Should theists have the burden of proof?

[bhsmte]

You were doing so well here and then "BAM" strawman. Philo said "But, even evidence is open to the mediation of perception and interpretation."

Do you somehow have direct access to the data of the external world? Descartes was wrong?

Apparently you haven't been to an academic scientific conference.

The scientist passionately fight over the interpretation of the data.

Doesn't mean knowledge doesn't progress, just that we are epistemic agents not computers.

So to review...No one is saying "Evidence" is at the "Complete Mercy of," the perceiver. Just that it goes through perception and interpretation.

I dont disagree. One key is though, whether multiple people can reproduce the data, by experiment. When this happens, you start to make progress towards a consensus of what the data means. In areas we cant follow this method, you lose reliability.

 

[xianghua]

First of all, we need a definition of "intelligence" that is actually useful. Here is my attempt. Something is "intelligent" if its behavior adapts to a variety of circumstances, and the behavior tends to create results with a common trait (we infer this trait to be the "goal"). The results exhibiting this common trait might be considered "designed" as opposed to "natural". However, everything is relative. The mechanical robot is not that different from a human except for the material of construction. In a way the mechanical robot is a product of natural processes such as evolution, because it was created by humans that were produced by nature.

Hopefully that explains how I see this question of intelligent design.

ok. so according to you everything is the result of a natural process. including a regular car or a robot.

 

[Moral Orel]

ok. so according to you everything is the result of a natural process. including a regular car or a robot.

I think I know what he means, and @cloudyday2 can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that "everything is ultimately the result of natural processes". The way you've stated it is vague enough to be interpreted as "everything is the direct result of a natural process" and that would be wrong.

 

[cloudyday2]

ok. so according to you everything is the result of a natural process. including a regular car or a robot.

Yep that is how I see it.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think I know what he means, and @cloudyday2 can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that "everything is ultimately the result of natural processes". The way you've stated it is vague enough to be interpreted as "everything is the direct result of a natural process" and that would be wrong.

Yeah, that's basically what I think.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, that's basically what I think.

That's what I thought, and I agree. I felt a spin coming on is why I commented though.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's what I thought, and I agree. I felt a spin coming on is why I commented though.

The way I see it, when Kelly Johnson helped to design the SR-71 Blackbird, he was not that different from a normal blackbird building a nest or an ice crystal forming a pattern on a snowy window pane. It's all nature with no particular will or goal as far as I know. (At least that is how I see it when I am feeling atheistic.)

 

[zippy2006]

The question of burden of proof has two applications also. The common application is to make one person do all the work in a debate. The more important application is to determine if the body of human knowledge needs to change as a result of the debate's arguments.

The main problem with your assessment is that neither of these two "applications" need have anything to do with the burden of proof. Again, the definition of the burden of proof is this:

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

It is not "making one person do all the work in a debate," and it is not "determining if the body of human knowledge needs to change as a result of the debate's arguments." You're simply not talking about the burden of proof, especially with the latter idea.

The only relevant question is, "What constitutes 'disputed'?" The relevant definition of 'dispute' is, "to call into question or cast doubt upon." In the context of the burden of proof, what exactly casts doubt upon some proposition? The answer is easy: it's the common opinion, the status quo. Someone has the burden of proof if their assertion is disputed, that is, if it flies in the face of common opinion and the status quo.

So I think the burden of proof should fall on the person with the more complex theory.

Does a person who proposes Newtonian mechanics for the macroscopic world have the burden of proof (e.g. every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force). This is a complex theory--certainly more complex than no theory at all. But we all know that someone who affirms such a well-accepted theory does not have the burden of proof, for their assertion is not disputed according to the status quo. In reality it is the person who denies Newtonian mechanics (at macroscopic levels) who has the burden of proof, even though their position is much less complex.

 

[cloudyday2]

...
Does a person who proposes Newtonian mechanics for the macroscopic world have the burden of proof (e.g. every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force). This is a complex theory--certainly more complex than no theory at all. But we all know that someone who affirms such a well-accepted theory does not have the burden of proof, for their assertion is not disputed according to the status quo. In reality it is the person who denies Newtonian mechanics (at macroscopic levels) who has the burden of proof, even though their position is much less complex.

I didn't follow the first part of your post, but I can respond to this point. Newtonian mechanics has already been demonstrated to work to the satisfaction of most people. Each idea of Newtonian mechanics had the burden of proof when it was initially proposed. After that burden of proof was satisfied, future people could simply reference that early work.

So where has anybody in the past met the burden of proof for claiming that God exists?

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't follow the first part of your post, but I can respond to this point. Newtonian mechanics has already been demonstrated to work to the satisfaction of most people. Each idea of Newtonian mechanics had the burden of proof when it was initially proposed. After that burden of proof was satisfied, future people could simply reference that early work.

Then you're admitting that the burden of proof is not on complex ideas, but rather on disputed ideas. The reason Newtonian mechanics does not have the burden of proof is because it is not disputed--because it is part of the status quo. Many ideas that are now accepted once had the burden of proof, but not all. Someone does not need to study the history of science to know that Newtonian mechanics are currently part of the status quo. The point remains: we don't determine the burden of proof by looking at how complex an idea is, we determine it by the status quo.

 

[cloudyday2]

Then you're admitting that the burden of proof is not on complex ideas, but rather on disputed ideas. The reason Newtonian mechanics does not have the burden of proof is because it is not disputed--because it is part of the status quo. Many ideas that are now accepted once had the burden of proof, but not all. Someone does not need to study the history of science to know that Newtonian mechanics are currently part of the status quo. The point remains: we don't determine the burden of proof by looking at how complex an idea is, we determine it by the status quo.

Basically things that do no have the burden of proof in a debate are those things that have already met that burden of proof in the past to the satisfaction of reasonable people. In most cases that matches the status quo, but not always. There are some beliefs like religion that are indoctrinated into children and are later difficult for many adults to purge in spite of the absence of proof. Those things cannot be claimed in a debate without proof.

Truth is not a popularity contest.

EDIT: Your mention of Newtonian mechanics reminded me that Newton spent a lot of time trying to decode the prophecies in the book of Daniel to predict the date of the Second Coming. In Newton's time there were very few atheists and lots of very smart theists. Even if we were debating the existence of God in Newton's time, we should still put the burden of proof on the theists IMO.

 

[zippy2006]

Basically things that do no have the burden of proof in a debate are those things that have already met that burden of proof in the past to the satisfaction of reasonable people.

That's not true in many cases, such as those outlined here.

In most cases that matches the status quo, but not always. There are some beliefs like religion that are indoctrinated into children and are later difficult for many adults to purge in spite of the absence of proof. Those things cannot be claimed in a debate without proof.

You are just begging the question. You wish that the standard burden of proof didn't apply to religious questions because they are inconvenient for you. Sorry, but just because something is inconvenient does not mean it has the burden of proof. The standard burden of proof applies to religious claims as much as anything else.

Truth is not a popularity contest.

The burden of proof is not about whether something is true or false. This mistake seems quite common.

EDIT: Your mention of Newtonian mechanics reminded me that Newton spent a lot of time trying to decode the prophecies in the book of Daniel to predict the date of the Second Coming. In Newton's time there were very few atheists and lots of very smart theists. Even if we were debating the existence of God in Newton's time, we should still put the burden of proof on the theists IMO.

The burden of proof depends on the status quo. Atheists therefore had the burden of proof in Newton's time even more than they do today.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's not true in many cases, such as those outlined here.

I agree that claims you mentioned such as "I exist" are typically accepted by both sides in a debate without a burden of proof. However, I think this is only because disputing "I exist" does not typically serve anybody's interests in the debate. If philosophers were debating each other over the question of existence then I suspect the claim "I exist" would have a burden of proof.

The burden of proof is not about whether something is true or false. This mistake seems quite common.

That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the goal of any debate is truth. Ideally people debate a claim, and the outcome of the debate determines the fate of that claim. Victory means the claim is provisionally included in humanity's database of truth. It's not about gladiators fighting to please a roaring crowd. It is about refining the database of truth that humans can consult when making important decisions. We cannot afford to admit claims simply because they are popular. Everything must be tested first. Some claims like "I exist" might be included as an unproven assumption for practical matters, but the claim "God exists" needs some testing.

 

[zippy2006]

That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the goal of any debate is truth. Ideally people debate a claim, and the outcome of the debate determines the fate of that claim. Victory means the claim is provisionally included in humanity's database of truth. It's not about gladiators fighting to please a roaring crowd. It is about refining the database of truth that humans can consult when making important decisions. We cannot afford to admit claims simply because they are popular.

The status quo is the effect of centuries of conversation surrounding certain claims. It is the most reliable "database of truth" available. Single, isolated debates are like a drop of water compared to the ocean of the status quo. This is what you do not seem to understand.

And what is your alternative to consulting the status quo to determine the burden of proof? Your earlier suggestion of "complexity" broke down rather quickly.

 

[bhsmte]

The status quo is the effect of centuries of conversation surrounding certain claims. It is the most reliable "database of truth" available. Single, isolated debates are like a drop of water compared to the ocean of the status quo. This is what you do not seem to understand.

And what is your alternative to consulting the status quo to determine the burden of proof? Your earlier suggestion of "complexity" broke down rather quickly.

My alternative, would be consulting the evidence.

 

[zippy2006]

My alternative, would be consulting the evidence.

So a dispute spontaneously arises and you suggest we should consult the evidence to determine who has the burden of proof. Who gets to determine what evidence is consulted and followed? Obviously each side will point to evidence in their favor. Are we to appoint a person or group of persons which each side agrees to and allow them to sift through evidence to determine who has the burden of proof? Are we to do this each time a dispute arises? Such an answer seems very unfeasible.

The correct answer is to consult the status quo, which acts as a neutral party disinterested in either specific claim, provides a kind of compendium of evidence and opinion on any given question, and is actually feasible and intuitive.

 

[bhsmte]

So a dispute spontaneously arises and you suggest we should consult the evidence to determine who has the burden of proof. Who gets to determine what evidence is consulted and followed? Obviously each side will point to evidence in their favor. Are we to appoint a person or group of persons which each side agrees to and allow them to sift through evidence to determine who has the burden of proof? Are we to do this each time a dispute arises? Such an answer seems very unfeasible.

The correct answer is to consult the status quo, which acts as a neutral party disinterested in either specific claim, provides a kind of compendium of evidence and opinion on any given question, and is actually feasible and intuitive.

My point is this; what is most likely to be true, will ultimately be determined by the evidence, not how many people agree with it. Do you disagree that people can believe in things for reasons not related to objective evidence, to support the belief?

 

[bhsmte]

So a dispute spontaneously arises and you suggest we should consult the evidence to determine who has the burden of proof. Who gets to determine what evidence is consulted and followed? Obviously each side will point to evidence in their favor. Are we to appoint a person or group of persons which each side agrees to and allow them to sift through evidence to determine who has the burden of proof? Are we to do this each time a dispute arises? Such an answer seems very unfeasible.

The correct answer is to consult the status quo, which acts as a neutral party disinterested in either specific claim, provides a kind of compendium of evidence and opinion on any given question, and is actually feasible and intuitive.

Consulting the status quo may be intuitive, but it certainly is not analytical. Intuition can be highly flawed, because it involves personal bias, to a much higher degree.

This could be why, intuitive thinkers are much more likely to be believers and non believers are more likely to be analytical thinkers.

 

[zippy2006]

My point is this; what is most likely to be true, will ultimately be determined by the evidence, not how many people agree with it.

What evidence? Determined by who? You can't sidestep my question.

The burden of proof is not a systematic trial adjudicating the absolute truth of any given claim. It is a starting point, a kind of pressure that must be taken into account when making claims.

Do you disagree that people can believe in things for reasons not related to objective evidence, to support the belief?

Yes, which is precisely why the burden of proof is not equivalent to truth itself. I will quote the atheist from my original post again:

The implication of all of this is that for the modern American atheist, there is an enormous burden of proof. The vast majority of people around you believe that there is a God. They think that God is active and present in every facet of their lives. They think there are lots of very good reasons for thinking that there is a God.

So you can’t just ignore all of that background. You can’t just opt to believe otherwise at will and be epistemically inculpable. Even if everyone around you believes something completely mistaken like “The sun orbits the earth,” their believing it, and so many of them believing it, puts an tremendous burden of proof on you if you are going to break ranks and form a contrary opinion.​

Is your answer to simply "ignore all of that background"? To do so is to be like a flat-earther with a couple pieces of "evidence" in your favor. To champion something so strongly opposed to the status quo with such casual nonchalance is a failure to understand epistemic realities. Someone who does so will be rightly ignored.

 

[bhsmte]

What evidence? Determined by who? You can't sidestep my question.

The burden of proof is not a systematic trial adjudicating the absolute truth of any given claim. It is a starting point, a kind of pressure that must be taken into account when making claims.



Yes, which is precisely why the burden of proof is not equivalent to truth itself. I will quote the atheist from my original post again:

The implication of all of this is that for the modern American atheist, there is an enormous burden of proof. The vast majority of people around you believe that there is a God. They think that God is active and present in every facet of their lives. They think there are lots of very good reasons for thinking that there is a God.

So you can’t just ignore all of that background. You can’t just opt to believe otherwise at will and be epistemically inculpable. Even if everyone around you believes something completely mistaken like “The sun orbits the earth,” their believing it, and so many of them believing it, puts an tremendous burden of proof on you if you are going to break ranks and form a contrary opinion.​

Is your answer to simply "ignore all of that background"? To do so is to be like a flat-earther with a couple pieces of "evidence" in your favor. To champion something so strongly opposed to the status quo with such casual nonchalance is a failure to understand epistemic realities. Someone who does so will be rightly ignored.

What evidence? Evidence that would support what the status quo claims, that evidence. How did something become the status quo to begin with, without evidence to support the said status quo. That is, unless the status quo, is not established with evidence. If that is the case, the status quo is really quite meaningless, if it can't support it's position.