Burden of Proof - Part 2

[Aloysium]

Which are all red herrings to the original topic.

I don’t know why you want to do this but ok.

This is an article from Psychology Today written by Dr. David Kyle Johnson

psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i

It is basically saying “Since theists demand the Big Bang needs an explanation, God would need an explanation as well. Saying he doesn’t need one is a double standard. Since he can’t be explained, there is no evidence that He exists, thus there is not logical reason to believe”

Here is a paragraph from the actual article:

**Of course, theists will likely reply that they are not just saying God doesn’t need an explanation, but that by definition he doesn’t because by definition he is the greatest being, and the greatest being can’t have an explanation. (Anything that explains God would be greater.) It’s not clear to me that this is the case; but even so, the basic rule of logic that, in debates on existential matters, the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive existential claim is true regardless of whether the entity in question is unexplained or self-explained. For example, if someone suggested the existence of an alien race that created itself through time travel (by traveling back in time and seeding its own race), I would still demand they provided evidence for such beings before I believed. In addition, I could maintain that there is an infinite number of universes, each of which exists inexplicably—without cause or explanation. Yet to rationally believe that any other such universe exists, I would demand evidence.

All in all, atheists are not being irrational by justifying their atheism simply in a lack of evidence for God’s existence, any more than I am being irrational in justifying “a-bigfootism” in a lack of evidence for Bigfoot.**

What is the rebuttal?

Let’s see. Although the author is a philosopher, he did have his article published in Psychology Today, a popular magazine whose readership would not put it to the same rigorous scrutiny as those who subscribe to professional journals. The audience for this piece would be interested in motivations.

So, I’m really not out of line to suggest that irrationality may lie at the foundation of atheistic belief. The consensus of psychologists, I’m sure, would not disagree with the contention that there exists only a veneer of rationality atop the raging instincts that form the larger unconscious reality of the “human animal”. I would suggest that the author’s view that it is not irrational to justify one’s atheism as being held because of a lack of evidence, is psychologically unsound. There are emotional reasons for one’s beliefs which have nothing to do with reason. If a person is content not knowing why they believe what they do, if they want to fortify their intellectualization as a defence against fear, it’s up to them I suppose. I’m too lazy to check on what response the article had. But, skeptics being skeptical of all but their own beliefs, I would guess that it met with approval.

I don’t think my comments are a derailing of this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, Bradski, one of the most active atheists in this sub forum has, for the most part, refrained from using the bad things done in the name of religion as an argument for the validity of his position.

True, dat.

But he also often appeals to a sister of the above argument: there are so many disagreements among religious people over doctrine therefore…[religion can’t be true].

So I propose: there are so many disagreements among scientific people over scientific doctrine therefore…[science can’t be true].

OR…we can agree: we can’t conclude anything at all about a particular epistemology’s truth just because there are disagreements among advocates of this particular epistemology.

That there is counterfeit money does not mean real money doesn’t exist, right?

 

[Tomdstone]

Einstein’s wisdom came too late. He surely opposed the advancement of nuclear weapons, but was himself one of their essential promoters with FDR. We may fairly surmise that his letters to FDR sealed the deal.

Was he wrong to fear that the Nazis would develop the atomic bomb? Why would it have been better to let the Nazis have the atomic bomb and the US not ?

 

[Mort_Alz]

I don’t know why you want to do this but ok.

Let’s see. Although the author is a philosopher, he did have his article published in Psychology Today, a popular magazine whose readership would not put it to the same rigorous scrutiny as those who subscribe to professional journals. The audience for this piece would be interested in motivations.

So, I’m really not out of line to suggest that irrationality may lie at the foundation of atheistic belief. The consensus of psychologists, I’m sure, would not disagree with the contention that there exists only a veneer of rationality atop the raging instincts that form the larger unconscious reality of the “human animal”. I would suggest that the author’s view that it is not irrational to justify one’s atheism as being held because of a lack of evidence, is psychologically unsound. There are emotional reasons for one’s beliefs which have nothing to do with reason. If a person is content not knowing why they believe what they do, if they want to fortify their intellectualization as a defence against fear, it’s up to them I suppose. I’m too lazy to check on what response the article had. But, skeptics being skeptical of all but their own beliefs, I would guess that it met with approval.

I don’t think my comments are a derailing of this thread.

Well, I’m clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. More power to you, I guess.

 

[Mort_Alz]

True, dat.

But he also often appeals to a sister of the above argument: there are so many disagreements among religious people over doctrine therefore…[religion can’t be true].

So I propose: there are so many disagreements among scientific people over scientific doctrine therefore…[science can’t be true].

OR…we can agree: we can’t conclude anything at all about a particular epistemology’s truth just because there are disagreements among advocates of this particular epistemology.

That there is counterfeit money does not mean real money doesn’t exist, right?

That’s true. I have seen that argument made many many times. To be frank, it looks like its a result of a despair in being unable to empirically test for the validity of one religion over another which seems to me to reflect an elementary understanding of theology.

It’s similar to Hume’s mistaken understanding that all religions reject the miracles of others, which is false. Catholics often hypothesize that the visiting Magi were Zoroastrians. They obviously had to have received some kind of revelation to have been able to locate Christ and recognize him. They obviously received some kind of accurate prophecy about him, too. They weren’t Jewish, so they are not really a part of the Judeo-Christian narrative of salvation history, but we accept that they may have received some kind of miraculous revelation through their religion of Zoroastrianism, and this acceptance is far from pluralism.

Similarly, Joseph Smith and Mohammed might very well have had supernatural experiences that prompted them to each write their respective “holy” texts. We, as Catholics, might just attribute those supernatural events to less benign sources…

 

[Mort_Alz]

But, yes. I have no idea why a multiplicity of differing opinions prohibits even one of them from being correct.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Was he wrong to fear that the Nazis would develop the atomic bomb? Why would it have been better to let the Nazis have the atomic bomb and the US not ?

Would it have been better to produce just one bomb for us so that all the rest of the world would later have them to use against each other and us in due course?

Let’s not derail this thread to a prolonged discussion of nuclear weapons. Better to start another thread if you like.

 

[PRmerger]

But, yes. I have no idea why a multiplicity of differing opinions prohibits even one of them from being correct.

Indeed.

If I post “We believe [A]”, the putative rebuttal by an atheist often is something like this: well, a Hindu might not agree with you.

Err…ok.
It’s an inutile comment, as it applies to whether [A] is true or not.

Also, a common rebuttal from the atheist is: you only believe this because you live in America.

This is also inutile.

One cannot conclude that [A] is necessarily false because someone who lives in another culture and time might not have professed [A].

If I grew up in North Korea I would believe democracy is bad.

That doesn’t mean that democracy is, actually, bad.

 

[Bradski]

If you saw a Toy Story in every household, how would you know you weren’t insane? Schitzophrenic? You say it would have to be something that is “not a one off that could be a trick or a mental aberration on the part of the observer.” But, schizophrenics experience long term faulty perception. Just because you see it as regularly as nature wouldn’t mean it wasn’t a product of your own faulty perception.

That’s strange. I was thinking exactly the same about your perception of the supernatural.

 

[Aloysium]

Well, I’m clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. More power to you, I guess.

Thanks, I think. But, I obviously have not convinced you either that beliefs are more than fodder for Internet forums. Atheism is a faith as grounded in the depths of our psyche as any other. Based on the assumption that empiricism and reason will pierce the veil of appearances, that connection to reality is held as dearly as any other. The argument that atheism is merely a lack of convincing arguments for God is disingenuous. The reality of this all boils down to what one holds to be true when alone and not in the midst of an argument, trying to make a point.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The argument that atheism is merely a lack of convincing arguments for God is disingenuous.

Disingenuous in the extreme.

There is no convincing argument for the atheist because he refuses to be convinced.

That goes much deeper than merely saying he finds no convincing arguments.

 

[Bradski]

But, yes. I have no idea why a multiplicity of differing opinions prohibits even one of them from being correct.

It doesn’t.

If there was a monetary crisis and all financial experts agreed on one solution, then I would expect that you’d be reasonable happy that an answer had been found.

If all experts differed in their opinion, quite often wildly, then how confident would you be that any one of them was correct? At the very best, you could only say that one expert might have got it right.

Do you prefer the solution that appears to have worked for you in the past? Or do you study each in detail to make sure you have the right one?

I know what almost eveyone does.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t.

If there was a monetary crisis and all financial experts agreed on one solution, then I would expect that you’d be reasonable happy that an answer had been found.

If all experts differed in their opinion, quite often wildly, then how confident would you be that any one of them was correct? At the very best, you could only say that one expert might have got it right.

Do you prefer the solution that appears to have worked for you in the past? Or do you study each in detail to make sure you have the right one?

I know what almost eveyone does.

So now we’re talking about confidence in one’s belief.

That’s different than saying there is no true belief if “all experts differ”.

 

[Tomdstone]

Einstein gave us “new knowledge” in his discovery of nuclear energy.

As in, “Nuclear bombs are wicked, therefore science is bad!”

Let’s not derail this thread to a prolonged discussion of nuclear weapons. Better to start another thread if you like.

?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

?

I was using examples to illustrate a point.

You were starting a whole new debate.

See post # 260.

 

[Lucretius]

I used to use it in my intro to logic classes.

*“Nihil est in intellectu, quod not prius fuerit in sensu.” *

What do you think, then, is the difference between St. Thomas and the empiricists?

Christi pax.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What do you think, then, is the difference between St. Thomas and the empiricists?

Christi pax.

Aquinas was more broad minded. He could think the sensible and the supra-sensible.

He was trinitarian: he could think like a rationalist, an empiricist, and a theologian.

The rank empiricists (probably most of them) tend to be more narrow minded and intolerant of any ways of thinking beyond the empirical.

How else explain the demand of empiricists that we show them proof of God?

It is always empirical proof they demand, as if God could be approached sensibly.

 

[Mort_Alz]

That’s strange. I was thinking exactly the same about your perception of the supernatural.

Oh, boy. I think you missed my point.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Indeed.

If I post “We believe [A]”, the putative rebuttal by an atheist often is something like this: well, a Hindu might not agree with you.

Err…ok.
It’s an inutile comment, as it applies to whether [A] is true or not.

Also, a common rebuttal from the atheist is: you only believe this because you live in America.

This is also inutile.

One cannot conclude that [A] is necessarily false because someone who lives in another culture and time might not have professed [A].

If I grew up in North Korea I would believe democracy is bad.

That doesn’t mean that democracy is, actually, bad.

Also, converts testify to the fact that there are reasons for believing one over another besides place of birth and upbringing.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Thanks, I think. But, I obviously have not convinced you either that beliefs are more than fodder for Internet forums. Atheism is a faith as grounded in the depths of our psyche as any other. Based on the assumption that empiricism and reason will pierce the veil of appearances, that connection to reality is held as dearly as any other. The argument that atheism is merely a lack of convincing arguments for God is disingenuous. The reality of this all boils down to what one holds to be true when alone and not in the midst of an argument, trying to make a point.

Then, I take it you have some emotional biases for believing what you do? You don’t just believe it because you are intellectually convinced?