Very few people actually believe in the 'God of the Philosophers'. Most believe in a tribal god.
But even if you want to go to the philosopher's God, it is far from clear that such a being exists. Most of the arguments in favor depend strongly on Aristotelian philosophy, which is, frankly, so outdated it is more of a joke than anything else. Even a little bit of study of the concept of partial orders shows that 'the Highest One' need not exist, especially when the requirement is to maximize more than one property at a time.
The critique of scientism is more and more common these days. There are, of course, a great many *opinions* that are not subject to the scientific method: that my wife is beautiful, that tomatoes are a noxious fruit, that the Mona Lisa is over hyped. Those are not *truths*. That doesn't mean they are not important. In fact, such opinions are essential to normal life. But they are NOT facts.
To be a 'truth' requires that there is some sort of way to challenge it and that it passes those challenges, even from disbelievers. So, in math, there are accepted axioms and rules of deduction. In the sciences, we have the scientific method. At this point, no such challenge procedures are known outside of those areas that I can tell. This is why religion and philosophy will not ever reach the standards of truth.
As for the burden of proof: sorry, but the one making the positive existence claim is the one with the burden of proof. To go further requires the object whose existence is considered be well enough defined to have its existence be testable in some way. And, in the absence of evidence, especially when evidence is to be expected, lack of belief is quite reasonable.
But even if you want to go to the philosopher's God, it is far from clear that such a being exists. Most of the arguments in favor depend strongly on Aristotelian philosophy, which is, frankly, so outdated it is more of a joke than anything else. Even a little bit of study of the concept of partial orders shows that 'the Highest One' need not exist, especially when the requirement is to maximize more than one property at a time.
The critique of scientism is more and more common these days. There are, of course, a great many *opinions* that are not subject to the scientific method: that my wife is beautiful, that tomatoes are a noxious fruit, that the Mona Lisa is over hyped. Those are not *truths*. That doesn't mean they are not important. In fact, such opinions are essential to normal life. But they are NOT facts.
To be a 'truth' requires that there is some sort of way to challenge it and that it passes those challenges, even from disbelievers. So, in math, there are accepted axioms and rules of deduction. In the sciences, we have the scientific method. At this point, no such challenge procedures are known outside of those areas that I can tell. This is why religion and philosophy will not ever reach the standards of truth.
As for the burden of proof: sorry, but the one making the positive existence claim is the one with the burden of proof. To go further requires the object whose existence is considered be well enough defined to have its existence be testable in some way. And, in the absence of evidence, especially when evidence is to be expected, lack of belief is quite reasonable.
