Burden of Proof: where it lies

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The question of the burden of proof arises frequently in discussing a claim. I would advance the following proposition. (A) The burden of proof for a given intellectual community generally is on the historically newer claim.

Reasons:

(1) “Burden of proof” is a technical expression in the sphere of argumentation and persuasion given the social, dialogic, and historically-conditioned nature of human knowledge and its advancement. In this field proposition (A) is overwhelmingly held. See appended quotes as examples of the common view.

(2) The “burden of proof” falls under argumentation, not epistemology. It is not the same as the principle of sufficient reason even though the bare words “burden of proof” could be taken to mean that principle. It is in the technical sense that I use “burden of proof” and it is here that the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof lies.

(3) It is widely claimed that the burden of proof is on the party making the positive/affirmative claim. However this is ambiguous at best and false at worst. Because:
(a) In debate the “affirmative” side bears the burden of proof. But here the affirmative side advances the newer claim or policy, etc., which is not necessarily an affirmative proposition as in logic.
(b) “The earth revolves around the sun” is an affirmative claim. It does not bear the burden of proof today in our intellectual community.
“The earth does not revolve around the sun” is a negative claim. It would bear the burden of proof today.
Another example. Scientists first noticed that the total amount of ordinary matter and energy did not account for the dynamics and the play of forces in the universe. They went on to advance the new negative proposition: “The total amount of ordinary matter and energy does not account for the dynamics and the play of forces in the universe.” And, since the burden of proof was accordingly on them, they defended it. Only then and based on that negative claim did scientists later propose the affirmative hypothesis regarding the existence of dark matter and energy.

(4) The reasons for an older claim (status quo) are already known and accepted. Subsequently a sufficient reason (or an apparent one) has been discovered to reject the former conviction in favor of something else newer. However this evidence (sufficient reasons, proof) must be presented (burden) to and defended against those holding the older claim for the newer assertion to be accepted and the community advance toward truth.
Consider the idea of spontaneous generation overthrown in Redi’s famous experiments. If Redi said to the spontaneous generation crowd: “I think you’re mistaken. Prove to me spontaneous generation is true.” What good would that do? They would just repeat what they already maintain based on what they already think proves their claims. It falls upon Redi to show the evidence he has discovered for his newer claim if they are to move forward toward the truth. If he meets their objections, then they can abandon the older position in favor of his claims.

Thoughts?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

“For any argument, the subject should be phrased that the affirmative makes the attack, advocates something new, or attempts to overthrow something which is established; in other words, so that the affirmative has the burden of proof.”
(William Trufant Foster, Argumentation and Debating. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1908, p. 9.)

. . . the side which has the affirmative of the issue in a debate is said to have the burden of proof. That is the burden of proof is upon him who would change a present custom, who attacks one’s character or motives, who proposes a change in the established order of things, who champions a new plan or policy, who argues counter to the prevailing practice, belief, or opinion. . . . we might say that “whatever is, is right”–until proven wrong.
(Edwin DuBois Shurter, How to Debate. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1917, p. 53.)

“The proposition [to be debated] should be stated as to place the burden of proof on the affirmative. The presumption favors the status quo. . . . The concept of presumption does not mean that the present policy is the best possible policy, or even that it is a good policy. It merely indicates that the established policy is the status quo: it is in effect, and will continue in effect until changed–until someone presents good and sufficient reason for changing it. The same concept applies to any presently accepted value or fact.”
(Austin J. Freely, Argumentation and Debate. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1971, p. 32.)

According to the most correct use of the term, “Presumption” in favor of any supposition, means, not (as has been sometimes erroneously imagined) a preponderance of probability in its favor, but, such a preoccupation of the ground, as implies that it must stand good till sufficient reason is adduced against it; in short, the Burden of proof lies on the side of him who would dispute it.
. . . .
There is a “Presumption” against anything paradoxical, i.e., contrary to prevailing opinion: it may be true; but the Burden of proof lies with him who maintains it; since men are not to be expected to abandon prevailing belief till some reason is shown.
(Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric. New York: Sheldon & Company, Publishers, 1863, pp. 139, 142) [Excuse his dated use of “preoccupation” and “paradoxical.”] Italics are his.

From the judicial perspective presumption favors the status quo. That is, the existing state of affairs will continue until good and sufficient reason is given for changing it. In debates using the judicial perspective, the presumption favors the status quo and the affirmative has the burden of proof–the risk of the proposition. Because change involves risk (and cost), the advocates of change must prove that it is worthwhile to take the risk. The advocates who affirm the proposition are required to prove their case.
(Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg. Argumentation and Debate. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009, p. 51) bold in original.

Shifting the burden of proof is a specialized form of argumentum ad ignorantiam. It consists of putting forward a proposition without justification, on the basis that the audience must disprove it if it is to be rejected.
Normally we take it that the new position must have supporting evidence or reason adduced in its favor by the person who introduces it. When we are instead required to produce arguments against it, he commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
. . . .
In fact the onus is on the person who wishes to change the status quo to supply reasons. He has to show why our present practices and beliefs are somehow inadequate, and why his proposal would be superior.
(Madsen Pirie. How to Win Every Argument. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006, pp. 149, 150)

The general statement that the affirmative has the burden of proof is true. But the statement that the burden of proof shifts is not true. To clear up the matter it is necessary to distinguish between the burden of proof and the duty of producing evidence. The burden of proving a proposition, of winning or losing, always rests with the affirmative, and is assumed at the outset. When the affirmative asserts a proposition and produces evidence in support of it, the negative must then produce evidence or lose. The burden of final proof still rests on the affirmative, but the duty of producing evidence has shifted to the negative, for it must meet the evidence of the affirmative. The burden of producing evidence, then, is always on the party [44] who would lose if no further evidence were produced, and it may shift from one to the other. At the outset the burden of proof and the duty of producing evidence are both on the affirmative, but as soon as the affirmative has made a prima facie case the duty of producing evidence falls on the negative.
(Joseph Villiers Denney, Carson S. Duncan, Frank C. McKinney, Argumentation and Debate. New York: American Book Company, 1910, pp. 43-44)

Almost every topic for a school debate is a proposition of value or a proposition of policy. That is, it is a statement that asserts the value or worth of something or that some course of action should be followed—some new policy should be adopted.
. . .
The burden of proof is the primary rule of any argument or debate. It first requires the affirmative to bear the burden of proving the proposition. Subsequently, it requires every speaker to support every assertion made by that speaker.
[Jon M. Ericson, James J. Murphy, Raymund Bud Zeuschner, *The Debater’s Guide. 3rd ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003, pp. 5, 20]

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

I would advance the following proposition. (A) The burden of proof for a given intellectual community generally is on the historically newer claim.

An interesting proposition. One potential problem with it that comes to mind is that, if we follow this historical rule, the burden of proof will always be on Christianity, for exampe, in any discussion with Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, pre-socratic thought, etc. That strikes me as being a bit arbitrary.

Another potential problem might be that new arguments founded on solid, first-principles would be required to carry the burden of proof against older, more dubious claims.

I’ll keep mulling it over…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

An interesting proposition. One potential problem with it that comes to mind is that, if we follow this historical rule, the burden of proof will always be on Christianity, for exampe, in any discussion with Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, pre-socratic thought, etc. That strikes me as being a bit arbitrary.

Thanks for the discussion.

First, it might help to note that it is the Judeo-Christian tradition to which we belong. It spans more time including possible prior interactions.

Secondly, for discussion with those intellectual communities within the living religious traditions you reference I think, in general, we would bear the burden of proof. Paul, I would say, operates out of that view given the arguments he uses regarding both Jews and Gentiles, especially his speech at Athens in Acts. Conversely, a member of their community would have to make the case in a discussion challenging a Christian community on some point.

Islam, in the Quran, attempts to make the case with respect to Christianity which preceeded it.

Another potential problem might be that new arguments founded on solid, first-principles would be required to carry the burden of proof against older, more dubious claims.

I think that that is the nature of the beast. See the section on Redi at the end of my initial post.
IOW what good would it do for the new arguments you mention to ask the proponents old claim to prove their point? We and they alread know their dubious claims and reasons: all they will do is repeat them. There will be no movement forward in the truth until we present the reasons we have discoverd for departing from their position.

I’ll keep mulling it over…

Thanks. I think it is a fascinating discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

The burden of proof depends on the nature of the subject. If it’s one for which there is conclusive evidence - like the heliocentric theory - the onus is obviously on the dissenter. If it’s a metaphysical theory - like theism or physicalism - the burden of proof is **initially **on both sides. However if the theory conflicts with established social norms and principles - like the legal presumption of individual responsibility for one’s actions - the burden of proof rests with the physicalist who needs to explain how his theory is consistent with belief in individual responsibility when it implies that all human behaviour is determined by physical causes.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The burden of proof depends on the nature of the subject. If it’s one for which there is conclusive evidence - like the heliocentric theory - the onus is obviously on the dissenter. If it’s a metaphysical theory - like theism or physicalism - the burden of proof is **initially **on both sides. However if the theory conflicts with established social norms and principles - like the legal presumption of individual responsibility for one’s actions - the burden of proof rests with the physicalist who needs to explain how his theory is consistent with belief in individual responsibility when it implies that all human behaviour is determined by physical causes.

I would argue that regardless of the subject, it does no good to ask the status quo to prove its position in the face of a newer claim/discovery/insight. All it will do is repeat what everybody knows it maintains and no advance in the truth can be made by the status quo, because the newer claim has not presented the evidence for its departure.

Physicalism, especially as developed now being essentially the absolutizing the scientific method and its results, is definitely the newer position over theism which includes the metaphysical tradition (undestood philosophically) going back to Plato and Aristotle. Theistic humanism is at the root of the Western intellectual tradition–a tradition which gave birth historically and, in many ways, theoretically to the Scientific Revolution and to the natural sciences and the scientific method as understood today.

 

[samiam1611]

I agree with Tony that the who has the burden of proof depends on the nature of the subject. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so forth. In some cases Fr of Jazz you are right, but not in all cases.
Especially in more primitive/ancient cultures:
if it is generally accepted by a group of people that rain is caused by the Goddess Hkekewkfi crying, and then someone comes along and says, but wait, what if those rain drops are coming from those clouds bc the cloud couldn’t hold that much water, I’d say that while the guy claiming rain comes from clouds need to have some evidence for this, the rest of the tribe, who believes it is caused by a invisible woman crying has more of the burden of proof. So while you can’t just come up with a contradictory claim and expect everyone to believe it without evidence, it really depends on the nature of the subject to determine who has the greater burden of proof.
A new, innovative idea/explanation presents a good opportunity for the older, accepted claim to be re-evaluated with a critical eye.
It just depends though.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I agree with Tony that the who has the burden of proof depends on the nature of the subject. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so forth. In some cases Fr of Jazz you are right, but not in all cases.
Especially in more primitive/ancient cultures:
if it is generally accepted by a group of people that rain is caused by the Goddess Hkekewkfi crying, and then someone comes along and says, but wait, what if those rain drops are coming from those clouds bc the cloud couldn’t hold that much water, I’d say that while the guy claiming rain comes from clouds need to have some evidence for this, the rest of the tribe, who believes it is caused by a invisible woman crying has more of the burden of proof. So while you can’t just come up with a contradictory claim and expect everyone to believe it without evidence, it really depends on the nature of the subject to determine who has the greater burden of proof.
A new, innovative idea/explanation presents a good opportunity for the older, accepted claim to be re-evaluated with a critical eye.
It just depends though.

I would argue that your example supports my point. The member who came along and proposed the counter mechanism for rain and explanation to the primitive tribe in your scenario had and met the burden of proof (as did Redi in my initial post). Once this is done the tribe (or spontaneous generation crowd) does have the burden to rebut. When this isn’t met, your primitive budding scientist (or Redi) has the day. I don’t see how subject matter enters in or how an intellectual community advances forward in the truth beyond the status quo on any subject unless proof for the new idea is presented, i.e., the discovery/rational/evidence/insight that led one to the departure in the first place.

 

[tonyrey]

I would argue that regardless of the subject, it does no good to ask the status quo to prove its position in the face of a newer claim/discovery/insight. All it will do is repeat what everybody knows it maintains and no advance in the truth can be made by the status quo, because the newer claim has not presented the evidence for its departure.

If the original explanation is true it is likely to reveal some weakness in the new one because they both refer to the same events. There is generally some way of comparing how they correspond to reality, cohere with existing knowledge and have practical consequences.

Physicalism, especially as developed now being essentially the absolutizing the scientific method and its results, is definitely the newer position over theism which includes the metaphysical tradition (undestood philosophically) going back to Plato and Aristotle. Theistic humanism is at the root of the Western intellectual tradition–a tradition which gave birth historically and, in many ways, theoretically to the Scientific Revolution and to the natural sciences and the scientific method as understood today.

I agree and to that extent it undermines the claim of physicalism to be the sole explanation of reality!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

If the original explanation is true it is likely to reveal some weakness in the new one because they both refer to the same events. There is generally some way of comparing how they correspond to reality, cohere with existing knowledge and have practical consequences.

Once the new claim has met the burden of proof, the status quo has the burden to rebut. At this point, in the scenario you offer, the new claim will be shown to be baseless or in need of better justification and must “go back to the drawing board.” The new claim only stands if the status quo is unable to justify itself as was the case with Redi.

I agree and to that extent it undermines the claim of physicalism to be the sole explanation of reality!

The scientific method =SM] as a method is fine and yields true scientific results or scientific results that are true. And many physicalist claims, such as those in realization physicalism, can assist results gained by the SM. But the further claim, either theoretically or practically as a policy, that physicalism exclusively accounts for all reality or the SM exclusively is sufficient for all reality as far as true statements about reality go is a new philosophical claim by definition and must be justified on philosophical grounds.

 

[tonyrey]

Once the new claim has met the burden of proof, the status quo has the burden to rebut. At this point, in the scenario you offer, the new claim will be shown to be baseless or in need of better justification and must “go back to the drawing board.” The new claim only stands if the status quo is unable to justify itself as was the case with Redi.

I agree - although often there is dispute about whether it has met the burden of proof.

 

[NonServiam]

The question of the burden of proof arises frequently in discussing a claim. I would advance the following proposition. (A) The burden of proof for a given intellectual community generally is on the historically newer claim.

Generally speaking, this is true, if only because “intellectual communities” generally reach consensus on issues (based on evidence) and that new claims – i.e. claims that propose something different from the consensus – are affirmative claims that need to justify themselves before they can be accepted.

But that’s practically self-evident. You don’t need exhaustive quotes to demonstrate this.

Perhaps where you’re going with this – since this is the philosophy section of a religious forum – is the question of “Burden of Proof” that often comes up between theists and atheists.

Typically, atheists argue that the burden of proof falls on the party making the affirmative claim (“A god exists”), not on the party that does not accept the affirmative claim (“I don’t believe your claim that a god exists”). And atheists are absolutely right to argue that. Before any individual can accept a claim, that individual starts in the non-belief position and has to hear the evidence for it, and if he feels the evidence is not sufficient, then he remains in the non-belief position.

It’s the same for any type of claim. If you come to me and tell me that you built a flying car, I’m initially in the non-belief position. I’ll ask you for the evidence, but if you present insufficient evidence, then I remain in the non-belief position. I don’t need to present my own evidence in order to continue not to believe it.

Now, it’s true that if I wanted to convince you not to believe the claim, I would have to engage in discourse, but I still wouldn’t have a burden of proof. I would have the burden to provide rational explanation for why your evidence falls short of being sufficient for your claim. I wouldn’t need my own evidence – just an explanation of why your evidence doesn’t meet the burden of proof.

To go back to the initial point, if someone entered an intellectual field and was able to give solid, cogent reasons for thinking that the evidence for a generally-accepted claim was insufficient, then a new debate would begin in the field, and a lot of people would begin to doubt or even not believe in the generally-accepted claim. And again, this newcomer wouldn’t need new evidence of his own to do this. The burden of proof would still absolutely fall on the affirmative claim (the original, generally-accepted claim), but when it comes to rational discourse that attempts to convince people, the newcomer would have the responsibility of providing cogent reasons that the affirmative claim does not meet its burden of proof.

 

[You]

It’s the same for any type of claim. If you come to me and tell me that you built a flying car, I’m initially in the non-belief position. I’ll ask you for the evidence, but if you present insufficient evidence, then I remain in the non-belief position. I don’t need to present my own evidence in order to continue not to believe it.

I wonder why we always go to extremes and ridicule in examples. If I said to you we are going on vacation you would not meet this proposition from the position of non-belief. You would say, great, I believe. If someone offered you eternal life freely one might expect a similar, great. There is no reason I can think of for non-belief in vacations and eternal life.

 

[samiam1611]

I wonder why we always go to extremes and ridicule in examples. If I said to you we are going on vacation you would not meet this proposition from the position of non-belief. You would say, great, I believe. If someone offered you eternal life freely one might expect a similar, great. There is no reason I can think of for non-belief in vacations and eternal life.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Going on vacation is not an extraordinary claim so it does not require much or any evidence to believe. And I see no reason to believe in eternal life. The belief in eternal life is not derived from reason or observation. It is derived from Revelation.

 

[davidv]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Going on vacation is not an extraordinary claim so it does not require much or any evidence to believe.

This simply not true. Very simple things can be evidence of very extraordinary things.

Example: After the resurection, Jesus is described as eating (ordinary). This is evidence of the resurection (extraordinary).

All one needs to do In order to disbelieve is to dismiss the evidence, whether ordinary or not.

 

[You]

… And I see no reason to believe in eternal life. .

But what reason would you expect to see and why would you reject an idea you don’t expect to see. If an offer of something good is made is there any reason you should reject it. Not seeing it before it is promised is hardly a reason for rejection.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Generally speaking, this is true, if only because “intellectual communities” generally reach consensus on issues (based on evidence) and that new claims – i.e. claims that propose something different from the consensus – are affirmative claims that need to justify themselves before they can be accepted.

But that’s practically self-evident. You don’t need exhaustive quotes to demonstrate this.

New claims bearing the burden of proof have been and can be negative. I provided examples.

Typically, atheists argue that the burden of proof falls on the party making the affirmative claim (“A god exists”), not on the party that does not accept the affirmative claim (“I don’t believe your claim that a god exists”). And atheists are absolutely right to argue that. Before any individual can accept a claim, that individual starts in the non-belief position and has to hear the evidence for it, and if he feels the evidence is not sufficient, then he remains in the non-belief position.

It’s the same for any type of claim. If you come to me and tell me that you built a flying car, I’m initially in the non-belief position. I’ll ask you for the evidence, but if you present insufficient evidence, then I remain in the non-belief position. I don’t need to present my own evidence in order to continue not to believe it.

The flying car is a new claim. The default position is the new claim must prove itself.

Agreed for someone preaching to or teaching an individual atheist (someone who asserts “there is no God or gods”) about theism or an individual teaching a given group of atheists. So atheists are right to argue that before any atheist “can accept a claim, that individual starts in the non-belief position and has to hear the evidence for it, and if he feels the evidence is not sufficient, then he remains in the non-belief position.”

But atheism is far in the extreme from the default situation in history. The vast majority of situations are discussion about one form of theism over another, deepening ones participation in a theism already possessed, discussion with someone who has just not even given the God question much thought, or an agnostic.

The notion that the default human position in history regarding the God question is atheism or that it should be so is not backed by any evidence I know of and far from historical reality. If anything history shows that a sense of the divine pervades human experience.

Now, it’s true that if I wanted to convince you not to believe the claim, I would have to engage in discourse, but I still wouldn’t have a burden of proof. I would have the burden to provide rational explanation for why your evidence falls short of being sufficient for your claim. I wouldn’t need my own evidence – just an explanation of why your evidence doesn’t meet the burden of proof.

Same burden of proof, different new claim. Your new claim is that there is insufficient evidence for the status quo claim; and, as you outlined, you met the burden. You wouldn’t need your own evidence of the existence of something else because you never claimed it in the first place.

This in fact is the position of atheism as an intellectual current vis-à-vis the status quo Western tradition of theistic humanism. Even the name is a privative: a-theism. Atheists claim a particular new insight into the human condition, new level of consciousness: it is more reasonable to dispense with the conviction that God exists. I operate on the belief they are sincere people of integrity. Virtually all proponents of atheism as we know it (e.g., d’Holbach, Comte, Feuerbach) acknowledge atheism as a later and superior (in their view) development in history for the reasons they offer.

Contemporary atheism has departed from the one of the foundational components of western civilization, theism, and the virtually universal experience of humankind from time immemorial. Theists as part of that immemorial living tradition down to this day already think they have good reasons for their convictions–and have so for eons. Atheists say “Not so.” Theists say “Fine, why, then, is it more reasonable to abandon this theistic tradition?” That’s the burden of proof.

I’ve hardly ever seen an attempt to meet it.

What I all too often see the unspoken absolutizing of the scientific method to ascertain true statements about reality, switching the burden of proof, and demanding that theists prove to the satisfaction of the scientific method that God, who is by definition immaterial and ex professo outside of the scientific method, exists.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

To go back to the initial point, if someone entered an intellectual field and was able to give solid, cogent reasons for thinking that the evidence for a generally-accepted claim was insufficient, then a new debate would begin in the field, and a lot of people would begin to doubt or even not believe in the generally-accepted claim. And again, this newcomer wouldn’t need new evidence of his own to do this. The burden of proof would still absolutely fall on the affirmative claim (the original, generally-accepted claim), but when it comes to rational discourse that attempts to convince people, the newcomer would have the responsibility of providing cogent reasons that the affirmative claim does not meet its burden of proof.

The status quo claim may be negative. E.g., an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Again in the scenario you offer above the person advocating the new (negative) claim has and has attempted to meet the burden of proof for their particular claim (there is not sufficient evidence . . .). Then the burden of rebuttal falls on status quo.

A sufficient rebuttal can be that the newcomer has applied criteria that are unsuited to the subject matter.

For example, take creationists’ claims that evolutionary processes in human development discussed by science are false because they contradict the clear teaching of Genesis. All one needs to do is show that they are using an inadequate and in appropriate criteria for judging the veracity of scientific claims. That has been done in recent trials over school curriculums.

Frequently, regarding atheists’ attempts within your scenario, the rebuttal is, again, that assuming and/or absolutizing the scientific method or physicalism or materialism as exclusively sufficient characterizations of reality and requiring theists to prove to the satisfaction of that method that God exists is assuming what is to be proven. The method itself is materialistic and by definition when absolutized rules out God. Yet the grounds for absolutizing it are not given.

 

[NonServiam]

I wonder why we always go to extremes and ridicule in examples.

Because extreme examples test our assertions. If your assertions are true in the most extreme cases, then they will likely be true in nearly all other cases.

If I said to you we are going on vacation you would not meet this proposition from the position of non-belief. You would say, great, I believe.

I wasn’t clear on this point.

All claims have to be justified by evidence before we can rationally accept them. However, in day-to-day life, it would be too exhausting and impractical to go through a long process of investigation of everything you hear. So we develop a heuristic we use on a daily basis to quickly analyze claims. Claims that we determine to be “ordinary,” based on our experience, we usually accept on others’ say-so (or at least grant for the sake of argument). Claims we determine to be “extraordinary,” again based on our experience, we usually insist on seeing the evidence for before we accept them. In other words, we typically don’t grant extraordinary claims for the sake of argument.

So indeed, if you told me you were going on a vacation, I would have no problem accepting that for the purposes of conversation. Even if you were lying about it or mistaken, I’d be willing to grant it in order to have a conversation about what your plans are, to compare them to vacations I’ve had, etc…in that situation, the conversation is what counts; the truth of your claim isn’t all that important.

Now, if you told me you were going on vacation to the moon, then I would not just accept it, but I would insist we go through the entire process of rational inquiry. I’d demand to see evidence, etc.

If someone offered you eternal life freely one might expect a similar, great. There is no reason I can think of for non-belief in vacations and eternal life.

As I explained, non-belief is the default position unless you’re convinced by evidence. In many day-to-day situations, we waive the requirement for looking at the evidence when the claims strike us as ordinary.

“You can have eternal life” is not, for me, an ordinary claim. For me, it’s up there with “I’m going on vacation to the moon.” So I’m going to remain in the default position of non-belief until someone provides some pretty compelling evidence.

If an offer of something good is made is there any reason you should reject it.?]

Yes, if the offer is something extraordinary with absolutely no evidence to suggest that it’s true.

Your premise that “good offers” should be accepted without question is ludicrous. Consider this good offer: “I have inherited five million dollars, but I need a way to get it out of my country. If you send me your bank account information, I’ll wire the money to you and let you keep some of it as a fee for helping me out.”

Variations of that scam e-mail were circulating the internet a decade or two ago, and lots of suckers fell for it because they didn’t question whether the “good offer” was true or not.

Now, again, ordinary offers I would be perfectly happy to accept. If my friend said he wanted to buy me a beer, of course I’m going to believe that (especially if I have the evidence of my past interactions with my friend that demonstrate him to be trustworthy). But if my friend offered to call in his alien friends to take me for a ride in their space ship over Disney Land, I most certainly would not believe that, no matter how much of a “good offer” it sounds like.

Truth can’t be confirmed by how good an offer sounds…it can only be confirmed through reason and evidence.

 

[NonServiam]

The notion that the default human position in history regarding the God question is atheism or that it should be so is not backed by any evidence I know of and far from historical reality. If anything history shows that a sense of the divine pervades human experience.

Obviously, most people who have lived have been theists of some kind or another.

My point is that in any particular discussion of the subject, the default posiiton for a rational investigator of the claim is non-belief until evidence compels him to accept the claim. Now, if I’m talking to a theist, presumably that theist has already reviewed the evidence in the past and moved from non-belief into a position of belief because of the evidence. The theist and I, then, can talk about whether the evidence was actually sufficient to support the claim or not. But the burden of proof remains on the party making the affirmative claim (“There is a god”).

Same burden of proof, different new claim. Your new claim is that there is insufficient evidence for the status quo claim; and, as you outlined, you met the burden. You wouldn’t need your own evidence of the existence of something else because you never claimed it in the first place.

As far as I’m concerned, this is just a language game. It’s simpler to represent the discussion as a disagreement about whether claim X has met its burden of proof. You think it has because here is the evidence and here are the reasons that this evidence supports the claim and meets the burden of proof. I think it hasn’t because here are the reasons that the evidence you just presented doesn’t meet the burden of proof.

Contemporary atheism has departed from the one of the foundational components of western civilization, theism, and the virtually universal experience of humankind from time immemorial. Theists as part of that immemorial living tradition down to this day already think they have good reasons for their convictions–and have so for eons.

You’re equivocating. First you were talking about evaluating claims, like having good reason to believe the claim “A god exists.” Now, you’re talking about having good reasons to be part of a “living tradition.” They’re different things.

Of course theists have good reason to be part of a tradition: it is part of our society, after all, and in many cases, religious groups provide a lot of good things for the community. It provides people with a sense of a belonging, well-being, it provides relief for those in need, it provides social events and companionship, etc. Obviously, people have very good reasons for being part of this living tradition.

But that’s totally different from the question of whether or not the claim underlying this “living tradition” is true. A very useful living tradition can be nominally built around a false claim. Whether or not the god claim is true, organizations and communities like that would still be useful, and people would still have good reason to be part of them.

So before we can really talk about this subject, we have to be in agreement about what it is we’re talking about. We’re not debating whether people have good reason to be part of a nice community because, quite obviously, there’s nothing to debate there. The debate is about whether the factual claim that the community is nominally organized around is true.

That there is a spiffy “living tradition” that is nominally organized around the claim tells us precisely nothing about whether or not the claim is true.

The reason you’ve probably seen few attempts to meet this supposed “burden of proof” you’ve dreamed up is that this particular “burden of proof” exists only in your head. No one interested in talking about the truth of god claims has any rational obligation to meet an entirely dreamt-up burden.