Should theists have the burden of proof?

[variant]

The funny thing is that Occam (Ockham, William 'of') was a philosopher and theologian. And somehow he didn't see fit to take his own medicine. I wonder why?

1) Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/#H2

William Ockham was born in the year 1285.

You do understand what they would have done to him if he took his argument to that conclusion right?

That he set aside an exception for "divine revelation" in his writings is clear, so that is either because he thought it deserved one or because they used to burn heretics alive at the time.

 

[variant]

The article seems to argue that atheists must get involved in the details of the theist's philosophical arguments for gods rather than brushing them aside as unnecessary additions to the scientific model of reality. I think it is the responsibility of the theists to show how their gods can improve the scientific model. Many of the questions that theists claim to answer with their gods are actually malformed questions.

That Gods have explanatory power rather than being misleading ideas that humans have projected into the universe is simply not in evidence.

The idea that it is my responsibility to demonstrate that they don't exist to dismiss them is funny to me.

The ideas themselves are now crafted so as not to be capable of any easy investigation.

It is funny how these gods become increasingly elusive and irrelevant as science advances. In the past, the gods were expected to bless us with rain in the proper season, good health, prosperity, etc. Now we expect nothing from our gods, but we continue to cling to them.

It's hard to trust an idea that becomes more and more abstract as time goes on and explains less and less.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People are good at compartmentalizing beliefs.

You mean, like those who adhere to Methodological Naturalism (like Eugene C. Scott [atheist]) rather than Philosophical Naturalism (Richard Dawkins [atheist])?

It's funny how philosophy just...gets in the way of proper scientific belief...isn't it, KC? But, I'm not so clear on who is using 'philosophy' in this case.

 

[bhsmte]

If someone says, "THERE IS NO GOD," and you reply, "maybe not, but I doubt there is no God," they can't then say, "PROVE THERE IS A GOD."

If someone says, "THERE IS A GOD," and you reply, "maybe, but I'm not convinced there is one," they can't then say, "PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD."

If you make the claim, you back it up. Atheist or theist is irrelevant; it's the claimer that has the burden of proof.

Agree.

Here is the bottom line; theistic beliefs, can not be supported with any type of objective and verifiable evidence. Most theists even realize this and that is why they will acknowledge, they believe on faith and not evidence. Now, on this site, we do tend to get many folks, who are of the type, that need to convince themselves and others, they have objective evidence for their beliefs and that is when the fun starts, when you ask them to provide it.

 

[bhsmte]

People are good at compartmentalizing beliefs.

Indeed. And what they choose to compartmentalize and to what degree, is driven by their personal psyche and psychological needs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed. And what they choose to compartmentalize and to what degree, is driven by their personal psyche and psychological needs.

...as well as by way of inherent philosophical constructs which come together in the mind and by which each individual thinks the world makes sense (or not). It's not just ALL ..... "needs" based.

 

[bhsmte]

...as well as by way of inherent the philosophical constructs which come together in the mind and by which each individual thinks the world makes sense (or not). It's not just ALL ..... "needs" based.

The "needs" part, helps to drive what each individual can reconcile with themselves, to allow it to make sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The "needs" part, helps to drive what each individual can reconcile with themselves, to allow it to make sense.

yes, it helps. But "helping" and "causing" are not quite the same conceptual constructs, are they?

 

[bhsmte]

yes, it helps. But "helping" and "causing" are not quite the same conceptual constructs, are they?

Taking into account the wide range of personal beliefs people hold and how tightly they hold onto these beliefs, even in the face of available evidence to the contrary, personal psychological need is the main driver in these people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for the links, @2PhiloVoid
The article seems to argue that atheists must get involved in the details of the theist's philosophical arguments for gods rather than brushing them aside as unnecessary additions to the scientific model of reality. I think it is the responsibility of the theists to show how their gods can improve the scientific model. Many of the questions that theists claim to answer with their gods are actually malformed questions. For example, asking "how did the universe come into being?" is a natural common sense question, but it is a question formed from concepts that fall apart at the beginning of time. "Before" and "after" make no sense at the beginning of time. Likewise, "cause" makes no sense at the beginning of time.

It is funny how these gods become increasingly elusive and irrelevant as science advances. In the past, the gods were expected to bless us with rain in the proper season, good health, prosperity, etc. Now we expect nothing from our gods, but we continue to cling to them.

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:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Taking into account the wide range of personal beliefs people hold and how tightly they hold onto these beliefs, even in the face of available evidence to the contrary, personal psychological need is the main driver in these people.

...so your saying so makes it so? I think it's actually one of those issues that is open to philosophical (and scientific) debate, rather than one that is clear cut as you seem to imply.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

William Occam was born in the year 1285.

You do understand what they would have done to him if he took his argument to that conclusion right?

That he set aside an exception for "divine revelation" in his writings is clear, so that is either because he thought it deserved one or because they used to burn heretics alive at the time.

Sure. I understand. I've read the history. And you do understand that his Razor emerged out of considerations about philosophical contrasts between 'Nominalism' and 'Universalism,' right?

 

[variant]

...so your saying so makes it so? I think it's actually one of those issues that is open to philosophical (and scientific) debate, rather than one that is clear cut as you seem to imply.

Every idea is open for philosophical debate.

Evidence based debates have to rely on evidence to demonstrate points.

 

[variant]

Sure. I understand. I've read the history. And you do understand that his Razor emerged out of considerations about philosophical contrasts between 'Nominalism' and 'Universalism,' right?

I don't see your point.

Feel free to expand it so that I can track it back to mine.

Where Ockham and I agree is the skepticism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see your point.

Feel free to expand it so that I can track it back to mine.

The point is to know what philosophical issue Ockham was focusing upon and by which he developed his parsimony, so that thereby, we can understand the historical context by which he developed his idea and the niche to which he expected it to be applied.

So, it seems to me that if Ockham wasn't using his own razor to cut out religious beliefs, but rather to razor away one philosophical concept as it contrast with another, then it is a bit incongruous for us to apply it in a way that is not befitting Ockham's intentions.

Furthermore, since the basic idea of parsimony did not really originate with Ockham, and the way we use today doesn't truly reflect Ockham's thinking, but rather Aristotle's, then we seem to confuse the reasoning and applications involved and distort the connotations inherent in the uses we choose to apply parsimony.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Every idea is open for philosophical debate.

Evidence based debates have to rely on evidence to demonstrate points.

Yes, I agree. But, even evidence is open to the mediation of perception and interpretation.

 

[bhsmte]

...so your saying so makes it so? I think it's actually one of those issues that is open to philosophical (and scientific) debate, rather than one that is clear cut as you seem to imply.

Much is open to debate, no question. I gave my observations based on my knowledge and research on the subject. Anyone who reads my posts knows, I have no problem admitting I could be wrong.

 

[variant]

Yes, I agree. But, even evidence is open to the mediation of perception and interpretation.

Science attempts to find objective evidence.

If you think the idea of "evidence" is at the complete mercy of interpretation, then you are more of a skeptic than I.

 

[variant]

So, it seems to me that if Ockham wasn't using his own razor to cut out religious beliefs, but rather to razor away one philosophical concept as it contrast with another, then it is a bit incongruous for us to apply it in a way that is not befitting Ockham's intentions.

Okham was a skeptic. That's the point, he was skeptical in one specific way and later Bertrand Russell extrapolated upon this with some decent effect.

It doesn't matter how he intended his idea to be used, it can be used wherever it is useful.

If it is useful to judge the difference between two specific ideas, it may be useful at judging others in principle.

Limiting ourselves for no other reason than the original authors intentions needs to be justified based upon whether or not the idea can appropriately apply elsewhere.

Furthermore, since the basic idea of parsimony did not really originate with Ockham, and the way we use today doesn't truly reflect Ockham's thinking, but rather Aristotle's, then we seem to confuse the reasoning and applications involved and distort the connotations inherent in the uses we choose to apply parsimony.

Ockham was copying the earlier stuff as well as was Russell.

That they came to differn't conclusions is interesting but in no way relevant to how it might be used today by us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okham was a skeptic. That's the point, he was skeptical in one specific way and later Bertrand Russell extrapolated upon this with some decent effect.

It doesn't matter what he intended his idea to be used, it can be used wherever it is useful.

If it is useful to judge the difference between two specific ideas, it may be useful at judging others in principle.

Limiting ourselves for no other reason than the original authors intentions needs to be justified based upon whether or not the idea can appropriately apply elsewhere.



Ockham was copying the earlier stuff as well as was Russell.

That they came to differn't conclusions is interesting but in no way relevant to how it might be used today by us.

Yes, but here's my point: There are those who, when debating, subscribe to Occam's Razor by fiat without doing the work of investigation and research into the issues. They just say, "Occam's Razor," and then they move along their merry little way.

I'm not citing that atheists here on CF are actually doing that as a regular thing. Moreover, I'm not the one who is saying that atheists, whether of scientific bent or purely existential, are being dishonest. I'm just saying that we all can be confused on these issues.

As far as the Burden of Proof issue is concerned, I've already cited on another thread my point of view on who has the Burden of Proof, and the source types by which I form that position.

I just think, too, that when we bring Occam's Razon 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).