Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Right. If someone is asking "Why do you believe in X?" they're implicitly asking the other person to back up their claim. This question is not a claim that requires evidence in itself.

[ed boy]

I'm going to object to this bandying about of the phrase 'burden of proof'. There is no universal concept of 'burden of proof' that is automatically generated for every disagreement. You cannot say that the burden of proof lies with them, as the meaning of proof and burden of proof differs in each logical system. As it turns out, people are not working on the same logical system.

For example, take goldbach's conjecture. Some might consider it 'proved', since it has been verified a lot of numbers (up to 1.609 × 10¹⁸). Others might consider it not proved, since it has not been proved for all numbers.

The concept of burden of proof works in a similar way. Some might consider the burden of proof to lie on those who do not support it to find a counterexample, while others might consider the burden of proof to lie on those who support it to find a proof for all numbers.

Given that this is a mathematical problem, and the nature of mathematical proofs, some might consider it a bad analogy, as the mathematical definition of proof does not consider how many instances it has been verified in (except for a finite domain of discourse, in which case exhaustion may apply). Instead, consider an analogous physics experiment - you chuck a ball into the air and time how long it takes to hit the ground. You do this 1.6 sextillion times, and every single time it hits the ground at the time predicted by a certain model (within experimental error). A great deal of people would consider the model proved in this situation.

TLDR; make sure you are specific in what logical system you are using and what you mean by proof before you tell other people to provide you with one.

[G-Flex]

I think it's pretty obvious what sort of system we're talking about: The kind where both inductive and deductive reasoning are considered valid, and where either clear logical proof or very good empirical evidence are required before belief in something is considered defensible. At least, that general framework is what anybody would be using when debating the very existence of God.

[Criptfeind]

Eh. True. That was not a correct statement. I am not even going to try to rationalize it.

Anyway, on a differing track, I think I could say that forgetting the part about if god(s) exists, saying that believing in god(s) is silly leaves the burden of proof on the person who said that.

Agree/Disagree?

[Glowcat]

My first reaction would be "agree".

For the act of worship to be silly, one would first have to determine what is a silly act, and then determine whether worshiping belongs to the class of silly acts.

[freeformschooler]

Eh. True. That was not a correct statement. I am not even going to try to rationalize it.

Anyway, on a differing track, I think I could say that forgetting the part about if god(s) exists, saying that believing in god(s) is silly leaves the burden of proof on the person who said that.

Agree/Disagree?

I would say yes. But then again I wouldn't question someone who said that. It's their opinion not mine.

[ed boy]

I think it's pretty obvious what sort of system we're talking about: The kind where both inductive and deductive reasoning are considered valid, and where either clear logical proof or very good empirical evidence are required before belief in something is considered defensible. At least, that general framework is what anybody would be using when debating the very existence of God.

The fact that there is all this disagreement about who has the burden of proof lies on indicates that there is not a consensus on what logical system we're working in.

You say that inductive reasoning must be considered valid. I'm going to object to that. Logical induction (as opposed to mathematical induction) is not a valid method of proof. For example, I start with any prime number greater than two, and the consider the next prime number. Each number is odd, so inductive reasoning would state that all prime numbers are odd. Alternatively, since I have never won the lottery so far, I could conclude that it is impossible for me to win the lottery.

You also have to consider the domain of discourse. For example, I could say that "the sum of the interior angles in all triangles adds up to 180 degrees". If you're working in plane geometry, then that's true, but if you're working in spherical geometry, then you can find a triangle that has three right angles.

[G-Flex]

The fact that there is all this disagreement about who has the burden of proof lies on indicates that there is not a consensus on what logical system we're working in.

Or that they simply don't understand it. That's always a possibility.

You say that inductive reasoning must be considered valid. I'm going to object to that. Logical induction (as opposed to mathematical induction) is not a valid method of proof. For example, I start with any prime number greater than two, and the consider the next prime number. Each number is odd, so inductive reasoning would state that all prime numbers are odd. Alternatively, since I have never won the lottery so far, I could conclude that it is impossible for me to win the lottery.

Yes, inductive reasoning is invalid when it comes to proving something absolutely. Thankfully, we don't always need to do that. Your latter examples are why extremely limited and anecdotal evidence isn't very acceptable when it comes to evaluating such proof in the first place.

[Glowcat]

Yes, inductive reasoning is invalid when it comes to proving something absolutely. Thankfully, we don't always need to do that. Your latter examples are why extremely limited and anecdotal evidence isn't very acceptable when it comes to evaluating such proof in the first place.

Or to be technical, Inductive Arguments can never be Invalid or Valid, they can only be Strong vs. Weak and Cogent vs. Uncogent.
Deductive Arguments are Valid vs. Invalid and Sound vs. Unsound.

[Urist McDerp]

Is it not possible that most of them weren't "convinced" because... well, it's not true in their case (could be true in some cases, though)?

Not possible unless they're secretly robots or something. To err with the behavior I described is more or less primitive human psychology. My inability to convince them of their own faulty psychological tenancies seems rooted in said faulty behavior. The more I press, the thicker their heads too. Almost reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They deny the existence of any possibility of a psychological disability that may or may not be influencing their behavior, yet it's the very disability they'll readily point out in others.

Again, this behavior forming cohesive tribes makes sense to me. They'll dehumanize, have significantly less empathy for any "warring" group, can't accept any connections with said "warring" group nor accept anything affiliated with said "warring" group. They will only accept the elimination of said "warring" group and everything related. The effect can be very very subtle, or blatantly obvious in someone's behavior and reasoning.

You see this in everything from politics to bitch fights between scientists... and of course religion and anti-theism/anti-religion. EVERYONE is predisposed to this. However if they're in over their head with it, good luck convincing them it even applies to them or exists at all.

If it makes you feel any better, I (and some of my friends) get annoyed at fellow atheists for very similar reasons as the ones you're stating.

Oh thank god. You have some idea then how frustrating and embarrassing to all other irreligious people it is.

The fact that there is all this disagreement about who has the burden of proof lies on indicates that there is not a consensus on what logical system we're working in.

Or that said person believes burden of proof doesn't apply to their particular claim. There are times I think it's rooted in the psychology I've described.

Any absolute claim has burden of proof. That includes saying "God does not exist" (as opposed to merely "I do not believe that God exists") as well as saying "God exists" (as opposed to merely saying "I believe God exists".)

[Leafsnail]

Not possible unless they're secretly robots or something. To err with the behavior I described is more or less primitive human psychology. My inability to convince them of their own faulty psychological tenancies seems rooted in said faulty behavior. The more I press, the thicker their heads too. Almost reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They deny the existence of any possibility of a psychological disability that may or may not be influencing their behavior, yet it's the very disability they'll readily point out in others.

I'm not sure if you're being tautological here.  Maybe it's not possible to eliminate group mentality completely, but it's certainly possible to have it to varying degrees, and it's possible to have it to a moderate level or an excessive level.  There's nothing hypocritical about engaging in a behaviour in a small and in your view harmless way (especially if it's a behaviour that cannot be helped) and criticising other people for doing it to a much greater (and possibly harmful) extent.  For instance, it's possible to drink in moderation and still criticise those that get completely smashed every night.

So... yes, they may engage in "the same behaviour", but that doesn't mean they do it to the same degree as the people they're criticising.

You see this in everything from politics to bitch fights between scientists... and of course religion and anti-theism/anti-religion. EVERYONE is predisposed to this. However if they're in over their head with it, good luck convincing them it even applies to them or exists at all.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "bitch fights" - apart from being very clearly sexist terminology, it seems to belittle the role of argument and debate in science.  If everyone agreed and noone made any effort in fighting each others' theories, the scientific process would go nowhere (and indeed, wouldn't be the scientific process at all).

[Cthulhu]

Luckily I've noticed that a lot of the hardcore anti-theists have done very little real thought on the subject outside of absorbing whatever they heard from Richard Dawkins, and since on the internet it's easy to just run away and quickly push hard questions out of your head, it doesn't take much of a fight to make them disappear.

[G-Flex]

Luckily I've noticed that a lot of the hardcore anti-theists have done very little real thought on the subject outside of absorbing whatever they heard from Richard Dawkins, and since on the internet it's easy to just run away and quickly push hard questions out of your head, it doesn't take much of a fight to make them disappear.

That's true of most people who strongly subscribe to pretty much any belief structure or social group, to be fair.

[Bohandas]

The lack of evidence for God is very easily explained

[Criptfeind]

The sad part is that might really be true.