The Burden of Proof
This began as a response to Andrew S., a thoughtful commenter on my Monday post, and it got long enough to be its own blog entry. So here I am, bringing it out onto the main page.
Andrew masterfully demonstrates that atheism and theism can both include varying degrees of belief and doubt, and that agnosticism can go hand in hand with either. And then he says something quite interesting.
So let's talk about the burden of proof for a moment.
He’s right - if the question is, "Is there a God?" then the burden of proof is on the theists.
But that's not the question.
The question is, "Where did the universe come from?"
If you only deny that God did it, you sidestep the question. To be an intellectually consistent atheist, you have to be ready to provide an alternative theory. If you’re confident enough to dismiss God as a possibility, you have to have affirmative faith in another explanation.
Suppose, for instance, that in the middle of the night, your pick-up truck suddenly appears in my living room, leaving a path of destruction in its wake. In court, I have the burden to prove that you purposely drove it into the side of my house. But that will be pretty easy to do if you respond by saying, no, the pickup truck's very existence is the result of random chaotic occurrences absent any manufacturer, and its presence in the living room is an accident of nature.
The problem in both instances is the same: both the universe and the pick-up truck exist. You can’t sidestep the question and say there is no pick-up truck – you have to account for how it got into my living room. The universe is far more complex and intricate than the pick-up truck, and someone who posits that there is no God involved either has to back up that assertion with facts - or rely on faith.
If there are not enough facts to conclusively demonstrate your case, you’re left with faith – faith in science, faith in chaos, faith in who knows what. But without facts, all it is is faith.
In my estimation, the idea that both the pick-up truck and the universe are the product of intelligence is a more logical conclusion.
I should note that the Book of Mormon agrees with me. As Alma replies to Korihor in Alma 30: 40-41:
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I found Elder Holland’s Book of Mormon talk so masterful. To be intellectually consistent, if you reject the Book of Mormon as a fraud, you have to have an alternative explanation for where it came from. Yes, the church has the burden of proof to demonstrate that it’s true, but from what I can tell, the most plausible explanation for its existence is the one offered by Joseph Smith. I have yet to see a more credible alternative.
Like the pick-up truck and the universe, the Book of Mormon exists. If the question is, “Is it true?” then the faithful need to answer. But if the question is, “Where did it come from?” then both sides have to make their case. Most people just ignore or dismiss the question. They don't offer alternatives.
I submit that atheists don’t often see the implications of what they assert. They can say "no" to the question of God's existence, but to answer the question about why existence exists, they have to offer their own positive theory, and, to date, those theories have been sorely lacking.
Andrew masterfully demonstrates that atheism and theism can both include varying degrees of belief and doubt, and that agnosticism can go hand in hand with either. And then he says something quite interesting.
This gets into burdens of proof. One side is asserting something. The other is
rejecting. The burden of proof goes to the asserting side.
So let's talk about the burden of proof for a moment.
He’s right - if the question is, "Is there a God?" then the burden of proof is on the theists.
But that's not the question.
The question is, "Where did the universe come from?"
If you only deny that God did it, you sidestep the question. To be an intellectually consistent atheist, you have to be ready to provide an alternative theory. If you’re confident enough to dismiss God as a possibility, you have to have affirmative faith in another explanation.
Suppose, for instance, that in the middle of the night, your pick-up truck suddenly appears in my living room, leaving a path of destruction in its wake. In court, I have the burden to prove that you purposely drove it into the side of my house. But that will be pretty easy to do if you respond by saying, no, the pickup truck's very existence is the result of random chaotic occurrences absent any manufacturer, and its presence in the living room is an accident of nature.
The problem in both instances is the same: both the universe and the pick-up truck exist. You can’t sidestep the question and say there is no pick-up truck – you have to account for how it got into my living room. The universe is far more complex and intricate than the pick-up truck, and someone who posits that there is no God involved either has to back up that assertion with facts - or rely on faith.
If there are not enough facts to conclusively demonstrate your case, you’re left with faith – faith in science, faith in chaos, faith in who knows what. But without facts, all it is is faith.
In my estimation, the idea that both the pick-up truck and the universe are the product of intelligence is a more logical conclusion.
I should note that the Book of Mormon agrees with me. As Alma replies to Korihor in Alma 30: 40-41:
And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only. But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them?
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I found Elder Holland’s Book of Mormon talk so masterful. To be intellectually consistent, if you reject the Book of Mormon as a fraud, you have to have an alternative explanation for where it came from. Yes, the church has the burden of proof to demonstrate that it’s true, but from what I can tell, the most plausible explanation for its existence is the one offered by Joseph Smith. I have yet to see a more credible alternative.
Like the pick-up truck and the universe, the Book of Mormon exists. If the question is, “Is it true?” then the faithful need to answer. But if the question is, “Where did it come from?” then both sides have to make their case. Most people just ignore or dismiss the question. They don't offer alternatives.
I submit that atheists don’t often see the implications of what they assert. They can say "no" to the question of God's existence, but to answer the question about why existence exists, they have to offer their own positive theory, and, to date, those theories have been sorely lacking.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 5:21 PM
18 Comments:
It's true that the burden of proof does, and should, lie with the believers.
Having said that, I think there may be the potential for possible circumstantial evidence of a Creator or Grand Architect.
Specifically I think the areas geometry as it relates to the formation of nature, such as the Golden Ratio, the Golen Spiral, the Mandelbrot Set, etc., show that nature exhibits a kind of geometric regularity.
Geometric regularity is something that has traditionally been considered to be an attribute of artificial structures, or things that are intelligently designed.
Not saying this is proof positive by any means, only that it could be a possible avenue for further inquiry.
If you make the question, "Where did the universe come from?" then I think people should first say, 'I don't know.' (there's the agnosticism)
From here, we can begin to say what we aren't convinced by and what we don't buy. Because we don't have to believe in any answer just because it comes up. For example, we can say, "I don't believe it came from God." The ideas of gods posited by various believers seem too inconsistent for the universe that we are in (or vice versa...our observable universe seems too inconsistent with the idea of gods.)"
From here, we still do not have to provide an alternate explanation.
I was actually wondering if you were going to bring up Elder Holland's talk, because he makes a similar mistake. Announcing a lack of confidence in a particular explanation (namely, that the BoM is divine, came as Joseph said it did) does not shift the goal to the other to explain where it did come from. Really, the problem is that unbelievers are not convinced. Believers are trying to convince nonbelievers, and nonbelievers are showing the implausibility or the unpersuasiveness of the believers' arguments. Nonbelievers aren't putting their eggs in baskets that say "Spalding's theory" or "Ethan Smith's theory." Rather, they are hesitating putting their eggs in the "divine basket" and anything that is outside of this divine basket is fair.
Your analogy with the truck is pretty sketchy and unworkable, considering you have already 'assigned' the truck as being someone's property and furthermore, the truck most certainly did exist as a result of humans coming into play. It's not like we entered the scene (evolutionarily, that is) and the truck was already here, as is the case for the universe and earth. It's also not the case that the manufacturer of the truck is "hiding," obscuring the details of its construction so that its construction could have appeared to be autonomous.
REGARDLESS, if we take your tortured analogy, your assertion is that I drove it into your house. Now, you have to provide persuasive evidence that I drove it into your house: I am innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is on you. This is basic law.
Depending on what court we are in though, you may only be trying to show a preponderance...or you may be trying to show evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Regardless, our "jury" and "judge" must be *convinced.* *I* do not need to provide an alternate account. I simply need to raise a reasonable level of doubt according to your PARTICULAR assertion.
So, in raising doubt, I might raise hypothetical situations. For example, there was a terrible tornado and my truck was swept up and into your house. Also, I was gone to another city that day, so I couldn't have driven the truck into your house.
In either case, the evidence doesn't seem consistent with your position claim. Someone would have less reason to believe your claim.
This doesn't mean I actually believe and have faith that there was a terrible tornado. I'm just saying that could have happened, and it's plausible, and your assertion has doubts. But I actually don't need to commit to anything. I simply reject your assertion that I drove the truck into your home. This does not require faith. It just requires the unpersuasiveness of your position.
Getting to the last part:
I submit that atheists don’t often see the implications of what they assert. They can say "no" to the question of God's existence, but to answer the question about why existence exists, they have to offer their own positive theory, and, to date, those theories have been sorely lacking.
The thing is that this is "outside of atheism's paygrade," so to speak. Atheism doesn't answer the question of why existence exists in the same way that theism does not.
Atheism is an umbrella, in the same way that theism is an umbrella.
Atheism is simply an umbrella of every and all positions lacking gods and theism is an umbrella of every and all positions positing gods (singular or plural).
A Mormon is a specific subset of theism...this specific subset tells you a lot about the beliefs and practices...for example, the Mormon is not just any theist...he is a monotheist, Christian, Latter-day Saint. (I'm sure you could make a few other subset definitions, but you get the point).
This is different from, say, a Hindu...starts out from the same theism, but goes to a polytheist or henotheist subset instead.
But at that umbrella...you really don't know much. From theist to theist, I can't really tell you much about their beliefs...I can just say that whatever their beliefs are, they assume SOME formulation of deity or deities. But until I know I'm dealing with, say, a Sunni Muslim vs. a Mormon Christian...I can't say much.
The problem is that people don't realize that this too applies to atheism.
You have two atheists...you don't know much about them. One could be a secular humanist, one a hyperrationalist naturalist scientist, the other an existential absurdist. All totally different. Totally different viewpoints. These aren't what make them atheist though. The atheism is the lack of belief in gods...and that does not have faith in it.
You say that the other explanations have been "sorely lacking," but this represents your subjective bias rather than the objective merits of any one argument. Similarly, my not finding your beliefs convincing is a reflection on *my* subjective experiences and biases. This is ok, because we are human. Humans are subjective beings.
But to be sure, you find the Sunni Muslim's explanation "sorely lacking" too. You find the Hindu's explanation sorely lacking too. You don't just find the empiricist or the naturalist's explanations lacking. It's a little more complex than just "god" or "no god."
It seems to me that both sides here are using the concept of "burden of proof" rather gratuitously. The idea is taken from the law, where we always assign burdens as ways of solving practical problems. For example, we might assign the burden of proof to a party that is likely to have evidence of a particular fact, as a way of forcing the production of the evidence. Likewise, we might assign the burden of proof to the stronger party in a case as a way of overcoming power imbalances. (This is why the state has the burden in criminal cases.) We might adopt differing burdens (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) based on our assessment of the costs of errors. Etc. etc. etc. In some cases we assign the burdens as a way of simply choosing who we want to win in closes cases, and the decision is based on considerations that have little if anything to do with the merits of a particular case.
The point is that the idea of a "burden of proof" doesn't exist in some absolute or abstract sense. Nor is there any unified theory or concept of a "burden of proof" that allows you to determine who bears it in any particular situation. Rather, when assigning the burden of proof in any particular discussion the question has to be, "What practical reason do we have for assigning the burden one place rather than another?" Without such an argument, any appeal to burdens of proof strikes me as little more than bootstrapping. It's just a rhetorical ploy that doesn't do any serious analytic work.
Thank you, Law Talk.
Eschewing the legal burden arguments, my point, essentially, is that the rejection of God requires an active, affirmative belief in something else to account for the universe's existence.
As long as you realize you haven't provided any reason for us to believe that is the case (and have "eschewed" the attempt at making a case and ignored the counter for it, dropping the argument), I'm fine with you thinking that.
I just think you won't be very effective with this argumentation system since others won't buy it and they don't have to.
If you show me an unidentified glass of a dark liquid and say, "I believe this is water,"
I could say, "uhh, not so sure about that; I don't believe it is water." This is purely on the merits that your assertions is unconvincing as to the evidence (dark liquid doesn't *seem* like water). I could be incorrect, but if I do not have personally persuasive reason to believe this unknown liquid is water, then I am justified in not believing.
But from here, I don't have to come up with something else. I don't have to say I think it is Pepsi or oil or a soylent green shake (although if I do, it would be because the evidence seems more consistent with these things than with water). I am simply unconvinced by the claim that it is water.
Stallion,
Why can't people simply have incomplete beliefs about the universe? It seems to me that everyone has incomplete beliefs to a certain extent. Also, it is not clear to me that Mormon theology provides an answer to how the universe was created. The denial of ex nihilio creation means that God is in some sense within the universe. Hence, I don't think that LDS theology can answer the ontological or metaphysical question of where the universe came from. Certainly, as a believing Mormon I think that my own beliefs are incomplete on this point.
Thank you Law Talk. This is my question too, actually: why can't people simply have incomplete beliefs?
I think this is humble (especially to admit it), and this position disposes one to search for the best answer instead of simply accepting any. Whatever tools you think are valuable in this search (revelation, inquiry, whatever else), you will be more likely to use them responsibly.
Damn you people and your wicked ways and provocative hairstyles. Especially you, Law Talk. You strike me as particularly insouciant.
Actually, Andrew, you're right - I have dropped that particular argument, because I think I lost it. I also think it's somewhat tangential to my point. So is the issue of incomplete beliefs - everybody has them, to one degree or another.
I was thinking, when I began this line of reasoning, not of degrees of agnosticism or burdens of proof but rather about the Christopher Hitchenses and Richard Dawkinses of the world - people who conclusively declare that the argument is settled; there is no God, and anyone who thinks otherwise is unreasonable.
It's that kind of thinking that requires tremendous faith in something other than God in order to have that kind of confidence.
the interesting thing about the new atheists (especially, say, Dawkins,) is that for all the stridency of his talk, he even notes he is not making an absolute claim. He even admits he doesn't know. He just says the probability (however you could calculate that) is so low for him that he says, "there is no god."
The only faith claim I really see from him and those kinds of individuals is in the claim: "absence of evidence = evidence of absence." Because, IMO, there's one thing to say: "I don't see any personally persuasive evidence for God's existence, so I don't believe he does"...it's a bit difference to say: "I don't see any personally persuasive evidence, so he does not exist."
I think it's helpful to step back and look at the question outside of an adversarial perspective.
It's not God vs. No God, it's How Do You Account for Stuff?
Dawkins' or Hitchens' non-adversarial answer, if it had any degree of certainty, would require faith in something other than God.
Of course, Dawkins and Hitchens's answers wouldn't come from their atheism.
Rather, their answer might come from their epistemological naturalism, empiricism, rationalism, etc., Dawkins on his scientific background (but he's no astrophysicist or anything like that).
and even then, the way the term faith is being used becomes increasingly...strained...different from what we would use in the religious sense.
Here, Dawkins/Hitchens/etc., would say, "If there is more compelling evidence, then I'll adjust accordingly." Faith for them just describes the first axioms they can't test (e.g., "compelling evidence is empirical, natural)
With religion, it's kinda like, "Despite evidence, I have faith that this is the conclusion." Faith doesn't simply describe first axioms...but the conclusion.
You think faith exists DESPITE evidence? In opposition to reason? That's nonsense, or at least it should be.
Faith, in and out of a religious context, fills in the gaps between what we know and what we don't. For instance, Dawkins firmly believes that natural selection can account for complex biological systems like the eye, even though there's no solid evidence to demonstrate that such is the case. What is that, then, if not faith?
I seem to have struck a nerve.
To clarify one point, I did NOT say faith is "in opposition to reason."
But if we look at the Hebrews definition of faith (Hebrews 11:1) -- which is a good *religious definition*, we get: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
With religions, it's not "go where the evidence points". Rather, there is a conclusion already picked (your chosen religion), and you "endure to the end" with faith. FAITH serves as the substance and evidence of your conclusion.
This shouldn't be controversial. After all, this is the "deal" of faith. The idea that people who just change opinions with change of evidence are faithless, doubters, unbelievers. They couldn't believe on faith because they needed evidence and proof.
But here's the deal: regardless of the evidence, you're expected to believe. Why? Faith.
(This isn't to say that faith should be in things that "just aren't so." But rather, evidence is *not* why you have faith.)
Dawkins in next comment.
For instance, Dawkins firmly believes that natural selection can account for complex biological systems like the eye, even though there's no solid evidence to demonstrate that such is the case. What is that, then, if not faith?
This is a bad example. There *is* solid evidence that the eye developed by natural selection. To bring up "irreducible complexity" either suggests an unfamiliarity with the science or an unfamiliarity with the eye (it's really *not* all that perfect. The eye in particular is something I don't think that theists should want to say was God's handiwork.) The real issue is if we have the explanation that is the case.
Do you understand the difference? Evidence is all around that natural selection abounds. Natural selection *happens*, quite simply. It is a fact. No issues there. The problem is the explanation and the description of it. We think we've gotten a good handle on it, so now we just keep testing and testing.
BUT let's say we were going with your general analogy. I'll retool it a bit. "Dawkins believes that the scientific method can account for eventually account for the universe."
Here's the difference. Dawkins is basing his belief on success after success after success. Yes, his "faith" is in the unproven proposition that there will -- eventually -- be more successful explanations and accountings.
BUT his "faith" isn't out of nowhere though. Rather, it's BASED on past evidence. It's an extrapolation based on that past evidence.
And even further, with science, you have falsifiability...so as soon as something breaks, then a scientist seeks to change the model he is using. That's how the scientific method works. When we find out that there are instances when Newtonian mechanics is imprecise, we look elsewhere (and discover evidence about quantum mechanics). And so on. The only "faith" is that we will be able to observe and test the universe and that our observations and tests will lead to results that can be repeated and corroborated. But this faith is based on tons and tons and tons of past successes and our "conclusions" aren't "set in stone."
Who's advocating faith "out of nowhere?" Faith is always built as a result of "success after success after success." That's the Alma 32 recipe for faith in the Book of Mormon - you plant the seed, and as it grows, you learn that it is good.
You're suggesting that all religion is, by definition, irrational. That's ridiculous. Why would billions of believers continue to believe if their faith consistently let them down? Are they all just stupid?
I'm not anti-Darwin, nor do I think that the earth is 6000 years old and was created in 7 24-hour periods. I think the Intelligent Design folks bring up some very interesting questions a la irreducible complexity, but they don't offer their own alternative other than "it was designed," which is a theological statement, not a scientific one.
I don't deny that natural selection happens. But you have to recognize that there are questions that natural selection hasn't explained and doesn't seem equipped to explain. Why does the fossil record demonstrate complex species appearing and disappearing suddenly rather than the more gradated fossils you'd expect from natural selection? The eye, the inside of the cell - unless each piece is in place, you don't get part of an eye or part of a cell. You get nothing that provides a natural advantage.
Natural selection isn't even remotely falsifiable. When confronted with questions of irreducible complexity or a fossil record inconsistent with natural selection, they respond with theories with no evidence - "transition species didn't fossilize," for instance. Or they just insult you as a religious nut.
Let's look at Alma 32.
Start with 17 & 18 to find out that faith isn't knowledge. Faith isn't to know something. Faith isn't having a sign.
But here's the deal in verse 22. 22 gives us two 'conclusions' that the proper LDS person should come to. 1) Believe in God. 2) Believe (or desire to believe) on his word.
How do we get there?
verse 27...But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
So, faith is what you use from the beginning. When you have 0 successes. When you don't know.
If we go to 28, he compares the word to a seed...a seed that you had to plant by faith to check if it is true. If it is a good seed, it should check out. You might say that if it is a bad seed, it should not check out (verse 32). BUT 28 (as well as 38-39) has the loophole...by simply not having faith, you can cast the seed out by your unbelief!. So faith (even if it is a mere desire to believe) ACHIEVES the conclusion that faith wants.
Let's check out 34. This is the clincher. When you gain KNOWLEDGE, your FAITH is dormant. But doesn't that make sense?
Again, I am not saying that religion is irrational. Rather, it is subjective. See, the about Alma 32 is that it is predicated on subjective response...what happens to *you*. Does *your* heart swell? Do *you* find the seed grows? Do *you* find your soul to enlarge? And this is why so many people believe. Because indeed, they do have such subjective responses.
But the thing about subjectivity is that it differs by person...different people have different reactions. So, whereas one person might feel a swelling from the Alma 32 experiment, another might not. One might feel a "confirmation" from the Quran, or from completely different text. These spiritual confirmations are meaningful to the individual, but they do not say anything about the objective truth or falsity of the texts they espouse.
The issue is...where do these subjective experiences come from? Faith concludes that they are from God (whichever kind you believe in...) But we don't have evidence of this. We have evidence that mental experiences comes from the brain. Now, whether these brain patterns still come from God is certainly possible, but since most religious people insist that we have no way of *naturally* studying and "testing" God scientifically, they by default make God inaccessible.
(to be continued)
But you have to recognize that there are questions that natural selection hasn't explained and doesn't seem equipped to explain. Why does the fossil record demonstrate complex species appearing and disappearing suddenly rather than the more gradated fossils you'd expect from natural selection?
I can guarantee you that no one seriously says, "transition species don't fossilize." No, the real problem is the environmental conditions for fossilization -- it's not the species, but where (in time and in location) they have lived that determines things. And even that isn't said with no evidence. That is said with clear evidence of the chemical composition of various substrata of soil and the effects on fossilization.
Why does the fossil record feature quick disappearances and appearances? That's because evolution does NOT work via phyletic gradualism, which you seem to believe in and seem to think is what is "expected" of natural selection. This gradualism has been falsified. Natural selection and evolution works in a punctuated equilibrium. You can read more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
The eye, the inside of the cell - unless each piece is in place, you don't get part of an eye or part of a cell. You get nothing that provides a natural advantage.
Remember that some photoreceptivity is better than none in most environments (even if rudimentary)...that is why we *do* have evidence of rudimentary photocells in more primitive species (e.g., euglenas, which you can study in HS biology). From photoreceptivity, there are plenty of places to go that provide natural advantage...for example, ability to tell direction of light. One *cannot* assume that an eye is only 1:0 in usefulness...either is or is not. That is not the case.
Similarly, one cannot assume that during an evolutionary process, something must be useful for the *same* thing and just progress more of the same.
The question really is...how do we put the pieces together.
Natural selection isn't even remotely falsifiable. When confronted with questions of irreducible complexity or a fossil record inconsistent with natural selection, they respond with theories with no evidence - "transition species didn't fossilize," for instance. Or they just insult you as a religious nut.
Here's how you falsify evolution. Show a modern human in the same strata as the earliest bacteria. Find the fossil. Go.
Falsification is showing how the explanation goes *against* the evidence. So, we know that transition species *do* fossilize (because every species is a transition species...any fossils we have are of transition species!) So, we know this is false. However, what we can say is that under certain environments, chemical composition will reduce chance to fossilize. The way to falsify this is show how these environments actually *don't* reduce chance to fossilize (e.g., find as many fossils here as elsewhere).
But you really have to do reading on what the theories actually say, instead of what you just think they say. A lot of this message was just correcting for the inaccuracy of your understanding of evolution.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home