When It Comes To Gods, Who Has The Burden of Proof?

Dialectic Two-Step  is an ongoing series of my thoughts on questions that come my way.

Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two. - Octavio Paz  

When It Comes To Gods, Who Has The Burden of Proof?

The burden of proof is viewed by different people according to their purposes

Theists: burden of proof is on the atheistsAtheists: burden of proof is on the theistEvangelist: burden of proof is on the atheists, but not a wise position to take. Winning converts is probably more about showing what belief can offer versus anything to do with non-belief. Logic is really not relevant here!People in general: The necessity of logic is a function of competing individual points of view and is only relevant when resolving disputes and preventing harm.

It’s clear that there is a range of nonsense which people can believe without creating harm. Consider the Asatru movement in the US that began in the 1970s. They believe in the Norse Gods.   In these cases convincing a theist or an atheist that they’re wrong offers no benefit for anyone. This is the space where many of these online conversations live (and where I’m drawn to like a moth to light).

Where belief produces harm to self or others, this is typically diagnosed as a disease or a crime and dealt with. Consider Jim Jones or any of the end times groups that ended in mass suicides.

There is a space between that concerns legislation and liberty.  This is the space where we have to pay attention and where logic is valuable.  Here is where the burden of proof should be on the side proposing the restriction of liberty or potential harm.

This is where all the hot button issues live – abortion, religious liberty laws, same sex marriage, etc. Some of these issues are argued from the position of theological authority.  Here the burden of proof should be on the theists.

For the most part I fall somewhere on the scale of disinterest to empathy towards the beliefs of others.  But when beliefs drive legislation, I become extremely interested, and I will speak my mind. Being a Buddhist, I have few eggs in the Christian basket and would challenge any arguments from authority.  Here’s where logic must apply.

Part of that logic would include a clarification that challenging the beliefs of others in the context of legislation is not an attack on religion or belief. Everyone’s beliefs should be under the microscope.  Anyone proposing restricting liberty or harming others based on theology (or lack thereof) needs to supply proof that the legislation is warranted.

Get Each Week's Dialectic Two Step in your email box

First Name:

Last Name:

Email address:

In addition to a monthly email you can also subscribe to the following weekly series:
One Minute Meditations
Tiny Drops (Photography series)
Compass Songs (My Favorite Poems)
Dialectic Two-Step
Modern Koans (interesting questions)
Sunday Morning Coming Down (Music Videos)
Relics (Timeless Republished Articles)
Say What?
Quotes
Verse Us (Poems I Write)

 

The post When It Comes To Gods, Who Has The Burden of Proof? appeared on Andrew Furst.