Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian-selected standards of evidence

In these threads apologists frequently accuse the opposition of employing "double standards" in respect to what evidence is acceptable to verify claims and statements. Non-religionists are prone to disqualify rumor, hearsay, opinion, conjecture, religious promotional material and dogma (which Apologists lobby to have accepted as "evidence").

The charge is often made "you require more stringent evidence for Jesus than you do for Caesar" (or some other figure from historical stories). The charge is made whether or not Non-Theists promote any "historical figure" as being totally accurately portrayed.

Nevertheless, the "double standards" charge is a favored tactic in defense of theistic positions. I suggest a solution.

Let THEISTS declare what constitutes "evidence" to support stories about gods – with the proviso that exactly the same standards will be applied to OTHER "gods" and other characters of history or myth.

Let's apply the concept in this thread. Religionists can declare that any of the following are "evidence":

1. Stories that have not been or cannot be verified
2. Legends, fables, fairytales
3. Hearsay, rumor, urban myths
4. Unsubstantiated statements and claims
5. Supernatural events and entities
6. Fiction, parables, teaching stories, religious dogma
7. Opinions, conjecture, unverified statements
8. Religious promotional literature
9. Circularity (using a source to "prove" itself)

ANY or all of the above (or others) are hereby declared to be legitimate evidence in this thread if selected by theists. The standards are PURELY those of theists. Non-Theists are not allowed a vote or veto in the matter (in this thread).

Once the selections are made, the standards selected can be applied in an effort to find evidence of the Christian "god" (if religionists choose to demonstrate their favored "god's" existence to observers using their OWN standards of evidence).

After Christians have had the opportunity to apply the standards to the Christian "god" EXACTLY the same standards of evidence will be applied to other selected "gods" to determine if they are "real". There will be NO double standard.

As a further means to test the concept, exactly the same standards will also be applied to determine if Santa Claus and Leprechauns are real (using criteria selected by Christians). If unverified stories are acceptable as evidence in favor of the Christian "god", they are equally acceptable as evidence in favor of Leprechauns (or Odin, or Aphrodite). If circularity is permitted for Christians, it is also permitted for Muslims or worshipers of African or Asian "gods".

Fair enough?

Questions for debate:

Which of the above numbered items one through nine are acceptable as evidence for apologist arguments and which are not? (Kindly indicate yes or no for each)

What standards of evidence do our Apologist members specify as the standards to be used?





Here is a chance to be decisive and to prove your ability AND your claims.





Note: I have personally invited (by PM) Easyrider, ST_JB, Goose, Fisherking, and Joer to contribute their knowledge and wisdom to this thread.

[Zzyzx]

.

I notice that you do not ask for ANY verification of truth, veracity or accuracy of the sources of information – therefore no source is excluded. Correct? Or, are there secret / undisclosed limitations upon sources? This is a critical matter so kindly answer precisely.

Actually, multiple attestation,

Okay, three guys from the same fraternity say that their leader walked on water or ten Muslims say they saw Allah. That IS "multiple attestation" – which according to your criteria is "evidence" without determining the truth of what they say. That constitutes one-of-three necessary to secure your belief.

archaeological confirmation,

If Atlanta is mentioned in Gone with the Wind and is found to exist, is "archeological confirmation" that the story is true? If towns mentioned in bible tales are found to have existed, is that "archeological confirmation"? If cities mentioned in the koran exist, that is "archeological confirmation" that is one point (of three necessary) that the koran is truthful, right?

enemy attestation

What is an example of "enemy attestation" – Paul?

According to your "criteria" ANY person who is or ever was an "enemy" (or is claimed to be – no verification needed) MUST be accepted as "enemy attestation".

A person writing in favor of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme who was once opposed constitutes "enemy attestation" – and MUST be accepted as "evidence" by your "criteria". Correct?

A person writing in favor of the koran who was once opposed, constitutes "enemy attestation" and is "evidence" according to your "criteria".

could all be viewed as verification. What else are you expecting for "verification"?

Multiple accounts from wide ranging sources that specify exactly that Jesus came back from the dead (for example).

But to answer your question. You are correct. I do not exclude a source from consideration.

Thank you. I have a different view of unconfirmed "sources" that appear in stories.

If the author of a tale about extraterrestrial beings claims that the tale is true, that becomes "evidence" using your "criteria".

I, being a realist, do not accept the author's claims as being true (or "evidence") unless verified.

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source

I notice that you carefully avoid saying "eyewitness account". Could that be because you realize that there are only SUPPOSED or REPORTED or CLAIMED eyewitnesses to the supposed "miracles" revered by Christianity – and no actual eyewitness accounts?

I don't see a material difference here. Change it to "eyewitness account" if you feel I'm so devious. How do you know there are "no actual eyewitness accounts"? What method are you using to establish authorship of an ancient text?

I see, I left some wiggle room. Change the statement to read, "There are no confirmed eyewitness accounts claiming (and verified) to be actual accounts from people who personally witnessed the supposed event".

Using a standard method we can be reasonably sure, as sure as we are for other ancient texts, who wrote the Gospels/Acts. Would you like to argue otherwise?

I am NOT comparing other ancient texts to the bible – but questioning the truth and accuracy of the bible itself.

Is the bible NOT truthful – but only "relatively truthful" as compared to other ancient texts?

Notice that you have NOT excluded "testimony" from characters in the story or source itself.

Your point is...

My point is that if Peter Pan in the story is said to have claimed that everything said is true (a character in the story giving "testimony"), I do not place great confidence in that source.

If ONE person (possibly in the story or source) says that they saw a "god" you MUST regard that as evidence because that meets your criteria of "an [clearly implying singular] eyewitness source". Correct?

Correct. If a first hand account claims they saw a god or God, that would be evidence that they saw something.

That they "saw something" is NOT in question. The example clearly says that a person in the story claims to have seen "god". That DOES meet your criteria.

However, Thank You, for conceding that ONE person claiming to have "seen god" (unsubstantiated) is "evidence" according to your "criteria". And, only THREE points of "evidence" using your "criteria" are necessary to secure your belief (according to your own statements).

]If ONE or more people say that "Allah appeared to me and spoke to me" (including Mohammad claiming such in a story) that is one point of evidence. Correct?

The Quran says the Angel Gabriel, not God, appeared and spoke to Mohamed. What do you mean here anyway? Where there are different sources claiming the same corporate event? Or two separate sources claiming that God spoke to them individually at different times? Not clear here.

We are NOT arguing the specifics of the koran in this thread. Instead we are arguing your criteria for "evidence". You state that IF a character in the koran claims to have seen "god" is that evidence? Your "criteria" indicate that it is.

2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)

If ONE or more sources living during the time of Mohammad CLAIM that he did or experienced miraculous things, they provide the second point of evidence in favor of Allah. Correct?

If a source from the time of the events and eyewitnesses or at least durring the time of the those that new the eyewitnsses claimed the person in question did miraculous things that would be early attestation that the person did miraculous things. However, the Quran reports no miracles by Mohammad.

Again, we are not arguing specifics of the koran. IF that claim is made is it a point of evidence in your scheme (or does that only apply to Christian sources)?

Thank You, however, for acknowledging that hearsay (if early) even though unverified, DOES constitute "evidence".

Can the "source" be the person telling the tale or must the source be someone other than the storyteller? Careful here.

Why must I be careful here? The source can be either. Let me be clear here. When I say "source" I mean author of the text.

Thank you. If a writer of a story claims truth and accuracy that meets your criteria for "evidence" without need for verification, correct?

3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources

If the source itself claims that one of the characters giving evidence was a former enemy, is that adequate indication? If not, what exactly is adequate indication of "former enemy" status?

If the source acknowledges they were once/currently an enemy in their own writings or another early source acknowledges they were once/currently an enemy. It is obvious from the content of the text that some sources are enemy or neutral.

Thank you. You accept the claim of "the source" to have been an enemy. Without further verification, you accept that word as "evidence" – correct?

4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources

Again, you did not exclude "testimony" from "early or eyewitness sources" within the story itself.

If several people from "long ago" tell similar stories about Allah speaking to them, that meets your criteria. Correct?

If more than one source during the life of witnesses or people that knew the witnesses give similar evidence, yes that would be multiple attestation. However, the Quran fails on this point. The Quran is a single source - Mohammed.

Again, we are not arguing the truth of the koran – but your criteria for "evidence". IF "multiple attestations" apply to Islamic doctrine or literature (characters in the story or others from the era), that IS a point of evidence according to your criteria, right?

Thank You again for affirming that ONE source agreeing with another constitutes "multiple attestation" and is acceptable as "evidence" according to your "criteria".

5. Evidence that would be embarrassing

If ONE or more people relate a story that would be "embarrassing" to them regarding their claimed "Allah experience", that is another point of evidence. Correct?

If it's in relation to an event or claim yes. If there is an embarrassing aspect to the claim it is unlikely the claim was made up. It strengthens the evidence that supports the assertion.

We are NOT discussing "strengthens the evidence" – but accepting AS evidence as you have agreed. If a person would be embarrassed by relating an event their story MUST be accepted as "evidence" according to your "criteria".

6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

If archaeological evidence reveals that cities mentioned in the koran actually existed, that meets the criteria. Correct?

Yes. If the claim is that a particular city or place existed and it is confirmed by archaeology it would strengthen the evidence that supports the claim that the particular city existed. [/quote]
Again "strengthen the evidence" is NOT in question. You clearly stated that it would take THREE points of evidence to convince you of truth and specified archeological evidence as one point. You are not backing out from being committed to your own "criteria", are you?

Now, Goose, you have CLEARLY stated that if three or more of YOUR criteria are met the evidence is "very strong" and that you WILL believe a conclusion supported by very strong evidence (three points from your list). Those are YOUR statements, correct?

Correct.

Therefore, according you your very clear statements, if I present information that meets three or more of the above, will you respect your own criteria and acknowledge before this entire forum that "Allah is god"?

Umm...you do realize that Muslims believe Allah to be the God of the Old Testament, don't you?

What Muslims believe or do not believe is NOT material to this discussion of what constitutes "evidence" in debate.

Further, where did Mohammad meet three of the criteria for the claim "Allah is God"? What evidence that passes three of the criteria supports the premises for the argument that "Allah is God"? Which evidence that passes the criteria supports the argument that Mohammed's revelation supersedes Jesus?

Why weasel? You are committed to accept three points of "evidence" using your own criteria to accept the koran as true. You aren't attempting to back out, are you?

Again, we are NOT arguing the validity or beliefs of Islam. Kindly read again, "IF I present information that meets three or more of the above, will you respect your own criteria and acknowledge before this entire forum that "Allah is god"?

Of course you won't accept your own criteria. You are "between a rock and a hard place". Your "criteria" are carefully selected to accept Christian "evidence" to support bible stories. Unfortunately, when you construct "criteria" that are "loose" enough to allow Christian tales to meet the criteria, OTHER tales also meet the criteria.

You haven't shown any such thing. You've only said it is so.

I disagree. Your attempts to avoid or change your criteria above are apt example that I HAVE shown that you do not accept your own criteria – your "dance" in this response is evidence.

Let's look at an example. Let (P)= Jesus was not crucified

Evidence to support (P):
The Quran claims Jesus was not crucified (4:157)

Again, we are NOT arguing the truth and accuracy of the koran. Kindly refrain from straw man arguments and evasive tactics.

However, this evidence from the Quran meets none of the criteria.

Correction: your criteria clearly include acceptance of statements by the source itself as evidence. No matter WHAT the koran or any other book says, you HAVE agreed to accept that as "evidence".

It would be unacceptable evidence under the criteria and therefore the assertion that Jesus was not crucified is probably not true.

Correction: since the "evidence" DOES meet one of your criteria it cannot (being consistent) be denied as evidence.

Do you understand the method?

I understand the method – but not the assumptions or its application in this instance (particularly with false information).

Again, we are NOT arguing the truth and accuracy of the koran – but the merits of your "criteria for evidence"

My point is that apologists "stack the deck" (employ a double standard) to accept evidence supporting their "god" theories but attempt to exclude identical or similar evidence supporting other "gods" – in an effort to maintain exclusivity for their worship practices and beliefs ("one true god" and "all other gods are false gods", etc).

Your point is hallow. You have yet to establish this point. You've got plenty more work to do.

Perhaps you do not comprehend that YOU are not the person to whom my comments are intended. Instead, I speak to readers who are capable of evaluating the merits of what is said (rather than attempting to defend Christianity).

Whether you think I have "got plenty more work to do" or not is irrelevant (that is only one opinion) because thinking readers are those who will make that determination for themselves. I have confidence in their collective judgment.

[Goose]

Oh dear, I've wondered into a straw man factory again...

5. Do NOT use questionable debate tactics such as ad hominems, ducking questions, straw man arguments, feigned ignorance, feigned knowledge, special pleading, etc. Some of these are also errors in logic. They identify an argument as questionable, weak and/or defective.

Zzyzx, my friend, please take the time to review this link Straw man.


Let's review, shall we?

First you state in the OP:

Let THEISTS declare what constitutes "evidence" to support stories about gods – with the proviso that exactly the same standards will be applied to OTHER "gods" and other characters of history or myth.

and then you ask:

What standards of evidence do our Apologist members specify as the standards to be used?

And I gave you a method to establish the standard of the evidence.

I understand the method – but not the assumptions or its application in this instance (particularly with false information).

Clearly, as indicated by your last post, you do not understand the method yet.

You are committed to accept three points of "evidence" using your own criteria to accept the koran as true.

That is not the method and a straw man. Did you notice in the method that it says "Evidence from..."? Meaning evidence taken from the source. This is in reference to a particular story (or more formerly we might call it a claim or assertion) in the text itself. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything stated in the text is necessarily true because one assertion (or story) passes the method and is true. This applies to all texts including those contained in the Bible. Only the assertions/claims (or stories) in the text itself that pass the method are possibly true, probably true, or true.

However, this evidence from the Quran meets none of the criteria. It would be unacceptable evidence under the criteria and therefore the assertion that Jesus was not crucified is probably not true.

Correction: since the "evidence" DOES meet one of your criteria it cannot (being consistent) be denied as evidence.

You are not paying attention. Read what I wrote again. I never said the assertion in the Quran that Jesus wasn't crucified wasn't evidence. It doen't meet the criteria to be even at least acceptable evidence. The issue here is not whether the Quran contains evidence. It does contain evidence. The question is whether a specific story/assertion/claim contained therein can be considered acceptable, strong, or very strong evidence. We look at each story/assertion/claim in the text on a case by case basis.

The bizarre thing in this thread is that you, Zzyzx, think you understand my method better than I do. I tried to give you a practical example of how the method is to be applied and you responded by accusing me of a strawman?:

Again, we are NOT arguing the truth and accuracy of the koran. Kindly refrain from straw man arguments and evasive tactics.

The irony in you accusing me of strawman argument while trying to demonstrate how my own method works is comical.



Let's use another example. To falsify the claim the Quran is true - meaning true in its entirety - using the method would be done with this argument:

1. If the Quran is true, then Jesus was not crucified
2. Jesus was crucified
3. Therefore, the Quran is not true

Premise (2) = "Jesus was crucified" is supported by:
1. Evidence from an "eyewitness account"
Book of John
2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)
Book of Luke, Book of Mark.
3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources
Tacitus, Josephus - neutral, Paul (Galatians) - former enemy.
4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources
Book of Matthew - early, Paul (Galatians) - early
5. Evidence that would be embarrassing
For the proposed Messiah to be humiliatingly crucified as a common criminal was embarrassing
6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology
None.

Even atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50

Premise (2) passes the method with very strong evidence so it would be a true statement under the method. This falsifies the claim the Quran is true in its entirety.

Do you get it yet? Or should I run another example.


Finally, you contradict yourself when you say:

You are committed to accept three points of "evidence" using your own criteria to accept the koran as true.

you also say

Again, we are NOT arguing the truth and accuracy of the koran – but the merits of your "criteria for evidence"

I'm confused. If we are not arguing the truth or accuracy of the Quran as you say, why are you asking me to declare the Quran true? What are we debating then?

[Zzyzx]

.
Mr. Goose,

Congratulations on the creative footwork; however, in post #2 of this thread you stated clearly your "method" of selecting acceptable evidence from ancient history

Here is my method:

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source
2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)
3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources
4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources
5. Evidence that would be embarrassing
6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

Evidence from sources that doesn't meet at least one of the criteria above I would deem as unacceptable. Evidence that is derived from a source that meets at least one of the criteria above I would deem as acceptable. Evidence that meets at least two criteria I would deem it strong. Evidence that meets at least three of the criteria I would deem it very strong.

The evidence that emerges from this method I would use to support the premises of my arguments. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by unacceptable evidence I would believe are probably not true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least acceptable evidence I would believe are possibly true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least strong evidence I would believe are probably true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least very strong evidence I would believe are true.

VERY clearly, you are saying that if an ancient source meets THREE of your six criteria you WILL believe it as true.

Do you wish to change your statement – or do you agree to abide by what you say?

IF I can show THREE of the above applying to ANY ancient document WILL you accept the document as true?

That is, if I can show 1) evidence from an eyewitness, 2) evidence from an early source, and 3) evidence from a former or current enemy or NEUTRAL source – (or any combination of three of the six) will you accept the document as true?

No BS or dancing allowed. Will you accept the document, ANY ancient document, as true if it meets the criteria YOU supplied, as you said you would or will you not?

[Goose]

No BS or dancing allowed. Will you accept the document, ANY ancient document, as true if it meets the criteria YOU supplied, as you said you would or will you not?

Straw man

Seriously, does anyone have a match?

[Cathar1950]

No BS or dancing allowed. Will you accept the document, ANY ancient document, as true if it meets the criteria YOU supplied, as you said you would or will you not?

Straw man

Seriously, does anyone have a match?

He is not offering a straw man argument, he is asking if given your criteria do you hold other writing in equal esteem and defend them as you do your religious texts. I tend to think his question is rhetorical as we can bet you only feel this way about the Bible because you are a 19th century Bible-Believer in the 21st century.
You are simply going through the the apologetic ritual of defending your beliefs about the Bible with rationalization that you somehow must know you don't hold for other writings with the same criteria and are poorly trying to change or confuse the subject by dismissing the question as a straw man with out explaination or any justification.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

[msmcneal]

Let's use another example. To falsify the claim the Quran is true - meaning true in its entirety - using the method would be done with this argument:

1. If the Quran is true, then Jesus was not crucified
2. Jesus was crucified
3. Therefore, the Quran is not true

Premise (2) = "Jesus was crucified" is supported by:
1. Evidence from an "eyewitness account"
Book of John
2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)
Book of Luke, Book of Mark.
3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources
Tacitus, Josephus - neutral, Paul (Galatians) - former enemy.
4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources
Book of Matthew - early, Paul (Galatians) - early
5. Evidence that would be embarrassing
For the proposed Messiah to be humiliatingly crucified as a common criminal was embarrassing
6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology
None.

Even atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50

Premise (2) passes the method with very strong evidence so it would be a true statement under the method. This falsifies the claim the Quran is true in its entirety.

Most of your evidence for Premise 2 is circular reasoning. The only way you can rationalize the Bible being proof for the Bible's truthfulness would be if you allowed the same for other religious texts. And #3 under premise 2 faulty, because neither Josephus or Tacitus were eyewitnesses of Jesus.

[Zzyzx]

.

No BS or dancing allowed. Will you accept the document, ANY ancient document, as true if it meets the criteria YOU supplied, as you said you would or will you not?

Straw man

Seriously, does anyone have a match?

Mr. Goose,

Let's review:

1. In the OP I ask theists to set forth a system to decide what constitutes evidence

2. In post number two you supplied your "method" consisting of six points, and stated clearly that you will believe if three of the six are met.

3. I ask if you are willing to accept as true ANY ancient document that meets your "method".

4. You refuse to answer and declare "straw man" (i.e., you concede without honor)


I can understand that you refuse to use your OWN "method" as applied to documents other than the bible because using your own "method" you would be forced to agree to believe documents that you prefer to not believe. I suspect you prefer one system to apply to the bible and a much more demanding system applied to other texts.

It is not surprising that your "method" just happens to allow bible evidence as truthful. However, your "method" sets the qualifications so low that many documents are declared believable. Applying your "method" to ancient documents yields a result of "belief" – and you would be forced to accept many documents as true and believable that perhaps you prefer to NOT believe -- IF you were willing to abide by your own "method".

Your "method" is unbelievable, you are unbelievable, and your dance is mere entertainment.

I suspect that you realize all of this now, and I am quite confident that others see it very clearly.


Thank you.

[JoeyKnothead]

>Opinion based on a reasoned/logical look at the thread<

From Page 2 Post 17:

2. In post number two you supplied your "method" consisting of six points, and stated clearly that you will believe if three of the six are met.

I mark this out so it's known I'm aware this is the case.

>my underlining<
I can understand that you refuse to use your OWN "method" as applied to documents other than the bible because using your own "method" you would be forced to agree to believe documents that you prefer to not believe. I suspect you prefer one system to apply to the bible and a much more demanding system applied to other texts.

I don't think it necessary that Goose would be forced to believe. I would think though that a simple acknowledgement that Zzyzx has met the requirements set forth by Goose would be in order.

I propose we are seeing a double standard. If the one book is accepted on Goose's terms, then the position set forth by Zzyzx should be accepted as well.

In light of a refusal to acknowledge that by one's own terms something should be accepted, I must question why this is so. The only conclusion I can come up with is Goose wishes to hold his favored belief to a lesser standard of evidence than he would hold for other texts.

[Goose]

Zzyzx and fans, I'm going to quote myself in the hope that this FINALLY sinks in.

.3. I ask if you are willing to accept as true ANY ancient document that meets your "method".

That is not the method and a straw man. Did you notice in the method that it says "Evidence from..."? Meaning evidence taken from the source. This is in reference to a particular story (or more formerly we might call it a claim or assertion) in the text itself. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything stated in the text is necessarily true because one assertion (or story) passes the method and is true. This applies to all texts including those contained in the Bible. Only the assertions/claims (or stories) in the text itself that pass the method are possibly true, probably true, or true.

Do you get it yet?

[Beto]

Goose, I would like to submit to your method the Sahih al-Bukhari, rather than the Qur'an. This is something off the top of my head, so I'll look further into it. I'm not swearing there are any miracles described in it (even to today's standards), but I'm convinced that some are. Anyway, the point is how much of your criteria the Sahih al-Bukhari passes, if any. If you can kill the argument right away, don't be shy about it.