I previously had this in 2 blogs now I have it in one blog: https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/01/26/the-burden-of-proof-versus-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-part-22/
“The Burden of Proof” versus “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” Part 1/2
25 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted in Uncategorized
Pingback: “The Burden of Proof” versus “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” Part 2/2 | True and Reasonable
“Yet I do not ever hear any proof or evidence that they are true claims.”
You are reading the wrong books. One pretty simple way to proof the burden of proof would be a reductio ad absurdum argument: If the burden of proof does not lie with the person making the claim, then we have to assume everything that we cannot disprove, forcing us to assume every non-falsifiable hypothesis given.
Thank you for your comment.
Here are 3 different statements that I will number:
1) I do not believe others need to shoulder any philosophical burden to prove anything to me.
2) I do not believe I bear any philosophical burden of proof, to prove anything to anyone else.
3) We have to assume everything that we cannot disprove.
I believe the the first and the second statement. I do not believe the third one. I do not see how the third one is implied, logically or in any way, from the first 2.
If anything it seems to me that the third statement is more likely to be accepted by people who accept some notion of a burden of proof, than those who reject the notion altogether.
You’re appealing to mystery. That’s part of the religious scam. How do I justify what I cannot prove? By making it vague and inaccessible.
If you light a candle the Catholic saints are happy. If you sacrifice a chicken, the candomble gods shall grant your wish… If nothing happens that means you didn’t believe ‘enough’. It’s circular pattern overlaid on circular pattern ensuring nothing can ever be dis-proven- and yet, people wouldn’t dream of being so lenient with any other aspect of life or uncritical with any other information they were given.
Hello Pinkagendist
Thank you for your comments. I am not sure where in this blog I use the style of argument you describe. I give specific reasons why belief in “the burden of proof” is not only unjustified but often harmful to our thinking. None of my reasoning involved beliefs based on lighting candles or sacrificing Chickens.