Is the burden of proof on the person making the claim?

Question

I don't think so because of these reasons. What is or is not an extraordinary or controversial claim is relative to the audience. If an audience demands proof, the speaker should weigh the claim against his or her own understanding of reasonableness. I wouldn't feel compelled to defend my belief that Bush is disappointing in the face of those who disagree. Likewise, I don't feel burdened to prove the existence of God to those who doubt because my personal and communal belief in God is robust enough to find objections unobtrusive in any significant way. If I am personally invested in another person's belief (in the sense that a friends wants to discuss proof and evidences in detail) I would out of obligation to the relationship want to openly offer my reasons for believing. Friends are interested in each other's views.

I think this is more or less true of atheists or those who hold to evolution in the midst of doubters. They are not obligated to "prove" much

What do you think

Answer 1

Although at common law the budgen of proof is on the person making the claim (there are limited exceptions), common conversations are not so dogmatic as to require strict adherence to legal principles.

We invest more emotion in our friends and therefore want them to understand our thoughts. In those within whom we have little or no emotional investment, then we do gloss over the intricate parts ~ we might even remain silent.

Answer 2

I think you have some interesting points. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the person who has views that go against the majority view, should bare the burden of proof. I can see where this may be true. It was up to to Galileo to prove Copernicus' ideas to the world, even though he had the best evidence.

On the other hand, science, as a process, has proven itself time and time again in the face of non-science. Even if creationism and religion are views held by most people in the world, the question is should scientists have to prove to them the veracity or their understanding.

Unequivocally, they have done this with evolution. Creationists are a small minority without a leg to stand on. So it is up to the creationist to prove their position.

As for the existence/non-existence of God, we know there is no scientific evidence. We know there is good scientific evidence that would explain the reason so many believe.

Yet still, the majority believe.

So I don't know the answer to that one. Sorry if I'm not helpful. I have thought about this before but I don't have a certain answer. I think (as an atheist) that it is upon us to show that the existence of God is unlikely.

Good question, it makes me think.

Answer 3

I totally disagree, if I sell you a substance that I "claim" will heal your cancer, you would probably want proof or evdence to support that claim -- if not, I has a ton to sell you.

In science, all "claims" not only need to be supported by evidence but the experiments and findings need to be independently repeatable and verifiable. For evolution, which is what I assume tat you are refering to, you need only visit a reputable musem or do a bit of research and objective learning. Currently the theory of evolution has prehaps the most evidence to support it.

In logic, when you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, and not your audience. This is a reasonable and rational methodology and is not specific to religious claims.

While you may be secure in your faith, I can and have met many others that are secure in their completely different faiths and aseert that they are constatly experiencing a relationship with their god or gods. Additionally, many people experience feeling akin to religious experiences in a variety of situations and religious experiences can be generated by stimulating the right portion of the brain. This, at least to me, makes personal experience meaningless when it comes to evidence.

Granted, you do not have to prove that any god exists unless you wish to have a given creation story taught as an alternative to science, you wish to convert me, or you want to vote for laws that enforce your morals based on your religious beliefs.

Answer 4

You are making the classic mistake of the Argument from Ignorance and the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

The post-modernist philosophers claim there is no such thing as objective truth, all points of view are equally valid, everybodys version of reality is equally real and that objective reductionist science is just another art form subject to whims and fashions.

Bullshit!

You may not feel any obligation to prove your reality to me, and that is fine as long as you and your personal reality don't impact or influence my life or liberty in any way.

If however, your goal is to have me bow down and worship your god, and change the laws of the land to reflect the "truths" of the Bible...then I need a bit more than your personal conviction of faith.

I put the Invisible Fire Breathing Pink Unicorn in my garage up against your God any day.

(I'm not clear why you would fear defending your "disappointment" in Bush. He is a war criminal who should be tried for treason, but that is probably best discussed in the politics rooms)

Answer 5

Well? Regarding the existence of a deity, if you state it as a belief, I'll not ask for proof. If, on the other hand, you state your belief as fact, I may ask for proof. I don't believe in a deity or deities, so I am under no obligation to prove it. Proof for an assertion pretty much is dependent upon the expression of the assertion, is it not?

If I ask for proof of the existence of a deity or deities, it's merely rhetorical because I realize that no proof exists and none will be forthcoming.

Answer 6

You're right with the audience. However. If no one
in my audience would demand proof for my extra
ordinary claims I'd pretty much question the quality
of my audience. And that's why religion has no
credibility at all. It's true that evolutionists wouldn't
have to proof anything. But if they wouldn't they
would just be another religion.

Answer 7

It really doesn't matter what you "think."

The burden of proof is on the person saying something exists. If you claim a 50ft woman just attacked the city you will need to provide evidence of this. Otherwise you will constantly have to wonder is there a 50ft woman who just attacked the city and will she be holding a pink stuffed bunny.

"true of atheists or those who hold to evolution in the midst of doubters. "

THE GIGANTIC DIFFERENCE IS the fact evolution has proof and evidence available to everyone. The entire scientific community DOES NOT disagree with evolution. Evolution has withstood 180 years of scrutiny and passed with flying colors. The only doubters are people who fall for propaganda on non-peer reveiwed sites on the internet that don't bother to even vaguely look into facts and are easily dismissed with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution.

Answer 8

I think that your feeling of being obligated to offer your reasons for believing essentially is the burden of proof under a different name.

The reason many atheists and Christians say that the burden of proof is on the other is because in these cases the individuals making the claims are invested in the others' beliefs enough to want to change them. I think in those cases, people are obligated to offer their reasons for believing, and that obligation is what people are referring to when they say that the claimant has a "burden of proof."

Answer 9

I think the claim that there is a supreme being who created the universe with a single thought would be rather extraordinary to any audience. And when any person makes such claims that this entity exists they should be able to back those claims up with tangible proof.

You are describing FAITH. One needs not any proof in order to have faith and one is not required to give proof when faith is involved.

Just because you have faith in something doesn't mean that that something exists.

Answer 10

I think, if you claim to have facts to support your argument, then you should be obligated to share those facts to spread knowledge.

If you don't claim to have facts, and all you're doing is expressing a subjective opinion, then no, I don't think you're obligated to prove anything.

I don't think I have to prove the existence of God to anyone but myself. But if I want to convince you that, say, Joe Lieberman would make a good president, then I'd better have facts available if I want to convince you to share my view.