The burden of proof fallacy?

[Sayre]

God isn't practically needed as a starting point. If we want to understand something, it's generally about the world we live in, so we have to assume that our minds can represent something true about the world through our senses. If our senses are completely false all the time then we have no starting point.

Maybe the world doesn't exist somehow, or maybe it began 5 seconds ago, but if we want to learn anything about the world we appear to live in, we have to assume for now that our senses have some truth to them.

I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief. I don't think you could claim a fully developed theology about the nature of God is basic, but whether or not this cause is natural or supernatural seems valid as a basic belief.

 

[KCfromNC]

I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief.

Why? You've already had to draw in conclusions about cause and about the origins of the universe to get to this belief that there's some creator - that's pretty involved for something which is supposed to be basic.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have defined atheism properly:
atheism - definition of atheism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The problem with speaking with atheists (which you assume I have not) is that they don't all agree on the definition in the first place.

I could quite easily mention some other forums I've been on the past couple of weeks which could clearly demonstrate this point about atheists/ definition of atheism...



Ok so this is your problem.

Strong atheism is basically incoherant and doesn't fit with your own definition of atheism anyway
Weak atheism is simply the absence of a belief, and makes no statement of the existence of God

Theism doesn't have this muddle; there is no weak and strong theism in any comparable sense to atheism. The terms do exist but weak theism is pretty much another name for deism as it refers to God's activity/ inactivity in the world..

Even if all of this were true, what difference does it make? No matter how you want to define them, there's a group of people who don't believe in god(s). Playing word games with definitions isn't going to change that fact, nor is it going to somehow create a burden on them to produce evidence for someone else's belief. What do you hope to accomplish with this sort of semantic fiddling?

 

[Paradoxum]

I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief. I don't think you could claim a fully developed theology about the nature of God is basic, but whether or not this cause is natural or supernatural seems valid as a basic belief.

That isn't a basic belief... that is just making stuff up for no reason. The idea that the universe needs a cause assumes that the universe exists and needs a cause... it is not basic then.

 

[TillICollapse]

I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief. I don't think you could claim a fully developed theology about the nature of God is basic, but whether or not this cause is natural or supernatural seems valid as a basic belief.

I would say the "First Cause" qualifies as a basic belief, or is at least based on a basic concept.

That isn't a basic belief... that is just making stuff up for no reason. The idea that the universe needs a cause assumes that the universe exists and needs a cause... it is not basic then.

Questioning whether the universe exists or not is a valid question, but it leads to solipsism, which doesn't seem all that practical.

So assuming we are not heads in jars for practical purposes at this moment (or that, if we are, we will still be a head in a jar in the next 5 minutes) ..

I would say that the "First Cause" concept is a basic one, as it's an example of a person's basic understanding of cause and effect and a conclusion one might come to, or, at the very least, question. Notice I didn't say anything about facts or proofs, or "needs" or questioning the existence of reality itself. Only that I think it qualifies as a basic belief.

A child often asks where something came from ... then you answer them, and they ask, "Well where did THAT come from ?" and it goes on and on. This is an example of a person's ability to try and understand basic concepts, and whatever they conclude based on their basic understanding of concepts ... one could label as a "basic belief". Basic questions may yield basic conclusions which would qualify as basic beliefs. It doesn't mean they are correct or not.

Regardless of what you believe about "Uncaused Causes" and "First Causes", causality itself is a basic premise for understanding the classical universe. I would say this is basic. Coming up with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and other implications of causality or attempts to define it with "laws", are arguably not basic ... but the assumption of causality on a classic scale is pretty basic. I may argue that attempting to understand causality is one of the first things humans often stumble upon as they begin to reason and question the world around them, but I have no sources to quote other than children themselves lol.

 

[ianb321red]

Even if all of this were true, what difference does it make? No matter how you want to define them, there's a group of people who don't believe in god(s). Playing word games with definitions isn't going to change that fact, nor is it going to somehow create a burden on them to produce evidence for someone else's belief. What do you hope to accomplish with this sort of semantic fiddling?

Who is doing the semantic fiddling though?

17 different kinds of atheism according the following article
17 Kinds of Atheism

 

[Gadarene]

Who is doing the semantic fiddling though?

17 different kinds of atheism according the following article
17 Kinds of Atheism

It is up to atheists to define themselves, not you.

Weak atheism has existed as a concept since the 70s, and is covered in dictionary definitions too - depending on which dictionary you pick, but then dictionaries are not definitive texts on the meanings of words. The meaning of words drifts over time.

The first result for "define atheism" in google produces "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

That covers both weak and strong atheism. They both for different reasons result in a lack of belief in deities. I'd say it covers the types listed in the blog post above as well.

The OED definition talks about atheism being disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of god, i.e. weak and strong atheism respectively.


http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

Again, what is your point? Ok, say I'm not actually an atheist (I am, as it is those who hold the label who primarily get to define it) but say I'm a <foo>ist instead.

My actual stance hasn't changed. I don't think there is any compelling evidence for the existence of God (which, yet again, does not equate to a positive claim that there is no god), and you do. The most expedient way to resolve this for everyone is for you, the person making the positive claim, to present the best piece of evidence.

The fact that you would rather faff around with definitions and try and make out that atheists are engaging in fallacy suggests that maybe you don't have actual confidence in the evidence and are trying to just lawyer your way into a stronger position.

 

[ianb321red]

Again, what is your point? Ok, say I'm not actually an atheist (I am, as it is those who hold the label who primarily get to define it) but say I'm a <foo>ist instead.

My actual stance hasn't changed. I don't think there is any compelling evidence for the existence of God (which, yet again, does not equate to a positive claim that there is no god), and you do. The most expedient way to resolve this for everyone is for you, the person making the positive claim, to present the best piece of evidence.

My point is about establishing burden of proof when debating the existence of god(s).

What I have had confirmed to me on this thread and on other forums is that conveniently it might seem, the definition of atheism has evolved (or drifted as you put it) over time.

Might this be because, actually strong/ positive atheism (the absolute claim that there is no god) has be soundly proven to be a logical absurd thing to claim?

Strong atheism as any definition shows cannot shift the burden of proof for the reasons I mention in post #1.

Where we have ended up now is with an incarnation of atheism which actually doesn't deal with the very subject matter it originally addressed; namely whether god exists.

Holding the popular atheistic position (lack of belief in god) is no more than a shared state of mind.

It doesn't even warrant sensible dialogue or necessity of burden of proof with theism primarily because their starting points aren't opposites - they're dealing with totally different things in reality..

 

[contango]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?

As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?

Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

This is where we get into the discussion of whether someone who calls themself an atheist takes the passive "I do not believe there is a God" or the active "I do believe there is not a God".

I think it is safe to say the default position is "I don't know" on the basis that until someone has thought about an issue they cannot form a conclusion, and therefore the default position might be called agnosticism.

To form an active belief in the existence or non-existence of god (small g intentional to express a generic deity) requires some form of input, and a conclusion either way is the result of that input. Whether the input consists of a lifetime of studying, a long lifetime of experience, or a child being told by their parents and accepting it without any thought, the transfer from lacking belief to having belief, whatever the topic of that belief, can only come through external inputs.

 

[contango]

Again, what is your point? Ok, say I'm not actually an atheist (I am, as it is those who hold the label who primarily get to define it) but say I'm a <foo>ist instead.

My actual stance hasn't changed. I don't think there is any compelling evidence for the existence of God (which, yet again, does not equate to a positive claim that there is no god), and you do. The most expedient way to resolve this for everyone is for you, the person making the positive claim, to present the best piece of evidence.

The fact that you would rather faff around with definitions and try and make out that atheists are engaging in fallacy suggests that maybe you don't have actual confidence in the evidence and are trying to just lawyer your way into a stronger position.

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who calls themselves an "atheist" without knowing whether they use the term to mean they are undecided (i.e. they lack an active belief in the existence of gods, but equally lack an active belief in the non-existence of gods), or have taken an active belief in the non-existence of gods.

When discussing with someone who is undecided the meeting is between someone who has taken a position and someone who takes no position, in which case it is reasonable to ask the one making an assertion to demonstrate why they make the assertion. The person who is undecided makes no assertion and as such does not have a position to support.

When discussing with someone with an active belief in the non-existence of gods, the meeting is between two people who have taken opposing positions and so it is reasonable to expect both sides to demonstrate why they believe as they do.

To transfer the approach into the political domain (and using US politics for the sake of an example) the default political allegiance has to be no allegiance to either party. If someone who votes Democrat discusses politics with someone who has yet to decide how to vote, the person who has yet to decide doesn't need to justify why they have yet to decide but the person who votes Democrat should be ready to explain why. If a person who votes Democrat discusses politics with a person who votes Republican it is absurd to suggest that one position is the default and the person taking the other position should justify their stance, the only useful discussion would see both parties explaining why they took the stance they did.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is ok to ask for proof, verification, evidence etc. Even repeatedly. But there is a point where you full well know what you will offered (if anything), and at which you'd begin to look more and more silly for your persistent nagging.

 

[KCfromNC]

Who is doing the semantic fiddling though?

17 different kinds of atheism according the following article
17 Kinds of Atheism

I'm not sure what your point is. Like many words, you can add various adjectives in front of atheist to specify more detail about what you're talking about. Doesn't change the fact that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods.

 

[KCfromNC]

What I have had confirmed to me on this thread and on other forums is that conveniently it might seem, the definition of atheism has evolved (or drifted as you put it) over time.

I haven't seen anything in the thread which points to this conclusion.

It doesn't even warrant sensible dialogue or necessity of burden of proof with theism primarily because their starting points aren't opposites - they're dealing with totally different things in reality..

Huh? Theists believe at least one god exists, and that's the opposite of atheists.

 

[Paradoxum]

Questioning whether the universe exists or not is a valid question, but it leads to solipsism, which doesn't seem all that practical.

So assuming we are not heads in jars for practical purposes at this moment (or that, if we are, we will still be a head in a jar in the next 5 minutes) ..

I would say that the "First Cause" concept is a basic one, as it's an example of a person's basic understanding of cause and effect and a conclusion one might come to, or, at the very least, question. Notice I didn't say anything about facts or proofs, or "needs" or questioning the existence of reality itself. Only that I think it qualifies as a basic belief.

A child often asks where something came from ... then you answer them, and they ask, "Well where did THAT come from ?" and it goes on and on. This is an example of a person's ability to try and understand basic concepts, and whatever they conclude based on their basic understanding of concepts ... one could label as a "basic belief". Basic questions may yield basic conclusions which would qualify as basic beliefs. It doesn't mean they are correct or not.

Regardless of what you believe about "Uncaused Causes" and "First Causes", causality itself is a basic premise for understanding the classical universe. I would say this is basic. Coming up with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and other implications of causality or attempts to define it with "laws", are arguably not basic ... but the assumption of causality on a classic scale is pretty basic. I may argue that attempting to understand causality is one of the first things humans often stumble upon as they begin to reason and question the world around them, but I have no sources to quote other than children themselves lol.

I think we might be meaning different things. Questioning where everything came from makes sense... claiming you know where the universe came from just because you decided to make up an answer isn't justified.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think we might be meaning different things. Questioning where everything came from makes sense... claiming you know where the universe came from just because you decided to make up an answer isn't justified.

I'm not sure if we are meaning different things or not ... I jumped into a conversation I wasn't part of, so it's possible I could be talking out of turn or context.

What I was saying, essentially, is believing "Perhaps there was a cause to all these effects," was a basic belief. I don't see how that involves claiming to know something, nor making up answers.

Claiming to know something definitively would arguably belong to a different category than belief. So perhaps we are using the word "belief" differently.

Also, I don't see how understanding cause and effect and going forwards or backwards with it in an attempt to draw a conclusion and gain understanding is "making up an answer". It's drawing conclusions based on observable phenomena or attributes of reality ... i.e. causality. That would be like you telling me that you changed your hair color, and I respond with, "Did you pick blue or purple by chance ?" and you respond with, "Why are you making up colors ? That's unjustified." Making up an answer, in my opinion, would look something more like this:

"The universe came from Chuck Norris who, trapped in a time loop, mated with a blue banther while eating Cargo Cult marshmallows."

 

[contango]

Making up an answer, in my opinion, would look something more like this:

"The universe came from Chuck Norris who, trapped in a time loop, mated with a blue banther while eating Cargo Cult marshmallows."

I guess my new Marshmallow Cargo Cult is doomed before it even gets going now. Thanks very much...

 

[ianb321red]

Huh? Theists believe at least one god exists, and that's the opposite of atheists.

Theism affirms that a God exists - it is a claim to know that a God exists.

Atheism simply lacks a belief in God - they don't claim to know that God doesn't exist.

Clearly these aren't opposite viewpoints...

 

[ianb321red]

I haven't seen anything in the thread which points to this conclusion.

Gadarene mentioned this in his post, so by not acknowledging it you have proven my point about the problem defining atheism...

 

[TillICollapse]

I guess my new Marshmallow Cargo Cult is doomed before it even gets going now. Thanks very much...

Oops lol

 

[Sayre]

That isn't a basic belief... that is just making stuff up for no reason. The idea that the universe needs a cause assumes that the universe exists and needs a cause... it is not basic then.

Same with your senses. Same with other minds. Same with your memory.