Why is the onus on the believer?

[CHCatholic]

It seems to me that many athiests say the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God, mainly because, so it seems, they have ability to actually disprove his existence with any reasonable, logical theory, or so has been my experience.

But why is the onus on the believer? Seeing we’re in such a scientific age, should we not try to use a philosophy taken from science? I will use Karl Popper’s theory of falsification as an example…please correct me or show my error in any way.

Popper basically said all science method should try to falsify the hypothesis, rather than confirm it from the outset. This way we can disprove any possible contingent that overrules any confirming instance, once after trying to falsify the hypothesis, and nothing succeeds, only then we can put it into theory.

Why then can’t athiests, who are all scientificy, do the same? Why can’t they try and falsify God’s existence rather than just saying the onus is on us and walk away?

Or am I totally out in left field with my head in places where the sun doesn’t shine?

 

[Mirdath]

Atheists who say ‘I do not believe in God’ rather than ‘there is no God’ are not subjected to the burden of proof.

In logic, the burden of proof is on one who makes a positive statement, such as ‘God exists’ or ‘God does not exist’. ‘I have no reason to believe in a deity’ is a logically negative statement.

 

[MerryAtheist]

From Karl Popper’s Science as Falsification (pay particular attention to points 5 and 7):

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.

1. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory - an event which would have refuted the theory.

1. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

1. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

1. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

1. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)

1. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers - for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

So is the question of God testable? If so, then it is falsifiable. If not, then the burden is still upon the believer, it seems to me.

 

[ateista]

Strictly speaking the believers do not have to prove, or substantiate their belief, as long as they hold their beliefs as their own personal conviction. They have every right to believe in whatever they want to.

The trouble is that some (not all) believers wish to impose their worldview on others. Some believe that that a freshly impregnated ovum is already a full human being - since they have an “immortal” soul - and therefore abortion is always a murder; and as such - unacceptable. If they hold it as their own personal conviction and would never abort - that is fine. However, if they want to introduce legal means to prohibit abortions for everyone else, that is an entirely different matter.

Some believers contend that homosexuality is “sin”, and want to “cure” all homosexuals of their deviation. Such intrusion into other people’s life must be substantiated.

The examples are endless.

Another problem is that the concept of “God” is pretty much undefined. There are simply too many “gods”. Why should a non-believer go and find inconsistencies in all those beliefs? None of the Gods can be substantiated in a fully rational fashion, they all require some form of faith. Belief in some revelation, or some ancient scripts, whatever. You want to believe in them, sure, go ahead… it is your prerogative. But do not expect to be taken seriously - unless you can give some rational reason why the concept of your particular god should be given any special consideration. Unsubstantiated beliefs belong to to churches, temples, synagogs, and other places of worship. They have no place in the secular world.

 

[Ahimsa]

“Prove to the atheist that God exists. If necessary, use words.” – anonymous

 

[Nullasalus]

Atheists who say ‘I do not believe in God’ rather than ‘there is no God’ are not subjected to the burden of proof.

In logic, the burden of proof is on one who makes a positive statement, such as ‘God exists’ or ‘God does not exist’. ‘I have no reason to believe in a deity’ is a logically negative statement.

More than anything else, this is the valid response. Which, really, can be reworded as ‘It’s a technicality, and everyone loves exploiting those in arguments.’ Scott Adams (A pantheist/agnostic, I believe. Also ‘That Dilbert guy’) one time made a remark about how many agnostics (‘I do not believe in God’) are just atheists (‘There is no God’) consciously exploiting a nifty little loophole, if they’re the kind who like whipping out the latin in arguments.

On the other hand, once you start presenting the evidence for your belief (Another misconception - ‘Faith is belief in the absence of evidence’. No, it’s not), all the typical non-believer does is cite objections that are themselves not conclusive, and may not even be all that persuasive. But an objection is still an objection, and if it can’t be logically ruled out, it holds to one degree or another.

But for the purposes of the OP: It’s a technicality and related to age-old debate rules, more or less. Welcome to the world of arguments, prepare for the pettiness.

 

[crowonsnow]

Another problem is that the concept of “God” is pretty much undefined. There are simply too many “gods”. Why should a non-believer go and find inconsistencies in all those beliefs? None of the Gods can be substantiated in a fully rational fashion, they all require some form of faith. Belief in some revelation, or some ancient scripts, whatever. You want to believe in them, sure, go ahead… it is your prerogative. But do not expect to be taken seriously - unless you can give some rational reason why the concept of your particular god should be given any special consideration. Unsubstantiated beliefs belong to to churches, temples, synagogs, and other places of worship. They have no place in the secular world.

Also, unless the religion is polytheistic and accounts for unknown gods, all non-believers are by definition atheist.

I’ve been in a few discussions where the claim was made that there are more theists than atheists and that therefore this was a positive argument for belief in these things referred to as gods.

But by Christian standards there are far more atheists than theists. This is because Christians don’t recognize other gods as real, thereby rendering the devotees of these other gods atheist.

 

[Nullasalus]

But by Christian standards there are far more atheists than theists. This is because Christians don’t recognize other gods as real, thereby rendering the devotees of these other gods atheist.

Not really.

It’s not as if Catholics think Baptists worship a false deity. Or, for that matter, muslims, or jews. And just as Pope John Paul II said that all faiths have some truth in them, one could argue that the gods from every faith from hinduism to paganism are perceiving the one true God, with however many flaws in play.

 

[crowonsnow]

Not really.

It’s not as if Catholics think Baptists worship a false deity. Or, for that matter, muslims, or jews. And just as Pope John Paul II said that all faiths have some truth in them, one could argue that the gods from every faith from hinduism to paganism are perceiving the one true God, with however many flaws in play.

You could say that, but that’s not what actually happens. Jews and Muslims don’t believe in a Christ god. I don’t know any Catholics that worship Vishnu. Monotheism is not henotheism. Catholics still pray for the conversion of the Jew. Christians are still staunchly anti-Pagan.

It would be far simpler if it were as you say but it is not. In fact what unites all non-polytheistic religions, with regards to these other gods, is an adherence to atheism.

From the OP:

Why then can’t athiests, who are all scientificy, do the same? Why can’t they try and falsify God’s existence rather than just saying the onus is on us and walk away?

All non-polytheists do this very thing. And that’s simply because monotheism is a form of atheism.

 

[MerryAtheist]

But by Christian standards there are far more atheists than theists. This is because Christians don’t recognize other gods as real, thereby rendering the devotees of these other gods atheist.

You seem to be defining atheism as “believing in a god that isn’t real.” That seems counter to the common definition “having no belief in God.”

 

[MerryAtheist]

Oops! I should not have presumed you were a Christian. My apologies. I amended my post.

 

[Nullasalus]

You could say that, but that’s not what actually happens. Jews and Muslims don’t believe in a Christ god. I don’t know any Catholics that worship Vishnu. Monotheism is not henotheism. Catholics still pray for the conversion of the Jew. Christians are still staunchly anti-Pagan.

newser.com/story/9263.html

Christianity and Islam are more alike than they are different, Muslim scholars say in a letter to Pope Benedict XVI. Quoting passages from the Bible and Koran, the letter shows links between the faiths, and calls for peace. If enough people heed the statement, one scholar says, “the atmosphere will be changed into one in which violent extremists cannot flourish.” • “We say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them,” says the letter,* which highlights the shared emphasis on love and insists both worship the same god.** It’s a landmark event, one scholar told the BBC. “There are Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis and even the … Ismailian and Jaafari schools, so it’s a consensus.”*

I could find more resources with considerable ease, when it comes to Judaism and Islam, from all sides of the faith. I can show you the tradition of the Catholic Church itself in taking up philosophers and scholars of pagan origin and holding them and their thoughts up as examples. No, Catholics do not (and should not) ‘worship Vishnu’, just as Catholics are not Baptists. The reverse is trickier (some hindu nationalists have insisted that Jesus Christ was another incarnation of Krishna or some other god in the hindu pantheon, I believe.)

It would be far simpler if it were as you say but it is not. In fact what unites all non-polytheistic religions, with regards to these other gods, is an adherence to atheism.

From the OP:All non-polytheists do this very thing. And that’s simply because monotheism is a form of atheism.

You’re confusing a passing statement of faith with a deeper philosophical or theological question. And you’re making bold claims that fly in the face of evidence available to anyone who has bothered to research the issue - ‘All non-polytheists, except for the head of the Catholic Church and many scholars of various faiths.’ Already your claim has been sliced down to a division between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - and the remaining faiths. And considering the Christian friendliness to philosophers such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, the question gets more complicated.

You’re saying everyone is an atheist about others’ faiths. I’m saying that, if you look at the facts, what they have are considerable disagreements about the same God. I took this as a philosophical issue at first, irrespective of an individual claim. But claiming that muslims, jews, and Christians do not worship the same God can only hold if you’re willing to add that Catholics and lutherans and baptists and pentecostals don’t worship the same God either.