On Positive and Negative Beliefs

Recently I have been caught in a discussion on the existence or non-existence of hell. And an atheist weighed stating essentially, "There is no God." And someone decided to make a point by posting the exact opposite, showing the usefulness (or lack thereof) of sweeping absolute statements. This was followed by people saying in essence, "Prove it. There's no God and since that's a negative the burden of proof is entirely and solely on you."

Now they are correct in that you cannot prove a negative. I will not dispute this, nor do I truly seek to. However, I suspect they do not understand what the phrase means. If I give a pet a treat for sitting when I tell it to sit, we agree this is positive reinforcement. The pet realises that if it does what it's told, it gets a treat. I do X and I get Y. The same thing applies when the pet does something it knows it oughtn't and gets put in its kennel. I do X and I get Y. This is also positive reinforcement, even though it is not pleasant for the subject. Negative reinforcement is different. If you do what you oughtn't, a nice thing gets taken away. If you do what you ought, a bad thing gets taken away. I do X and Y goes away.

Now a similar concept applies to this claim to not need to prove a negative. And as I said, I agree that you do not need to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person who claims a positive. "There is a God." This is a positive statement about Truth. It is True if it is reality regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. "There is no God." This is also a statement about Truth. Any statement which states what present in the nature of Truth is definitively positive.

Conversely, any statement which states what is not present in the nature of Truth is definitively negative. So if I were to say, "There may or may not be a God." I have introduced uncertainty into the equation. And as Truth is by its virtue objectively absolute, it cannot be uncertain. Therefore any uncertain statement addresses what is not present in the nature of Truth: in this case, that there may both may or may not be a God.

Because of this, it is a fallacy to argue that stating there is no God is a negative statement and therefore needs no proving. It is, in fact, an entirely positive statement about the nature of Truth, which is what we argue whenever we discuss such matters as the existence of God.

Remembrance Day

Lest we forget...

It's all in Boethius...

It's remarkable how what I am reading affects how I think about the world. Lately I've been involved in a few conversations on matters such as hell and other points of theology. And every time it's easy to pull out concepts such as how Fortuna turns her wheel, or how we can find true happiness. And further, I then link it to Plato and his forms.

That said, I really shouldn't be posting on message boards because I really do have to finish this paper on Boethius and Ovid for tomorrow. Ah well.