Friday, 16 May 2008
-
Who Has the Burden of Proof?
by Keepfishing (with permission)
Above: Richard DawkinsIt is often said by Atheists and similar that when talking about God the burden of proof is on the Theists. I guess that this is standard operating procedure in philosophy - those that think something IS, have to prove it, rather than the other way round.
However, it occurred to me that in the case of God, this seems counter-intuitive. I may be way off, and this is mostly the jumbled flow of a two minute thought last night, but here's my logic....
Most Atheists subscribe to a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist theory of evolution and development. As far as I understand it, part of the theory includes the idea that common traits amongst established species are probably good, otherwise they would have been selected out.
Now, all (maybe there's one or two, but I'm yet to hear of them) cultures around the world are originally theistic in some form or another and have some form of spiritual worship. Social evolution theory might say that this is a good thing (hence why it's stuck around), because it brings communities together or something, or gives them a crutch when times are hard, or helps manage fear and depression. Heck, one of them might even be true!
So sticking with this idea of it being a good thing, for whatever reason, why are the evolutionists now telling us that it is definitely not true and is a delusion? Delusion, in my book, has always been a bad thing. Presumably the Atheists believe they have overcome the shackles of our Neanderthal-esque beliefs and that now non-belief is somehow beneficial for the progression (see comments here for a wide range of ideas on this) and advancement of the human race.
Therefore, if this state of a-theisim is a secondary, allegedly more advanced stage of human development and evolution, surely the burden of dis-proof should be on the Atheist, rather than the Theist?
Or I could be talking complete codswallop. I look forward to being informed either way.
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (3)
good point. i mean, we don't even have to talk about the judeo-christian God yet. just to say that all of mankind has been wrong and "delusional" to believe in god(s) this entire time is a bit ridiculous. or at least, Atheists should be proving why it's so delusional. faith has brought human beings a long way and you can't discount that. the question shouldn't be so much "is there a god?" but rather "who is god and what is your reaction to him/her/it (as ppl choose to believe)" obviously, you know my answer :P
oh wow - never thought of it like that
I think that Dawkins places the burden of proof on theism because he thinks God's existence is, in itself, a low probability: He sees God as a complex personal entity that is powerful enough to make the universe, and the odds of one of those things simply existing are about the same as the odds of a 747 coming out of a whirwind through a junkyard (you can see the sarcasm).
Anthony Flew argued that the theist has the burden of proof because of knowledge; if we attribute something to God, then we won't look for a natural explanation, and that will stunt science.
Burdens of proof are often settled by practical considerations: the presumption of innocence is an example. Maybe on these grounds one could argue against the burden of proof being on atheists, given the practical benefits of theism. This can backfire, however, as theism has also caused harm.