Burden of Proof: where it lies

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I do still think (all the more) you are talking about the PSR. I brought it up because the PSR is what you are describing when you claim to be talking about the burden of proof =BoP].

Definitions:
PSR
There must be a sufficient reason for anything to exist, for any event to occur, for any truth to obtain.”
[Leibniz from Leroy Loemker, Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. 2nd ed., Reidel, 1969, p. 717.]

“And second [great principle], the principle of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we believe that no fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise.”
[Leibniz, *Monadology], 32]

Again as per your own quote from Wikipedia
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
•For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
•For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
•For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

BoP
Under my initial post are numerous quotes defining and describing the BoP from authorities on the subject. Essentially the BoP comes into play when a dispute (or argument between parties or debate) occurs, and it refers to who is required to provide the evidence of their position in the dispute so that the intellectual community involved can move forward in the truth.

I’ll sketch out my original example referring to both PSR and BoP. A claim can be affirmative or negative. Examples given in my Initial post. Another would be the discovery of Uranus by first noting and proving that its orbital dynamics did not follow Newtonian laws as did the other known plants. Given this, the existence of a new planet was postulated to account for the gravitational disturbance of Uranus’ orbit.

(1) Both participants in the debate must equally do the work of fulfilling the PSR for their position: the status quo being the intellectual community maintaining spontaneous generation and Redi.
(2) Both also must present their claim and the reasons justifying it otherwise no dialogue can take place.
(3) However, (in cases of a rationally-justified position) the status quo has already, if errantly, fulfilled (1), and, by definition, it has fulfilled (2).
(4) It is pointless to demand that the status quo intellectual community re-present its claim and reasons in the face of Redi’s claim, since it is Redi who disputes their position and justification (which are already known) with the claim of a new discovery: status quo will just repeat what it already thinks are sufficient reasons in support of its known current position.
(5) There will be no movement forward in truth for the intellectual community in question until Redi presents his newly-discovered evidence (sufficient reasons) for departing from the status quo and defends it against their objections.
(6) #5 above is in fact the burden of proof.

I’m not sure you are aware of the implications of what you are saying. Essentially, you are saying that a belief that is accepted as the status quo does not need to backed up by evidence.

I am completely aware of the implications, and as I hope you understand now, I am not at all saying what you suggest.

What I was trying to say was that all claims need to be backed up by evidence, but those claims which contradict other claims that seem to be backed up by evidence need stronger evidence than they would if they didn’t contradict competing beliefs that are supported by evidence.

Unless I am mistaken, this is what I have been saying all along.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;8437491:

Why are your posts usually irrelevant to what you are responding to? Are you trying to be evasive or are you really missing the point that often?

Can you explain why my post is irrelevant rather than make unsubstantiated allegations?

I was asking whether or not one should believe a proposition when there is no evidence that it is either true or false and there is no precedent on the issue, while your response was to say that the world is not self-explanatory. All one can say about B being an irrelevant response to A is that there is no apparent relevancy between the two, which is the case here.

If your response somehow seemed relevant to you I would like to know how you think it is relevant.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Since I think mulling over definitions may be counterproductive, I’ll just jump to the center of the issue, then come back to definitions if we can some important things out of the way:

TruthSeeker60;8437395:

What I was trying to say was that all claims need to be backed up by evidence, {snip}

Unless I am mistaken, this is what I have been saying all along.

To be clear, are we in agreement that truth claims that are affirmatively made must not be believed unless they are backed up by sufficient evidence? I think that this is the central point of this entire discussion.

I’ll continue with the rest of what you tentatively agreed to under the assumption that you agree on the previous point:

TruthSeeker60;8437395:

What I was trying to say was that all claims need to be backed up by evidence, but those claims which contradict other claims that seem to be backed up by evidence need stronger evidence than they would if they didn’t contradict competing beliefs that are supported by evidence.

Unless I am mistaken, this is what I have been saying all along.

Old truth claims that are accepted as the status quo also aught not be believed without sufficient evidence, just like new truth claims. Just because an idea is old does not necessarily mean that it is believed because it is supported by sufficient evidence. It may be believed for irrational reasons. Thus, truth claims accepted as the status quo still need to be backed up by evidence just as much as if they were not accepted as the status quo, in order for them to be rationally believed. Do you agree?

When an atheist says that a theist has the burden of proof, s/he means that the one aught not believe a god exists unless there is sufficient evidence to back up that truth claim. You could argue that “burden of proof” is the wrong phrase to use, which is where a discussion about definitions may apply.

 

[tonyrey]

I was asking whether or not one should believe a proposition when there is no evidence that it is either true or false and there is no precedent on the issue, while your response was to say that the world is not self-explanatory. All one can say about B being an irrelevant response to A is that there is no apparent relevancy between the two, which is the case here.

If your response somehow seemed relevant to you I would like to know how you think it is relevant.

You have omitted the most important part of my answer:

**One should have an open mind - **mindful of the fact that the world is not self-explanatory…

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;8437491:

Why are your posts usually irrelevant to what you are responding to? Are you trying to be evasive or are you really missing the point that often?

You have omitted the most important part of my answer:

**One should have an open mind - **mindful of the fact that the world is not self-explanatory…

Do you agree or disagree?

I emphasized the latter because you seemed to be using the former to set up the latter.

If your entire point was that people should remain open-minded to truth claims in the event that they become backed up by evidence, then your post was distracting since it dodged answering the question posed by stating something that goes without saying.

Yes, I do think that people should remain “open-minded,” meaning that one aught to be willing to consider any truth claim if there is evidence.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

To be clear, are we in agreement that truth claims that are affirmatively made must not be believed unless they are backed up by sufficient evidence? I think that this is the central point of this entire discussion.

I would agree that any truth claim, in the affirmative or the negative, must have a sufficient reason to be held. That is the PSR.

Old truth claims that are accepted as the status quo also aught not be believed without sufficient evidence, just like new truth claims.

True, although I would use “sufficient reasons” to keep within philosophical usage.

Just because an idea is old does not necessarily mean that it is believed because it is supported by sufficient evidence.

Very true, but that may not be known at the time. The reasons may seem sufficient at the time.

It may be believed for irrational reasons. Thus, truth claims accepted as the status quo still need to be backed up by evidence just as much as if they were not accepted as the status quo, in order for them to be rationally believed. Do you agree?

It’s also possible that the reasons my be rational, but insufficient. But, as I said, all truth claims held by someone must meet the PSR.

When an atheist says that a theist has the burden of proof, s/he means that the one aught not believe a god exists unless there is sufficient evidence to back up that truth claim.

Of course. That is the PSR as defined in philosophical circles.

(1) Further, I agree that if a theist approaches an atheist (or anybody for that matter) and says in effect “I think God exists and I want to convince you of it.” That theist has the burden of proof: they must produce the sufficient reasons for their claim to convince you.

(2) However the position of atheism as an intellectual current vis-à-vis the status quo Western tradition of theistic humanism is different. Atheism in this case is making the claim that it is more reasonable to abandon the theistic humanism as a worldview. So atheism or proponents of it have the burden to back up their claims. Why is it more reasonable to abandon theistic humanism as a worldview?

Put another way, 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. That is, 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 sufficient 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?” In this case atheism has the burden of proof.

You could argue that “burden of proof” is the wrong phrase to use, which is where a discussion about definitions may apply.

For myself, I would stick with the usage of the philosophical community as well as that of the debate and rhetoric community.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’ll start with your attempts to present the evidence of “religious experience”:

This is an unsubstantiated claim. You’re just declaring these experiences to be an encounter between the divine and the human – and, in the process, assuming that the divine exists, which renders your whole argument circular.
. . . .
You claim that these experiences – which are diverse, which span believers from all kinds of different religious traditions and even no religious traditions (it’s rather easy to generate these kinds of feelings in yourself via meditation, you know, even if you’re a nonbeliever), which have been used to support contradictory religious claims – are evidence that there is a “divine” interacting with humans, but these experiences demonstrate no such thing.

We know that human beings are capable of getting worked up into emotional fits over just about anything, whether it’s something they consider secular or sacred. We know that starving yourself and trying to shut off your conscious thoughts with mantra-like prayer alters your brain ways and causes trippy visions to be triggered by the brain. We know that stimulating certain spots on the brain triggers “religious” feelings and experiences.

The evidence points very strongly away from what you are suggesting: it seems that there is no indication that these experiences are encounters with non-human entities, and there is a great deal of indication that these experiences are completely natural events triggered by the normal functioning of brains (or, in some cases, brains placed under extraordinary stress or abnormal conditions).

As a trivial example, if you have any experience in meditation, you can prove to yourself in a few days that these kinds of “spiritual experience” are downright easy to generate, simply by sitting still and shutting off your conscious thoughts for a while. I’ve done it, and I don’t believe in any gods – I got that glorious, numinous, “one-with-everything” feeling.

Whoop-dee-do. It’s a feeling.

A feeling you have, no matter how strong, cannot demonstrate that an entity outside of you exists objectively in reality.

Please understand that I’m not “absolutizing” the physical or insisting on learning everything through “science.” I’m starting from the phenomenon that you want to claim is evidence, and I’m showing you why it’s insufficient to support the claim “a god exists.”

I appreciate your taking up the challenge to back up atheism’s claims and meet the burden of proof. I look forward to the discussion. However, IMHO there are two templates that you seem to have stock answers for that do not obtain in this discussion but you keep trying to impose on it: (1) that I am trying to convince you, an atheist, that God exists, and (2) that I identify religious experience =RE] with feelings.

(1) I am not initiating a conversation to convince you that God exists. If I were initiating a conversation to convince you (an atheist) that God exists, I would bear the burden of proof for the claim that “a god exists” and I would include metaphysical arguments. In reality I am asking you to back atheism’s public claim that it is more reasonable for one to abandon the Western tradition of theistic humanism as a worldview. I initiated a philosophical conversation on the burden of proof in general.

(2) I do not identify religious experience with feelings, as I expressly said and as my definition of RE makes clear. Also, as is abundantly clear from my definition, I do not identify RE with one time or isolated feelings, or with an emotional state induced or not, temporary or over time. Also, as per #1, I am not invoking RE to prove to you that God exists. I described the intuition involved and methods of verification in the theism as what I use.

It’s disappointing that your response takes into consideration and address almost nothing of what I actually said or took the time to spell out.

Further, I repeat: psychologizing works both ways. I gave examples.

And I repeat we could not even talk about the aberrations you bring up as aberrations if we as human beings did not see our way through them to identify them as such. Religious writers make the same observations about aberrant phenomena in religious life in relation to the true reality of God and see their way through them. If your grip on the evidential force of reality as you define it through rigorous evaluation is acceptable, why is theirs not? Because it is religious? That implicit presumption simply rephrases the atheist claim without any proof at all. This truly would be assuming what is to be proven.

You mention Please understand that I’m not “absolutizing” the physical or insisting on learning everything through “science.” I accept your sincerity. Spell things out for me though. If your methods are not physicalist or scientific, do you accept metaphysics as traditionally defined? Do you acknowledge immaterial features in reality? “Immaterial” meaning any reality or feature of reality that in its nature, existence, and activity is intrinsically independent of matter and is not composed of parts spatially distinct from one another. Is the mind only an epiphenomena or emergent property of the brain or reducible to brain activity, or is it immaterial? Why or why not? By what method of evaluation? One modeled after objects in space-time? Or broader?

Last, you need to address the methodological considerations I mentioned under the domain of religious experience. God is not understood by theists as an object spatially related to human body like a car across the street. God, defined as the being than which none greater can be conceived, is immaterial. The relational model lived out in theism is interpersonal not spatial. I welcome all critique, but you have to critique what theists actually hold.

 

[NonServiam]

I am not initiating a conversation to convince you that God exists. …] I am asking you to back atheism’s public claim that it is more reasonable for one to abandon the Western tradition of theistic humanism as a worldview.

With all due respect, this is a ridiculous two-step you’re doing here.

I’ve already said that the reason atheists say it’s “more reasonable” to abandon god beliefs is that no god belief has ever met the burden of proof that it has.

Now I can certainly defend that position, but the only way I can possibly defend it – and the only way we can have a rational discussion about it – is if we talk about whether or not god claims have met their burden of proof.

Look, I’m perfectly willing to have this conversation with you. But we have to proceed one point at a time, and we have to be sure we’re in agreement on a particular point before moving on to the next. So let’s start here: do you accept what I’ve said so far? Do you accept that the claim “A god exists” has a burden of proof and that what our conversation boils down to is a discussion about whether or not that claim has met its burden of proof (since, if it is has not met its burden of proof, then – by definition – abandoning the claim is the most reasonable course of action)?

If you answer in the affirmative, I will move on to the next point. If not, we will continue to discuss this point until an agreement is reached and then – and only then – will I move on to your next point.

 

[tonyrey]

You have omitted the most important part of my answer:

What do you mean by “set up”?

If your entire point was that people should remain open-minded to truth claims in the event that they become backed up by evidence, then your post was distracting since it dodged answering the question posed by stating something that goes without saying.

How does it dodge the question of where the burden of proof rests?
If the evidence is inconclusive the burden of proof rests on both sides.

Yes, I do think that people should remain “open-minded,” meaning that one aught to be willing to consider any truth claim if there is evidence.

One ought to be willing to consider any truth claim if the evidence is inconclusive.… To presume that there is no evidence whatsoever is a presumption that requires justification…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

With all due respect, this is a ridiculous two-step you’re doing here.

I’ve already said that the reason atheists say it’s “more reasonable” to abandon god beliefs is that no god belief has ever met the burden of proof that it has.

Now I can certainly defend that position, but the only way I can possibly defend it – and the only way we can have a rational discussion about it – is if we talk about whether or not god claims have met their burden of proof.

Look, I’m perfectly willing to have this conversation with you. But we have to proceed one point at a time, and we have to be sure we’re in agreement on a particular point before moving on to the next. So let’s start here: do you accept what I’ve said so far? Do you accept that the claim “A god exists” has a burden of proof and that what our conversation boils down to is a discussion about whether or not that claim has met its burden of proof (since, if it is has not met its burden of proof, then – by definition – abandoning the claim is the most reasonable course of action)?

If you answer in the affirmative, I will move on to the next point. If not, we will continue to discuss this point until an agreement is reached and then – and only then – will I move on to your next point.

I am doing no two step. Yes, I’m all for rational conversation; but don’t forget you brought up the subject of atheism. Nevertheless, OK let’s take what you’ve written above and go from there in search of agreement.

(1) Given the context of this thread and how you’ve worded things in your 4th paragraph, it is crucial to see if we’re on the same page re some definitions/distinctions as they are traditionally made in philosophy and rhetoric.
(a) Where are you with the distinction between the principle of sufficient reason =PSR] and the burden of proof =BoP]? This par. seems to use them interchangeably.
(b) Where are you with each re affirmative and negative propositions? Do affirmatives and negatives fall under the PSR? The BoP?
(c) Perhaps we can prescind for the moment, if you wish, from the issue of the BoP and the newer claim since it’s not necessary to establish it at this time given what I think you are asking for in your post. We can certainly argue it if and when you like.
(2) So, mirroring your par 4, I accept that the claim “A god exists,” like any other, must meet the PSR. Our conversation boils down to who bears the BoP re various claims in the atheism-theism discussion. If a party has not met the BoP (when properly assigned) for a claim, there is no reason to accept their claim. Due regard being given to the Fallacy Fallacy.

(3) So: (a) If your claim is “there is no God and I can prove it”, then you bear the BoP immediately.
(b) If your claim is “You as a theist do not have sufficient reasons for your belief in God,” then you bear the BoP that I do not have sufficient reasons when I present my rationale for belief in God. “Belief in God” realistically is the same as “adherence to Western theistic humanism as a world view.”]

Judging by your post I gather you are arguing (3)(b). Right?*

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

PSR
There must be a sufficient reason for anything to exist, for any event to occur, for any truth to obtain.”
[Leibniz from Leroy Loemker, *Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. 2nd ed., Reidel, 1969, p. 717.]

“And second [great principle], the principle of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we believe that no fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise.”
[Leibniz, *Monadology, 32]

BoP
See numerous quotes defining and describing the BoP that you alluded to already.

The BoP comes into play when a dispute (or argument between parties or debate) occurs, and it refers to who is required to provide the sufficient reasons their position in the dispute so that the intellectual community involved can move forward in the truth. It has traditionally been assigned to the newer claim as I sketch out below, although, as I said, we need not argue it now given the request in your post.

Let’s walk through the steps for a negative.

Fritz Zwicky usually is considered to have discovered that the known mass of the universe does not account for the dynamics of galaxies.

(1) Both participants in the debate must equally do the work of fulfilling the PSR for their position: the status quo intellectual community maintaining that the known matter and energy in the universe account for its dynamics and Zwicky.
(2) Both also must present their claim and the reasons justifying it otherwise no dialogue can take place.
(3) However, the status quo has already, if errantly, fulfilled (1), and, by definition, it has fulfilled (2).
(4) It is pointless to demand that the status quo intellectual community re-present its claim and reasons in the face of Zwicky’s claim, since it is Zwicky who disputes their position and justification (which are already known) with the claim of a new discovery: status quo will just repeat what it already thinks are sufficient reasons in support of its known current position.
(5) There will be no movement forward in truth for the intellectual community in question until Zwicky presents his newly-discovered evidence (sufficient reasons) for departing from the status quo and defends it against their objections.
(6) #5 above is in fact the burden of proof.

 

[NonServiam]

Judging by your post I gather you are arguing (3)(b). Right?

Correct, though I would amend your phrasing of the claim to the following: “You as a theist do not have sufficient evidence and reasons for your belief in God.”

We all know that one can start from false or undemonstrated premises and reason from there to a logically-consistent conclusion that is nonetheless false.

In our discussion, I will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the evidence and reasons that you are about to present are insufficient for the claim “A god exists.” You will have the burden of proof of demonstrating that your evidence and reasons are sufficient to support the claim.

Are we in agreement? If we are, I will move on to your next point (re: “religious experience”).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Atheists usually claim that they simply “lack belief” and that therefore the burden of proof is on theists. Yet experience shows that the vast majority of atheists (though not all) are convinced naturalists, or choose naturalism as their default position. Naturalism is a positive worldview which makes positive claims, just like theism does. Thus, in reality the burden of proof is on atheists that adhere to naturalism just as much as it is on theists.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Functionally, I think we’re basically good to go with the discussion. I would offer some important clarifications to obviate possible confusions down the line.

Correct, though I would amend your phrasing of the claim to the following: “You as a theist do not have sufficient evidence and reasons for your belief in God.”

I avoided the word “evidence” deliberately because it is so often understood only in a scientific and physicalist sense and not in the broader philosophical sense. The former would impose the model of searching for an empirically-verifiable, physical object in space-time. Yet that is not the definition and characterization of the subject, God, we are discussing.

If by “evidence” you mean things apparent to the senses or intellect (including common knowledge, first-principles, the lessons we derive from our everyday dealings with the world, facts of history, scientific findings, broadly accepted philosophical truths, etc.) that furnish proof, then I’m OK with it. Certainly the probative value of given evidence can be debated.

We all know that one can start from false or undemonstrated premises and reason from there to a logically-consistent conclusion that is nonetheless false.

True.

In our discussion, I will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the evidence and reasons that you are about to present are insufficient for the claim “A god exists.” You will have the burden of proof of demonstrating that your evidence and reasons are sufficient to support the claim.

Functionally, probably OK, but . . .

Here I think you’re switching the proposition in dispute to me claiming “God exists and I will prove it you.” In reality we are testing the public claim of atheism vis-à-vis the status quo Western tradition of theistic humanism as a world view that it is more reasonable to abandon theism. The proposition being debated is “You as a theist do not have sufficient evidence and reasons for your belief in God.”

Without question what I as a Western theist hold to be sufficient reasons must be already known (as the status quo), reviewed, or made known. But you as an atheist are disputing that they are truly sufficient. You have the burden of proof. I have the burden of rebuttal. Apart from the question of which proposition is being debated, this is probably what you are saying—at least functionally. Right?

Are we in agreement? If we are, I will move on to your next point (re: “religious experience”).

What I gave re religious experience and methods of verification were definitions. They should be situated in the context of the reasoning involved so you can see the whole picture. Agreed?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I would agree that any truth claim, in the affirmative or the negative, must have a sufficient reason to be held.

But would you agree that any truth claim must be supported by sufficient evidence for one to believe it?

True, although I would use “sufficient reasons” to keep within philosophical usage.

Then tell me what you mean by reasons, since you seem to want to use that word instead of evidence. When I say “evidence,” I mean “data that supports a truth claim.” It seems to me that you might be using the word “reasons” instead to allow for some special belief without backing it up with sufficient data that supports the truth claim.

Very true, but that may not be known at the time. The reasons may seem sufficient at the time.

My point was that those who hold the status quo must still demonstrate that their belief is backed up by sufficient evidence.

It’s also possible that the reasons my be rational, but insufficient.

In that case, the truth claim must only be believed to the degree that it is supported by evidence. If we can deduce from the available evidence with only 70% certainty that a certain planet light years away has water, one should only believe that it has water with about 70% certainty.

TruthSeeker60;8439544:

When an atheist says that a theist has the burden of proof, s/he means that the one aught not believe a god exists unless there is sufficient evidence to back up that truth claim. You could argue that “burden of proof” is the wrong phrase to use, which is where a discussion about definitions may apply.

Of course. That is the PSR as defined in philosophical circles.

I’ll address the Principle of Sufficient Reason versus burden of proof later. But for now I’ll just say that if that is how the PSR is defined, then it is identical or nearly identical to the philosophical burden of proof.

(1) Further, I agree that if a theist approaches an atheist (or anybody for that matter) and says in effect “I think God exists and I want to convince you of it.” That theist has the burden of proof: they must produce the sufficient reasons for their claim to convince you.

I concur.

(2) However the position of atheism as an intellectual current vis-à-vis the status quo Western tradition of theistic humanism is different. Atheism in this case is making the claim that it is more reasonable to abandon the theistic humanism as a worldview. So atheism or proponents of it have the burden to back up their claims. Why is it more reasonable to abandon theistic humanism as a worldview?

Atheism is simply not believing that a god exists. Just like any other non-belief, the only “position” or claim there is that one did not find any of the evidence or any of the proofs presented to convincing.

Theists as part of that immemorial living tradition down to this day already think they have sufficient 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?” In this case atheism has the burden of proof.

Atheism is the non-acceptance of theism, not a non-acceptance of a tradition that may be related to theistic beliefs. It is possible to accept many traditions without believing the myths that they were initially built on. For example, there are a number of people who consider themselves practicing Jews, yet they acknowledge that they don’t believe a god exists. Christians borrowed a number of traditions from various pagans. Consider Christmas and Easter. (BTW, I’d recommend you check out the episode of Southpark on Easter.)

The only burden of proof that atheism has is to demonstrate that there is at very least reasonable room for doubting whether there is a god or not. It has about as much of a burden of proof as a defense lawyer in a criminal case. In both cases, regardless of what the status quo is regarding the truth claim at hand (“he is guilty” or “a god exists”), the defense as well as the a-theist only need to demonstrate that there is reasonable room for doubt.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

How does it dodge the question of where the burden of proof rests?

I asked a question that admitted of only two possible answers, and you gave neither. The question, from post 32 is, “In a hypothetical world in which only one person exists, and there is no evidence for or against their being a god, should that person, by default believe there is a god or not?” Replying to this by stating that one must be open-minded, instead of actually answering the question of whether the person should believe or not, is dodging the question.

If the evidence is inconclusive the burden of proof rests on both sides.

So would you say that those who do not accept a claim have a burden of proof just as much as those who do accept a claim? Remember that not accepting a claim is not necessarily the same as claiming a negative.

TruthSeeker60;8439926:

Yes, I do think that people should remain “open-minded,” meaning that one ought to be willing to consider any truth claim if there is evidence.

One ought to be willing to consider any truth claim if the evidence is inconclusive.… To presume that there is no evidence whatsoever is a presumption that requires justification…

There’s no presumption of absence of evidence in the portion you quoted. However, one would be unable to actively search for evidence for every possible truth claim during one’s life. Rather, one ought to be remain willing to consider evidence for various truth claims, but not buy into any of them until they are backed up by sufficient evidence.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

But would you agree that any truth claim must be supported by sufficient evidence for one to believe it?

Then tell me what you mean by reasons, since you seem to want to use that word instead of evidence. When I say “evidence,” I mean “data that supports a truth claim.” It seems to me that you might be using the word “reasons” instead to allow for some special belief without backing it up with sufficient data that supports the truth claim.

Not at all. As I said to NonServiam: I avoided the word “evidence” deliberately because it is so often understood only in a scientific and physicalist sense and not in the broader philosophical sense. The former would impose the model of searching for an empirically-verifiable, physical object in space-time—a thing spatially related to my body like a car across the street. But that is not the definition and characterization of the subject, God, we are discussing.

If by “evidence” you mean things apparent to the senses or intellect (including common knowledge, first-principles, the lessons we derive from our everyday dealings with the world, facts of history, scientific findings, broadly accepted philosophical truths, etc.) that furnish proof, then I’m OK with it. Certainly the probative value of given evidence can be debated.

My point was that those who hold the status quo must still demonstrate that their belief is backed up by sufficient evidence.

This is already covered in the outline I gave you re Redi’s claims. The status quo thinks it has sufficient reasons, and by virtue of being the status quo they are already known. If someone comes along and disputes its claim(s), there is no movement forward in the truth until the new claim presents its reasons. That is the burden of proof. What good does it do to ask the status quo to repeat its already-known reasons? Someone see something new they need to present it or ther eis no movement forward in the truth.

If you still don’t understand why the new claim has the burden of proof in relation to the status quo then we need to review that topic again. I gave numerous quotes from authorities on the subject and I gave examples for negatives and affirmatives.

In that case, the truth claim must only be believed to the degree that it is supported by evidence. If we can deduce from the available evidence with only 70% certainty that a certain planet light years away has water, one should only believe that it has water with about 70% certainty.

Sure, to the extent that those limitations are known. Often they are not until someone disputes them with new evidence.

I’ll address the Principle of Sufficient Reason versus burden of proof later. But for now I’ll just say that if that is how the PSR is defined, then it is identical or nearly identical to the philosophical burden of proof.

The philosophical community uses PSR. BoP is in the area of rhetoric and debate and, as I have shown with quotes, enters the picture when there is a dispute.

The only burden of proof that atheism has is to demonstrate that there is at very least reasonable room for doubting whether there is a god or not. It has about as much of a burden of proof as a defense lawyer in a criminal case. In both cases, regardless of what the status quo is regarding the truth claim at hand (“he is guilty” or “a god exists”), the defense as well as the a-theist only need to demonstrate that there is reasonable room for doubt.

Actually, you have it backwards for #2.

You are right for #1: if a theist approaches an atheist (or anybody for that matter) and says in effect “I think God exists and I want to convince you of it”, the theist has the burden of proof. The atheist has as the burden of rebuttal and, as you say, the atheist need only to demonstrate that there is reasonable room for doubt.

In the case of atheism as a public current of thought vis-à-vis the status quo western tradition of theistic humanism (#2), it is atheism that is making the new claim: it is more reasonable to abandon theism because theism’s reasons are truely not sufficient. Atheism bears the burden of proof, theism the burden of rebuttal, and theism is in the position of the defense attorney that only has to raise reasonable doubt.

Again as I said to NonServiam: Without question what I as a theist hold to be sufficient reasons must be already known (as the status quo), reviewed, or made known. But you as an atheist are disputing that they are truly sufficient. You have the burden of proof. I have the burden of rebuttal.

 

[tonyrey]

How does it dodge the question of where the burden of proof rests?

Being open-minded means that one should suspend belief. Your dilemma is false!

If the evidence is inconclusive the burden of proof rests on both sides.

So would you say that those who do not accept a claim have a burden of proof just as much as those who do accept a claim?

It depends how reasonable the acceptance or rejection of the claim is. There cannot be a universal principle in such nebulous circumstances.

Remember that not accepting a claim is not necessarily the same as claiming a negative.

In practice that doesn’t make the slightest difference. If you ignore a claim it is tantamount to rejecting it.

Yes, I do think that people should remain “open-minded,” meaning that one ought to be willing to consider any truth claim if there is evidence.

One ought to be willing to consider any truth claim if the evidence is inconclusive… To presume that there is no evidence whatsoever is a presumption that requires justification…

There’s no presumption of absence of evidence in the portion you quoted. However, one would be unable to actively search for evidence for every possible truth claim during one’s life. Rather, one ought to be remain willing to consider evidence for various truth claims, but not buy into any of them until they are backed up by sufficient evidence.

How do you determine whether there is sufficient evidence? That is the key question…

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;8445604:

I asked a question that admitted of only two possible answers, and you gave neither. The question, from post 32 is, “In a hypothetical world in which only one person exists, and there is no evidence for or against their being a god, should that person, by default believe there is a god or not?” Replying to this by stating that one must be open-minded, instead of actually answering the question of whether the person should believe or not, is dodging the question.

Being open-minded means that one should suspend belief. Your dilemma is false!

Actually I proposed a true dichotomy between believing and not believing. Suspending belief means not believing, so I’ll take your answer to be a reluctant no.

TruthSeeker60;8445604:

So would you say that those who do not accept a claim have a burden of proof just as much as those who do accept a claim?

It depends how reasonable the acceptance or rejection of the claim is.

It is the other way around. The reasonableness of the acceptance or rejection of the claim depends on whether or not the claim has met its burden of proof. For example, one would reasonably accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun because it has met its burden of proof.

TruthSeeker60;8445604:

Remember that not accepting a claim is not necessarily the same as claiming a negative.

In practice that doesn’t make the slightest difference. If you ignore a claim it is tantamount to rejecting it.

Not accepting a claim is not necessarily the same as ignoring it, which in turn is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting it. A juror who votes “not guilty” is not ignoring the prosecutor’s assertion that the accused person committed a crime. On the other hand, if people are making extraordinary claims without a shred of evidence, it is probably not worth paying too much attention to them until they are able to provide any evidence at all.

How do you determine whether there is sufficient evidence? That is the key question…

Actually, the key question of this thread is who ought to provide evidence (i.e., have the burden of proof). I think the answer is whoever makes a truth claim.

We can determine if there is sufficient evidence by reasonably considering the data and the claim it may or may not support.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Not at all. As I said to NonServiam: I avoided the word “evidence” deliberately because it is so often understood only in a scientific and physicalist sense and not in the broader philosophical sense. The former would impose the model of searching for an empirically-verifiable, physical object in space-time—a thing spatially related to my body like a car across the street. But that is not the definition and characterization of the subject, God, we are discussing.

Wow! Are you really admitting that in this observable reality there is no data that a god exists? That would be a generous concession.

If by “evidence” you mean things apparent to the senses or intellect (including common knowledge, first-principles, the lessons we derive from our everyday dealings with the world, facts of history, scientific findings, broadly accepted philosophical truths, etc.) that furnish proof, then I’m OK with it.

By “evidence” I mean data that supports a claim. That would include, “common knowledge, first-principles, the lessons we derive from our everyday dealings with the world, facts of history, scientific findings, broadly accepted philosophical truths,” only if they are first justified. In considering these things, one must assume as few things as possible, and try to verify necessarily assumptions as much as possible. However, if one is talking about something that actually exists in observable reality, evidence must consist of data gathered from that reality. In other words, if someone wonders if a dragon exists in observable reality, one cannot consider things such as first-principles, the lessons we derive from our everyday dealings with the world, facts of history, and broadly accepted philosophical truths as evidence for such a being. Same thing for a god (unless one claims that the god exists only in some other reality, which is to admit that there is no reason to believe that such a being exists).

This is already covered in the outline I gave you re Redi’s claims. The status quo thinks it has sufficient reasons, and by virtue of being the status quo they are already known. If someone comes along and disputes its claim(s), there is no movement forward in the truth until the new claim presents its reasons.

You are twisting the non-acceptance of a claim into a claim. That is ridiculous.

What good does it do to ask the status quo to repeat its already-known reasons?

It could do many good things. It could inform those who do not accept the status quo. It could also inform those who accept the status quo without evidence what the evidence is. It could also get those people to consider that their reasons for believing as they do might be better or weaker than they initially thought. It could also get those people to better understand what it is they believe.

Someone see something new they need to present it or ther eis no movement forward in the truth.

One doesn’t necessarily need to gather new data in order not believe what is asserted by the majority.

If you still don’t understand why the new claim has the burden of proof in relation to the status quo then we need to review that topic again. I gave numerous quotes from authorities on the subject and I gave examples for negatives and affirmatives.

All of the quotes you gave from authorities were regarding proposing alternatives to claims that had been accepted because they already been backed up by evidence. In order to get to that, the claim of the status quo must have already met its burden of proof.

In the case of atheism as a public current of thought vis-à-vis the status quo western tradition of theistic humanism (#2), it is atheism that is making the new claim: it is more reasonable to abandon theism because theism’s reasons are truely not sufficient.

Yet again you are conflating a non-acceptance and rebuttal of a claim into a claim. This “claim” is only a rebuttal. If 99% of people believe the defendant is guilty, does that make it so that the defense lawyer has the burden of proof and the prosecutor has only the burden of rebuttal? Obviously not. Yet that is essentially what you are trying to say regarding not accepting the belief that a god exists. It is crazy!

\Again as I said to NonServiam: Without question what I as a theist hold to be sufficient reasons must be already known (as the status quo), reviewed, or made known. But you as an atheist are disputing that they are truly sufficient. You have the burden of proof. I have the burden of rebuttal.

Actually, what you as a theist believe must be more than “already known (as the status quo), reviewed, or made known.” Your belief must also be demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. You are conflating the rebuttal of non-believers as a claim.

Just because a rebuttal to a claim has not been popular in the past does not make that rebuttal into an equal claim.