By Mano Singham
In the post, I said that there was no substantive reason that religious people could give in response to the question "Why do you believe in god?" and I categorized the likely things they would say under the headings Argument From Personal Incredulity, Argument From Wishful Thinking, and Argument From Vague Feelings. I endorsed Sigmund Freud's assertion that religion was a form of mass delusion since so many people believed in something for which there was no credible evidence whatsoever.
Commenter Lucas took exception to my post and critiqued it saying that I should not make statements such as that "There is no sense in believing in something for which there is no evidence" without substantiating them. He said that he himself did believe in god because he had "studied the evidence" and found it to be "extremely convincing."
This is where the discussion in the comments took an interesting and somewhat surprising turn. I asked for an example of the convincing evidence that he had that did not fit under the three umbrella headings that I had given. But Lucas resolutely refused to do so, saying that that was a detour, and that I was using it as an excuse to avoid addressing his challenge to my lack of substantiation.
This post seeks to clarify what seems to be a basic misunderstanding between us about where the burden of proof lies and what kinds of statements need evidence in support of them and what kinds of statements are justified by the absence of evidence against them.
To begin, let me repeat what I said in an even earlier post.
As mathematician John Allen Paulos argues in his book Irreligion: A mathematician explains why the arguments for god just don’t add up (2008), basic logic requires that existence claims and universal claims be treated differently.
Existence claims can be proved but not disproved. "No matter how absurd the existence claim (there exists a dog who speaks English out of its rear end), we cannot look everywhere and check everything in order to assert with absolute confidence that there's no entity having the property." (Paulos, p. 42) But all the person making the existence claim needs to do to prove it is to produce just one specimen. So the burden of proof is on the person making the existence claim, and in the absence of such proof, it is perfectly logical to deny the validity of the claim.
On the other hand, universal claims can be disproved but not proved. For example, the claim that all swans are white can be disproved by producing just one black swan. But no one can prove the universal claim since we can never say we have checked each and every swan. So the burden of proof is on the person denying the universal claim and in the absence of such proof, it is perfectly logical to assume the validity of the universal claim.
My statement that "There is no evidence for god" is a universal statement whose justification depends on the lack of a counter-example, and so according to the rules of logic, the burden of proof is on the person who challenges it to provide that counter-example. Equivalently, the statement by someone that he or she has convincing evidence for the existence of god that does not fall under the three categories that I provided is an existence statement, and again the burden of proof is on that person to provide an example, not on me to show that he or she has no such evidence.
But if we accept to Lucas's rules of logic, it seems like I cannot even make a claim such as that "there does not exist any dog that can speak English out of its rear end" unless I can provide citations from peer-reviewed journals that assert that the authors have checked every dog (or at least an extensive number of them) and found this statement to be true.
But of course that is absurd. The reason we can confidently make such a statement and expect them to be believed even in the absence of controlled studies is because we apply the commonly accepted rules of logic, not Lucas's rules. I have never personally encountered a dog that can speak out of its rear end and base my statement on the confidence that if anyone in the world had such a dog, it would be an event of such enormous significance that it would be publicized widely and known by everyone. So the absence of a counter-example is, by itself, sufficient to justify the statement.
Of course, someone could claim that I should still not say this because there may be a dog somewhere that can speak out of its rear end but that the owner is keeping it secret and that I do not know for sure that this is not the case. But no one would credit such a statement until the dog is actually produced. This is because the statement that such a dog exists is an existence statement, and the burden of proof is on that person to provide the evidence. It reminds of the claim by the Raelians in December 2002 that they had cloned a human being and would produce the baby later. While this generated a blizzard of publicity, when no baby was forthcoming, people rightly concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.
The point is that there are many statements that all of us can and do routinely make that are perfectly justifiable and accepted as such even if they are generalized from our personal experience of just a few cases, provided the negation of such statements would be extraordinary. These rules of logic are so commonplace and so basic that people may not even consciously realize that they are using them.
So I can confidently say that no cows have seven legs, although I have personally seen only a few cows, noticed that none of them had seven legs, but have not done an exhaustive literature search to see if anyone else had found one. This is because my statement that there does not exist a cow with seven legs is a universal statement. Someone who says I am wrong has to produce such a cow.
This is why I can make the statement that the stated reasons for the beliefs of religious people (except for people like Pat Robertson who have a direct line to god) will fall into the three categories: Argument From Personal Incredulity, Argument From Wishful Thinking, or Argument From Vague Feelings. My statement is a universal statement, based on all the reasons that have been given to me over a long time discussing these issues with thoughtful people, and similar to the ones about the absence of seven-legged cows or rear-end talking dogs. Its validity has to be challenged by providing a counter-example.
So getting back to Lucas's concerns, I am not even asking that any counter-evidence he produces be convincing because what is convincing to one person may not be convincing to another. All I am asking is that he produce any evidence at all that does not fall under those three categories because I am really curious what form such evidence would take, the same way I would be really curious to see what a rear-end talking dog would look like.
It is his choice whether he wants to provide such evidence.
Category 3?
Ignoti et quasi oculti
I guess that the people that produce a plain "I do believe, yes", with no further argumentation (I know many of such plain electroencephalograms) will belong to category 3. Just to advance the discussion... Great blog by the way!
Burden of Proof
The is my first time posting and I would like to congratulate the hosts of the site on providing us with excellent content. Thank you!
To the subject at hand--I am a theist (unlike 99% of the visitors here I suspect), and I have several disagreements with this article.
My first objection is that there is an assertion that there should be a burden of proof to begin with. To suggest there ought to be a burden of proof, as we see in a court of law, suggests that it is necessary for us to come to some consensus. Why is there a consensus necessary for the question of God?
Secondly, the premise that we must have evidence to satisfy the burden of proof suggests that it is possible to have empirical evidence for the existence of God. However, by definition, God is not subject to the laws of nature (unlike talking dogs) so it is not possible to apply the scientific method to Him. It is establishing an absurd criteria for measuring something. It is like suggesting we should measure the air speed with a radar gun. If we take this method of measurement seriously, of course we will always conclude there is no wind!
Burden of Proof and God
With respect to your concern about why there should be a burden of proof at all when speaking about the existence of God...
The answer is that a belief about God should be subject to the same standards as all of our other beliefs. Rational beliefs require support by evidence or argument.
With respect to your concerns about an unfair requirement in asking for evidence of God's existence...
You have suggested that it does not make sense to ask for evidence of God's existence, because God, by definition, is not the sort of thing for which there can be evidence. Before answering your claim, there are two things that must be said. First, you may define God in the way suggested, but it is worth mentioning that most people do not define God in this way. God is seen by most people as a supreme being that interacts with the physical world in various ways (answering prayers, performing miracles, authoring various books, etc) and his existence is therefore a testable hypothesis. Second, the burden of proof may be satisfied not just by empirical evidence, but also by reasoned argument. Having said all that, let us return to the claim that your God is defined in such a way that you cannot meet this burden of providing evidence or argument. Very well. Then your God, by definition, is not the sort of thing that one can rationally believe in.
No Proof
Well, there's no proof of the existance of perpetual motion or time travel either, but you can't just go around claiming you've found something great and then not back it up with proof. Well, perhaps you could, but most rational people are going to still demand proof. I don't know though, perhaps you'll find some optimistic business-person who will believe you and even give you the time and money on faith alone, and even then you could delay further enquiries with the "just believe" rhetoric, but that business person will eventually catch on that you are being smoke and mirrors.
My question for you is whether it is ethical to make extraordinary claims without giving extraordinary proof....
The answer is that a belief
The answer is that a belief about God should be subject to the same standards as all of our other beliefs. Rational beliefs require support by evidence or argument.
Do you believe you are conscious? If so, what is your rationale?
God is seen by most people as a supreme being that interacts with the physical world in various ways (answering prayers, performing miracles, authoring various books, etc) and his existence is therefore a testable hypothesis.
Most theists do not believe in a God who is "testable" according to our standards. Isn't it obvious that if something is not subject to the laws of physics, we cannot use those laws of physics to test that thing? If a "miracle" were a repeatable/verifiable event, it wouldn't really be a miracle.
Second, the burden of proof may be satisfied not just by empirical evidence, but also by reasoned argument.
Please give an example of a "reasoned argument" which both satisfies some universal notion of proof and is not based on empirical evidence. Are there absolute assumptions that we should all agree to for such an argument?
third?
Ignoti et quasi oculti
Hi. I do not claim it, I am just saying that many people when asked about why they do believe, simply will answer you with a "I do believe, yes", without entering in any "because" or argument anything, nothing, null, zero. So my question was whether that type of people will belong to the third category (Argument From Vague Feelings) or not...
Anyway, answering your question, I agree, it is mainly unethical, and totally stupid...
Belief
This topic has become unnecessarily obscured here (at least) by the application of irrelevant terminology and, frankly, ignorance about the nature of belief and for that matter of humans.
To begin at a profoundly rudimentary level: what can we perceive? In one word, change. We can see smell hear taste feel and think about things that change. Whatever else there might be, some Stuff that doesn't change, we can't perceive with those senses. Therefore we can't, in any public sense, "know" about whatever that Stuff might be. I can have visions that tell me about G*d (in fact I have done that) but does not enable me to tell you about the unchangeable It (G*d, not your boss's combover) in any way that's necessarily going to make any sense to you. I can communicate an experience of G*d only if my experience is sort of like what you expect It to be like, or if I'm a poet of astounding talent. G*d is just that invisible unsmellable inaudible untouchable, tasteless That which doesn't change.
It's a problem. My experience of it (and every other visionary experience I've read, a few of them: I wrote a book about this stuff a few years ago. It's called A Doomsday Reader, NYU Press '99, FWIW) is that you know with absolute certainty that you saw heard smelt touched tasted Something beyond everything else you know, and that it's ineffable. Language is not equipped to communicate It; not ordinary language, at any rate. Since I'm not a prophet I feel no urge to convince you of what I know, so I don't have that problem.
But I can try to communicate to you why belief is a human universal. Literally every society ever known to us has developed and fostered belief in That, in G*d. Why? Do we need It? My answer is yes. To go back to another early point, let's consider that humans manage to live in every environment the planet offers. But there is a common element of environment that occurs everywhere we go, and that's society. We need each other. We need us. Another way to say that is that we have to matter, and know and feel that. Sure there are always outcasts and hermits, and their incomprehensible insuperable oddness demonstrates the truth of my point. We have to matter. But the fact is we don't. We die. We get replaced, laid off, divorced, fired, what have you. Our relationships and societies do not provide the permanent meaning we crave. So what does? Whatever doesn't change. What's permanent, always there for us, and, if not exactly caring about us, at least messing with us: It.
For those of us who want to make that need go away, there's a question: whaddya got that's better?
Graycard
The burden of proof is not a
The burden of proof is not a rule of logic. I'm not sure where you could have pulled this idea, or from where it might have originated. One cannot use it to draw inferences. It is a demand that one should not leave the logical rules idle, on the sidelines. It is an imperative that one ought to allow the rules of logic play. As an "ought," it is essentially normative. As normative, it is social. Hence, the burden of proof is a social rule. It is an Academic Platitude the ordinary person takes as a sign of prestige, worth and understanding.
Moreover, since you won't accept any argument from your three headings, you have a constraint on what "evidence" is supposed to mean. This is a (positive) linguistic claim (or rather, a presupposition: it needs to be put on the table). Perhaps you set the burden of proof too high? Or you are too conservative in your level of expected evidence. Clearly you have an implicit expectation of what counts as proof. Is this expectation propositional?
If you could expound upon it, how would you justify it? It is positive, and thus it stands in need of justification. "The burden of proof is thus-and-so." -- What is your evidence for this?
"Substantive reason" reason boils down to what? -- "A reason that pleases me." Of course, outside of your game, the religious person might ask: "Prove it with religious evidence" or "Convince us with spiritual proof" -- Will you call this nonsense? What makes "religious evidence" senseless?
If you hold not to that claim, then perhaps you hold an error theory. Does "religious evidence" systematically make the proposition which it supports false? But is this unfortunate? Perhaps, but you go further: You deem it "irrational."
But what does it mean to be "rational"? Is this a cognitive defect? Or is it an obligation? The former would be an absurd assessment. The latter seems unconvincing, for what is it exactly that is my burden? So I give you a proposition with some support. But why must I do this? Well, the game of rationality can be enjoyable some days, other days not. But what makes me obliged? A need for superiority? Am I obliged to support the proposition or something more? My form of life? etc etc.