IT'S EVIDENTIARY, MY DEAR WATSON! A BRIEF FORAY INTO THE BURDEN OF PROOF

I had a recent discussion (of a combative nature at times) here, upon which one poster actually stated, and I quote: "PROOF itself is simply a FORM OF EVIDENCE. There is all types of evidence: Authenticated, Witnesses, Hearsay, Circumstantial evidence, Direct evidence, and even Res ipsa loquitur."

So again we go on the merry-go-round of who shoulders the burden of proof. Of course, I maintain (as many others do) that the onus lie squarely on the shoulders of the believer, which usually results in the reply, "Prove otherwise!"

No.

I maintain that every atheist, agnostic, or other label equivalent to the 'there is no god' mindset bears the mantle of the trier of fact, which translates to: "Trier of fact is a person who determines facts in a legal proceeding. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred."

And of course, we fall back on the scientific definition, lacking an impartial judge, jury, etc. - "Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it."

One of the consistent difficulties encountered is that it's been an assumption that some vast omnipotent deity has always existed (whether monotheistically or fragmentary), ergo, its non-existence is considered the bolder claim. However, as history has shown us, a consensus on a subject is more often wrong than not. An argument from tradition also has proven itself to be a weak rejoinder: little in this world is fixed in stasis.

The presuppositionalist approaches the entire subject from the wrong angle. Instead of testing the waters of said hypothesis, it is presumed to be correct, and all viewpoints flow henceforth from this fixed point (head, meet brick wall!).

Of course, by the above scientific definition, it (i.e., there is no god) can be construed as a 'new theory', but then again, we have seen that the concept of Illic est haud deus is hardly new: it has been around as long as (if not longer) any of the monotheistic constructs.

And when a group of people (no matter how large, two or two million) make an extravagant claim, it is contingent on them to provide the evidence to support their extravagance. Items such as defiance of the natural laws (bringing the dead back to life, for one) and the demonstrability of said defiance, proving the hand of some anthropic principle is behind reality (this is known as anthropic bias), or demanding that a personal anecdote be entered in as evidence.

Failing this, we then go to the documentation. Aristotle's dictum was that the "the benefit of the doubt should be delegated to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself."

Of course, the book of which we speak is heir to vast amounts of errancy, so much so that is incredible that it is so widely accepted and relied upon. Not a year goes by that it is proven to be not only incorrect, but vastly mistaken on multiple levels and subjects. Historically, it misses the mark with staggering incompetency (so much so, that it's adherents are prone to use the Texas Sharpshooter method): it contradicts itself so often, that platoons of apologists have to massage and re-massage the fixed data and provide multiple translations in order to salvage it: and the fact that the myriad alleged authors that have little or no multiple historical external attestations does little to bolster it's fragile veracity. In fact, it's child's play to show that the book disproves itself (perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole: the ability to read, and some level of competency is assumed - not to mention the willingness of the listener to actually apply a yardstick of critical analysis to a cherished belief).

So we are left with little. Sporadic, unprovable witnesses of a faceless nature, an oral tradition which is shaky at best, a few historical annotations which are beset with doubt, and a set of documents that by any other standards are not only impeachable, but best relegated to the fantasy section of any bookseller.

And so the believer clings to the wreckage of that galleon which has shattered on the rocks of logic, that broken barque that is past seaworthiness, adrift on the ocean of fantasy, denying that the sailed ship is still whole, still capable.

The world is a wondrous, intricate place of beauty. I am always in awe of it: from each and every particle to the fields of flowers, the marvelous puzzle of life itself. But rather than to ask the why of it, I am more intrigued by the how of it. "Why?" is the venue of armchair philosophers. "How?" is the raison d'etre of the pragmatist.

Be then, the trier of fact, instead of the crier of slack. Question all things mercilessly.

That, dear readers, is my nickel's worth: flip it, or tuck it in your pocket.

Till the next post, then.