The Burden of Proof, Standards Please...

OK, so the usual religious rabble blurts out a number of things without giving it much thought, and considering where they are coming from socially, I can't really blame them. Trying to pull the conversation out of the clouds, out of the most complex theologies and philosophies can often be difficult, but I feel necessary for any sense of conversation.

Most religious people are so used to making baseless claims which are entirely without merit, and without a critic around. So when having a discussion or debate, I often have to introduce a few elementary ideas.

I think the best place to start is to get someone to identify their standards of evidence. For example, if they consider personal revelation to be evidence, then I ask them to offer the same standards to others, and their beliefs. If we accept personal feelings and experiences as evidence, then it would imply the Christian must accept the beliefs of Muslims, Scientologists, palmists, alien abductees, Bigfoot sightings, and every spiritual claim out there. Of course these claims are often mutually exclusive and incompatible, which means forming a model of the natural world is impossible.

We need to Identify why we use the scientific method as evidence, why our personal experiences can be flawed, how our upbringing influences us, and why people are put in mental hospitals for hearing gods today.

Thus I need to go over this topic again, the subject of the "BURDEN OF PROOF". Very simply, the person(s) who make(s) the claim is(are) responsible for demonstrating the claim is correct. Before I believe in something it must be backed up by sufficient evidence.

What makes sufficient evidence??  Carl Sagan, a legend of his time, often said, "Incredible claims require incredible evidence." And it is very true. If you told me you had a dog at home, I would not think to doubt you, for this would be a banal claim, certainly not worth my time to investigate. If you , however, mentioned you possessed a dragon in your home, I would be inclined to doubt you. In fact, unless you would be willing to back that up with evidence, verifiable, falsifiable evidence, then I would throw the claim out the window and deem you to be joking, or perhaps insane.

Christopher Hitchens, perhaps the most prominent writer of our time, once added his own paradox to the mix. He said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Gods fall under this category. They require faith because there is no evidence. Only personal, emotional, anecdotal claims, which someone could never use as persuasive evidence. Before people tell me about a feeling you have had, an experience which changed you, or an emotion, please consider the burden of proof.

Lastly, please enjoy the video...