In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. That is, if a person says that the moon is made of cheese, then it is up to that person to support this assertion. Demanding that the other party demonstrate that the moon is not made of cheese would constitute shifting the burden of proof.
A theist is someone who claims that there is a god. An atheist is someone who doesn't. Since the theist is the one making a positive claim, it is the theist's job to demonstrate that a god exists.
It may also be valuable to realize that Science comments on the natural, not the supernatural. Science has nothing yet to prove on the existence of a God - as much as famous apologists like to argue, nothing of the sort is true.
It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," from apologists when they are challenged to support the claim that God exists. Such statements are an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person (e.g. "If you don't think that the Invisible pink unicorn exists, then prove it!")
Statements like "You can't prove god doesn't exist" - which is a special case of the more general claim, "You can't prove a negative" - are based on the premise that belief in God is justified until sufficient evidence is presented to refute such existence. While this response may be considered sound under a world view which accepts the premise, this is simply a form of compartmentalization. If we were to apply that premise to all claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality, since every claim would then have to be accepted as true (until it is disproved — a burden which is especially difficult when dealing with supernatural claims).
To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist).
More tellingly, though, apologists typically only apply this premise to questions that address their particular religion - and nothing else. The same Christian, for example, who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an attempt to shift the burden of proof if it was attempted by, say, a Hindu: "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization is a form of special pleading. The argument they present is equally valuable to every conceived deity, and should not be used only for a single one of preference.
The claim, "you can't prove a negative" is often used as a shorthand in discussions to refer to the difficulty of gathering evidence to "prove" that something does not exist. Proving that a phenomenon is not real takes a lot more time and effort than to demonstrate that it is real. This is especially true when the definition of the phenomenon can be changed at will by its believers . It is very difficult to prove the general non-existence of a phenomenon, and this difficulty is used by believers of many kinds of phenomena (I.E. god) to give the appearance of credibility to their beliefs.
A somewhat famous counter-argument was posed by Bertrand Russell when he said the following:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
When a new scientific hypothesis is introduced, its proponents have the onus of demonstrating it. The rest of the scientific establishment has no obligation to disprove the new hypothesis. However, a hypothesis can only rise to the rank of theory by being repeatedly tested, and by accumulating evidence in its favor. This evidence must now be taken into account by the theory's critics.
Thus, if person A says that relativity is unproven, and person B asks A for evidence, this may be seen as shifting the burden of proof, but B is really asking A to support the positive assertion that the mass of evidence for relativity is not conclusive.
In online debates, when a person challenges a well-established scientific theory (e.g. evolution via natural selection), it is almost invariably the case that that person does not know or does not understand the evidence for the theory.
There is no evidence for the presence of a higher power, which is why theists need faith - it's used in place of evidence. The irony is that most of them have the confidence to deny the existence of fairy tale creatures from other mythologies and cultures, for which there is no evidence.
Atheists maintain that there is no evidence for God, yet, therefore, it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to believe in him (or it or them). When the existence of a god is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, then that is the time to believe. Within the context of this discussion, it's important to note the definition of faith that is relevant:
Faith is accepting a claim as true without sufficient evidence. Faith is an extreme form of belief.
Faith – which is belief even in the face of evidence that your belief may be wrong – is used as a crutch for those who do not want to do the hard work of thinking through tough moral and intellectual issues. This includes opposing scientific inquiry from heliocentrism to stem cell research. Faith in religion has also been used to justify war, the Inquisition, the suppression of ideas (Galileo), and slavery.
Science does contain philosophical underpinnings which are unprovable, which thus require "faith" in the epistemological sense. However, science distinguishes itself from purely faith-based beliefs in the same way that philosophy does; by the application of logic. Science also goes one step further by adhering to demonstrable, repeatable experiments and empirical data.
The individual who does not believe in god, but does a daily ritual to summon fairies, is likewise an atheist, but is unlikely a scientist. Science is not synonymous with atheism.
It does not take faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. It takes faith to believe in something without or contrary to the evidence. Can you prove that Leprechauns do not exist? Can you prove there are no unicorns, no Loch Ness Monster, or that there is no invisible porcelain teapot orbiting around the Sun that answers prayers? The point is that you cannot prove a negative, and you don’t have to prove a negative. The burden of proof relies on the positive claim: that a god exists in the first place. Why believe in something without evidence? We don’t believe in faeries, Leprechauns, unicorns, Big Foot, etc. because there is no evidence to believe in them. And yet people forget their skepticism of other outrageous claims when it comes to their religion and willfully accept that an invisible man in the sky exists and answers their prayers.
Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
* Two is not equal to Five.
* The ancient Egyptians did not watch Mythbusters on television.
* The tsetse fly is not native to North America.
Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Is it a he, a she or an it? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
"Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be and nearly ever religion and individual defines their own "personal" belief.
Moreover, while a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to know 100% for certain that no god exists, he doesn't need said knowledge to disbelieve in a specific god's existence. For example, if the god is defined well enough that one can examine the definition for logical fallacies, one may do so. If the god is not logically consistent then one is justified in their disbelief, even if they don't know 100% for sure that the god doesn't exist.
God does not exist. QED.
___________________________________________
Sources:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=You_can%27t_prove_God_doesn%27t_exist
A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
No comments:
Post a Comment