Atheism and the Burden of Proof
Often times in atheist debates - the Internet kind - atheists invoke burden of proof. The position held by some atheists is that belief in a god or gods entails burden of proof, and atheism doesn’t.
This is just a quick post to set the record straight.
Whenever a person offers a proposition, the person offering the proposition has the burden of proof. If I, as an agnostic, say “we cannot know whether gods exist”, then the burden of proof is on me to prove that we cannot know.
If an theist asserts that his god exists, then the burden of proof rests with him to prove that his god exists.
If an atheist asserts that gods do not exist, he assumes the burden of proof to prove that gods do not exist.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
OK, I’ll bite. I assume that you have some real reasons for this provocative assertion and you’re just waiting for a sucker to step up to the mark.
The usual scientific basis of making an argument is that the party making an extraordinary claim has to provide extraordinary evidence. I don’t see any evidence for a cloud-dwelling (or space-dwelling) bearded bloke of middle eastern origins, and a nasty temper. If someone else asserts that this beardy-wierdy exists, then they need to draw my attention to the evidence that I’ve overlooked - and it needs to be pretty good evidence, verifiable by third parties.
The claim is made by theists that one or more gods of various qualities, exists. Some of these asserted gods have so little influence over what happens here and now (they may have other powers in other claimed phases of existence) that they are to all intents and purposes completely unknowable. Indeed, one has to question how knowledge of these entities could have been derived, if they don’t interact with the universe - if they do interact, albeit weakly, then over cosmic time scales they could have sculpted parts of the universe such as to offer unambiguous evidence - a cosmic “Coooeee”.
How about if I invoked a new particle for physics that had no mass, no energy and no interaction with anything we’ve ever observed. I might strongly hold the opinion that this particle exists - but who cares? It doesn’t do anything and can’t change anything. Unless I also invent a new phase for the universe in which the only observable events involving this particle happen, and that don’t affect the current universe. That’s pretty much the closest analogy. If a physicist claimed this, we’d suspect they’d spent too long working on string theory - and we wouldn’t be required to proof that they were wrong. As it is, any Tom, Dick or Harry can invent the equivalent and call it a religion, just because they claim the inactive entity is a god. Either way, I want some proof - and it is *NOT* up to me to attempt to disprove.
I also recommend some attention to William of Occam and his Razor. If you need to evoke an additional entity, to explain stuff, then you need some evidence for it. Evidence that requires that it exists. The existence of a universe is neither grounds for an afterlife or a god as characterised by most human religions. I’m quite happy with the Universe having been created by something that is interested in stars and completely unable to communicate in any information bearing way, with human intelligence. After all, there’s about a billion stars for every human. Stars are easier to see. Make up a god that cares about stars and that really doesn’t care about some strange skin chemistry on a handful of planets… then I’d be more convinced that you are on the right path, but still probably delusional.
Ignoring the inconsequential gods (ones that are unobservable and unknowable)… we’re really arguing about “strong gods”. Ones that can do more than observe in order to choose who will occupy their dubious afterlife. And that means that there should be some physical evidence. Where is it?
I mean, if this putative entity can intervene in cosmic events at any scale, there should be things we can observe that not only have no explanation now, but that never could have an explanation. A bit more emphatic than voices in the head.
If someone claims that there is a god or an afterlife I want better evidence than can be dreamed up by someone with a chemical brain disorder or a history of sexual or physical abuse as a child. Requiring me to refute each of the various peculiar imaginings that have been offered as a god and an afterlife is just perverse. I’m not the one making a claim that is hard to differentiate from the claims of identifiably insane people.
If there’s a god and an afterlife, give me some proper evidence. Something that I can’t more easily explain away by delusional brain states or the visits of aliens (which, while far fetched, seems more plausible to me than 14 billion year old universe spanning entity that creates one or more universes with far more stars than the possible carrying capacity of the Earth can deliver humans, yet still take a peculiar interest in really tiny creatures that only infest the surface of a single planet, to extent of creating a special post-universe experience for them, when their chemistry stops). In perspective, it doesn’t seem like a very rational claim, does it? So why is the burden on me to disprove these wierd claims?
Cheers, JeremyC.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
You did a great job of defending agnosticism. I wonder, however, that you might be intending to prove atheism?
Very simple theory here: you make an assertion, you assume burden of proof. Theists have it, atheists have it, agnostics like myself have it. If you can’t prove what you assert, then perhaps you should be looking at your theory of knowledge.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Erm - you still have it backwards. Occams Razor implies that you only can claim a new entity when all existing explanations fail. May I point out that William of Occam was a theologist. This isn’t some idea dreamed by non-theists to tackle god-botherers. It’s a pretty useful idea, proven in scientific experiment after experiment, to lead towards useful explanations for how things work.
If you want to claim that you are checking out of the rationalists hotel and into some other watering place, that’s fine. But if you want to stay in the rationalists hotel, where cause and effect work, then Occams Razor requires daily exercise.
I don’t need to explain *not* adding new entities. So, for example, in describing the flight of a ball, I can add entities that give the basic ballistic curve (Newtonian laws of motion will do that, for non-relativistic ball throwing). I can add fudge factors such as wind speed and direction. I can also add “ball angels” who don’t actually affect the flight of the ball, but are just there to observe the flight. And “ball demons” who also don’t affect the flight, but are there to annoy the ball angels by getting in the way and shouting “look, over there”, inaudibly. However, these extra entities add nothing to the behavior of the ball - no matter how much fun we could have writing and reading a story about ball angels and ball demons. So we don’t generally have rationalist stories that wobble on endlessly about things that might or might not exist but that have no effect on the measurable world - except to inflame tempers.
You start with the least required elements. You aren’t required to take things away. You are required to only add stuff if you can’t otherwise describe the behaviour. c.f. Einstein, Eddington and Mercury’s orbit. It was only because Einsteins calculations predicted an observable behaviour that they became important. Had the relativistic calculations shown an effect that wasn’t measured, then the calculations would have been junked. Why should we hold a lesser standard for theists? Are they less able to argue? Do they have no proof so that we hold them to lesser tests in order that we not offend them? Why, unusually, should *not* adding entities require any explanation?
FWIW, I regard myself as a militant agnostic. I have no idea what god exists, except that it isn’t a pathetically self-aggrandising human-oriented one - I’m ignorant of the truth and you jolly well are, too. Anyone claiming special knowledge is probably either trying to pull social rank or is… mislead. I said I was militant.
Cheers, JeremyC.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
John, Do you necessarily have to assert that gods do not exist to call yourself
an atheist? Atheism is definable as an absence of belief in gods. To go from
that position to positively asserting that gods do not exist seems like overkill,
given that our knowledge of what does exist is, and may always be
incomplete. It looks sensible to me to hold the former position and throw the
burden of proof on the ones making the extraordinary claims, as Jez suggests.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Dave,
John is better at this then I but I will take a stab, by saying:
Aren’t you relying on some knowledge that would give you this absense of belief? When someone says I don’t believe in god(s) they are believing some knowledge that convinces them belief in god(s) is wrong therefore they don’t believe in god(s). If belief in god(s) is wrong then there is no god(s) to believe in. The burden of proof is then on “absence of belief.”
January 15th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Kerrin,
Absence of belief seems to me a rational stance based on lack of
evidence of god[s] and should need no further justification. the atheist
doesn’t need to go as far as saying, “there is no god[s]”. That is an
assertion that could not be justified without a knowledge of everything that
does exist- knowledge that no one can claim to have.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:21 am
JezC - Occam’s Razor is indeed a rational methodology for contriving hypotheses. It has no bearing on the truth, though.
You of course know that empiricism and rationalism stand opposed to one another. The reason for this is that rationalism supports levels of plausibility, whereas empiricism supported only truth based on actual occurrence.
Science is often rationalistic. Science deals with probability and often confuses that with truth. This is most evident in Dawkins assertion that aliens exist, and his gall in describing them. Only a scientist could have such wholesale disregard for empiric truth.
And again, using Occam’s Razor you can raise valid objections to the theist assertion that god exists. But Occam’s Razor in and of itself is not grounds for asserting that god’s nonexistence is “truth”. If you were to class that as truth, I’d seriously doubt the integrity of your theory of knowledge.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Dave,
Agreed 100%.
The word “atheism” is almost worthless at this point, the word being associated with so many contradictory positions:
http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2007/11/28/atheism-vs-agnosticism/
January 16th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Dave,
I agree with your last statement: knowledge that no one can have.
However, doesn’t your “lack of evidence” imply that there could be evidence that would support or disprove a belief? And thus the implication of could puts burden on “lack of evidence for a belief.” Instead why not say, “we can’t know” and join the agnostics?
January 16th, 2008 at 3:04 am
John,
Lack of belief based on absence of evidence is as far as anyone can go without
virtually godlike knowledge of the universe and everything in it. What label
one uses to define such a position is optional methinks.
My dictionary says atheism is “lack of belief in god or gods”. That is a perfectly
user freindly and unambiguous definition. to add more to this definition
would degrade the meaning. Words are imperfect and unreliable vehicles for
meaning, which is why we bother to qualify them with more detailed
explanation I s’pose…
January 16th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Kerrin,
I prefer, “we don’t know yet” instead of “we can’t know”. That one appears to
deny the possibility of knowing in future.
I don’t see how you can attach a burden of proof to a position that makes no
claims but merely awaits evidence.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Dave,
Wouldn’t there be a claim in the “awaiting evidence”; that we one day could know?
January 16th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Dave,
Curious what dictionary you are using. I have the OED and Websters and both have definitions that indicate an rejection of the god hypothesis. You dictionary seems to define atheism as nontheism, so I’m curious what dictionary that is.
How about, We can’t know yet, because we don’t have absolute knowledge of the metaphysical universe?
If you make no claims, you have no burden of proof. Atheists, a lot of them, pretend to make no claims in order to hide from burden of proof, but then they go around claiming that god doesn’t exist, and they call that fact. They aggressively ridicule theists, and most certainly are claiming to know the truth of the matter.
Obviously they deserve the burden of proof.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Kerrin,
Awaiting evidence in this case means open to new information if and when it
appears. No claims, hence no burden of proof.
John,
I was using the google dictionary on the ‘puter, as used by famous folk down
the ages. It gave the definition of atheism as “lack of belief in gods”. I’ve got
an old oxford pocket dictionary that gives the def, “disbelief in gods”, which
looks equally usable. To go beyond that and say that no gods exist in the
universe for a fact is presumptious. Even Richard Dawkins calls a chapter of
his tome, “why there is almost certainly no god” The “almost” indicates an
openness to new information if and when it turns up.
“Metaphysical universe”. Sounds deep.
The aggressive ridiculing of theists is frequently deserved, especially when
the beliefs are used as an even more aggressive weapon against women,
gays, skyscrapers or science. Atheists don’t blow people up in the name of
atheism or try to get anti scientific creationist nonsense taught in school
science lessons. A bit of ridicule is the least that such people deserve.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hi Dave,
Long, six hour drive from Osaka to Tokyo. I’m pooped. Going to bed. Will respond tomorrow.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
John,
Richard Dawkins’ assertion of the existence of extra terrastrial intelligences
greater than ours is a hypothesis, nothing more or less, based on the fact that
life has got going here and the probability that similarly life friendly worlds
must exist throughout the universe. It is a fun thing to speculate about, as a
century worth of sci fi novels and films testify.
We know from our experience of the Earth that organic life in this universe is
possible so taking the step of proposing that it has arisen elsewhere is a lot
more rational than invoking the existence of some mythical sky fairy.
If you remain skeptical, simply consider the likelihood that a being more
intelligent that George Dubya Bush has evolved on a world far, far, away and
that the creature is capable of pronouncing the word “nuclear” correctly. Not
too hard to believe, is it?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
He introduces the hypothesis, assumes abiogenesis as fact although, from an empiricist point of view it cannot be considered anything but false, and then proceeds to “prove” that aliens exist using Bayesian probability. His reasoning is very clear, and he attacks alien agnosticism as unsupported by scientific probabilism. Scientific probabilism, he contends, clearly demonstrates that billions of alien-inhabited worlds exist.
And, that would be true, if abiogenesis were true. But so far it’s just the best hypothesis we have, and one that has never been recreated, nor observed. Rationalism allows us to use that hypothesis, but empiricism says no.
The problem is not just starting from an unsupported hypothesis (abiogenesis); it’s mainly his Bayesian probability. Probability is just that - probability. Probability means squat. Perhaps because probability uses less than all the facts in an attempt to predict the future. Or maybe because it uses numbers to create patterns that do not, in actuality, govern events.
What do you mean by possible? That organic life can survive on earth? Or that life has arisen here?
I think that answers my last question. Empirically speaking, neither the sky fairy nor the aliens are allowed. We need only one case of life arising from non-life, then we can assume all the abiogenesis that we want. But until then, empiricism says no.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:56 am
I like how this. Awaiting evidence. It’s a good analogy.
So god has been accused of existing. Clearly theists accuse god of existing. They have a burden of proof. The default position is “hell, I don’t know”. This is the default position on any claim which we do not have ready information.
When somebody moves from not knowing to knowing an asserting that claim of knowledge, then you get burden of proof. God exists. Oh yeah? Prove it. God doesn’t exist. Really? Prove it.
I don’t know = no burden of proof.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Dave
http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/
&
http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/atheist-burden-of-proof-part-two/
January 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Proving how life originated by experiment is difficult and time consuming, in
that you probably have to bring the ingredients together and wait a couple of
billion years for something to happen and let’s face it, who the time.
Not being either present at the scene to observe the event, nor able to
reproduce it in a test tube might seem a big handicap but it is not enough to
make us doubt that abiogenesis is true. Given that we know that the universe
began in a Big Bang about 14.7 billion years ago when no organic life could
have existed and the fact that life exists now, it follows logically that life must
have arisen from non living material.
How can you say therefore that abiogenesis is an unsupported hypothesis. Is
there an alternative?
Richard Dawkins goes on to speculate that life may have appeared many
times in the universe. He Isn’t stating it for a fact, but presenting one of a
range of possibilities, another of which is that the Earth is unique in being the
only life bearing world in the universe. I don’t like that one as much but it could
be true.
The aliens are allowed, hypothetically. We are talking about organic life, which
has been demonstrated to have originated and developed in at least one place
in the universe. the sky fairy is another matter. Having no empirical evidence
that omnipotent non biological entities can or do exist anywhere, he/she/they/it
have to lag behind space aliens in the order of likelihood.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Given the fact that no water was in my cup, it must have condensed from thin air.
That statement ignores the fact that we do not know how the water got there. Maybe somebody put it there. Maybe it leaked from the ceiling, maybe there is an alternative that we haven’t hypothesized.
The fact is that we don’t know.
A better question might be, is abiogenesis even possible? If it were, I’d expect it to happen more than once.
Exogenesis is the obvious alternative. The idea that life came from other planets. All good as far as theories go, but empirically speaking, there has to be proof that something actually occurred for it to be considered truth.
As with the water in the glass, all one can say is that water is in the glass. We don’t get to hypothesize and call it truth without evidence.
To quote Richard Dawkins:
“…here we are talking about odds of one in a billion. And yet… even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets - of which Earth, of course, is one.
…
I do not for a moment believe the origin of life was anywhere near so improbable in practice. I think it’s definitely worth spending money on trying to duplicate the event in the lab and - by the same token, on SETI, because I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere.”
He goes on to describe aliens as “god-like”, so, yeah, he’s pretty much owned by his scientific probablism.
I don’t know where you heard that. Life has never been demonstrated to have originated anywhere. The question of the origin of life is entirely a guessing game at this point, and some of the theories read more like an episode of Star Wars than science.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:52 am
No life followed by…loadsa life, suggests abiogenesis to me. That the nuts and
bolts of the how question haven’t been ironed out yet is undeniable and the
demonstration I referred to is in the generation of us and the millions of past
present and future species on Earth. I’m not saying it happened whilst a panel
of white coated experts were in attendance but that should’nt make us opt for
the weak kneed solution to the life problem that “maybe someone put it there.”
Exogenesis may be a way that life spreads about the universe and a fun idea
for science fiction based pseudo religions but doesn’t explain life’s origin.
One thing’s for sure, Apollo didn’t initiate life on Earth. I remember an
episode of Star Trek when the guys came across him on a distant Planet.
He tried to dominate the crew of the Enterprise with conjuring tricks until Spock
and Kirk discovered his power source and destroyed it with the ships phasers.
He was one of the god-like aliens that dawkins hypothesises and that we may
eventually become, future natural or human disasters permitting.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
It suggests to me that life now exists. I think it would be somewhat unfounded to assume that, since there is a rock on my carpet, that the rock came from the carpet.
It has never happened that we know of. Attempts to recreate it have failed, and it’s likelihood, empirically speaking, still stands at “zero”.
There is no proof of that, either. The problem with both the “somebody put it here” and the “life came from nothing”, is that they are attempts to answer a question we do not, at this point, have an answer to. Hypotheses are fine, but when people start calling them truth then I have problems.