist who admits that the atheist has the burden of proof has written two posts on the topic (here and here).

Who determines the status quo? And does this mean, the status quo is always right?

 

[zippy2006]

Who determines the status quo?

It's rather hard to pin down a precise answer to that question. The entirety of the culture and society determine the status quo.

And does this mean, the status quo is always right?

Of course not, and neither is the concept of the burden of proof necessarily linked to truth. Being right doesn't say anything about who has the burden of proof. I think the atheist blogposts linked above cover the topic well.

 

[bhsmte]

This thread has recently covered this topic in some depth. As pointed out there, Wikipedia claims:

"If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative."​

This is a simple extrapolation of the definition of the burden of proof:

"Burden of Proof: the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge"​

The one who disputes has the burden of proof, and this will be the person who challenges the status quo from the perspective of any given societal narrative. Thus the burden of proof is on the atheist.

If we avoid New Atheist echo chambers, this really isn't very controversial. An atheist who admits that the atheist has the burden of proof has written two posts on the topic (here and here).

By status quo, are you meaning what the majority believes?

 

[cloudyday2]

The one who disputes has the burden of proof, and this will be the person who challenges the status quo from the perspective of any given societal narrative. Thus the burden of proof is on the atheist.

If we avoid New Atheist echo chambers, this really isn't very controversial. An atheist who admits that the atheist has the burden of proof has written two posts on the topic (here and here).

I agree with that except that I would replace "status quo" with "consensus view". We have all kinds of theists in the world along with atheists. The consensus view is limited to science, history, math, etc. This consensus happens to be exactly what atheists believe. It is the theists who are trying to add their gods to the consensus view, therefore the theists have the burden of proof.

 

[cloudyday2]

Cloudy, the point of the article has less to do with 'who' has any burden of proof than it does with the assertion that the nature of explaining the world is complex and may require deep thinking to try to explain it, with the further consideration that because various aspects of the world may not be as simple as we think, none of us can just 'dismiss' everything possible explanation out of hand without at the same time doing "the work" required to really show that the other possibilities are impossible (or false).

Just something more complex to think about. You might read the article again, 'cuz I'm not quite sure you got the gist of it.

OR, you could just join me in watching the following short video:

Thanks, that is an interesting video. I disagree with the narrators contention that Occam's Razor can be used to justify any position. What he should say is that Occam's Razor needs to be defined mathematically and employed mathematically.

I completely agree with your opinion that we shouldn't be lazy or sloppy. I don't agree that atheists need to prove there are no gods before they can disbelieve in gods (probably that isn't what you believe anyway). The theists must convince the atheists, because they are trying to add a new belief to humanity's body of knowledge. An analogy would be a physicist claiming to have found a new particle. That physicist has the burden of proof.

 

[zippy2006]

The consensus view is limited to science, history, math, etc. This consensus happens to be exactly what atheists believe.

I agree that if we arbitrarily limit the definition of "consensus view" to science, history, and math, then there is no consensus view regarding God.

Unfortunately such arbitrary limitation is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree that if we arbitrarily limit the definition of "consensus view" to science, history, and math, then there is no consensus view regarding God.

Unfortunately such arbitrary limitation is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Well, with critical thinking minds, that rely on verifiable evidence, it is very difficult to reach consensus on theists beliefs for obvious reasons. This is quite apparent, by not only the quantity of theists beliefs, but also the quantity of varying beliefs, even within one religion.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, with critical thinking minds, that rely on verifiable evidence, it is very difficult to reach consensus on theists beliefs for obvious reasons. This is quite apparent,

No, it's not apparent at all. Take the essential theist belief, "God exists." There is an enormous consensus regarding this belief.

 

[bhsmte]

No, it's not apparent at all. Take the essential theist belief, "God exists." There is an enormous consensus regarding this belief.

Yes, but with a wide variation of understanding about this God, or sometimes different Gods. Why do you think there are so many different religions in the world, with so many different views on God?

 

[variant]

No, it's not apparent at all. Take the essential theist belief, "God exists." There is an enormous consensus regarding this belief.

Not as enormous as you would need to say it is uncontroversial, or that it should be believed as the default position.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, but with a wide variation of understanding about this God, or sometimes different Gods. Why do you think there are so many different religions in the world, with so many different views on God?

So what? My point stands: there is an enormous consensus that God exists. There may be slight variations in the details of God's nature, but all agree on the basics:

God -

1a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
​

Substituting "status quo" with "consensus view" does not help the atheists with respect to the burden of proof, at least if you don't arbitrarily limit the consensus view to "science, history, and math."

 

[variant]

Substituting "status quo" with "consensus view" does not help the atheists with respect to the burden of proof, at least if you don't arbitrarily limit the consensus view to "science, history, and math."

We don't arbitrarily put this limit in place, scientists, historians and mathematicians demonstrate their work with objective evidence.

When they come to a consensus, it's not just a show of hands, or an appeal to popularity, but a demonstration of unity that follows from the work they do.

 

[bhsmte]

So what? My point stands: there is an enormous consensus that God exists. There may be slight variations in the details of God's nature, but all agree on the basics:

God -

1a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
​

Substituting "status quo" with "consensus view" does not help the atheists with respect to the burden of proof, at least if you don't arbitrarily limit the consensus view to "science, history, and math."

First of all, the variations are not slight. 2/3 of the population disagree with Christian theology and that Jesus was God. That is not a slight variation in belief, when you look at what the Christian theology claims about Jesus.

Also, belief in some sort of God, is entrenched in all societies, to some degree and when you have the power attched to a God and the fear that is generated by some in regards to the same, it is going to be carried on in belief, when it is presented to people at a young age. The other reality is, general belief in a God has been declining throughout the world for many decades and is more than likely to continue.