Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

Post #1

Post by 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.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
LittlePig
Sage
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:51 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post #31

Post by LittlePig »

Duck, duck, Goose?

Abducted by UFO?

User avatar
Help I'm Alive
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

Post #32

Post by Help I'm Alive »

Zzyzx wrote:Nevertheless, the "double standards" charge is a favored tactic in defense of theistic positions.
Hello and greetings.

Why can't the theist stake their claim in the market place of ideas and charge the non-theist with employing double standards in their uses of evidence if the theist believes it to be the case that non-theists do in fact employ double standards in regards to how beliefs are justified?

You provided a list of what may be acceptable evidences to the theist for use but I'd simply skip your list altogether since I take experiential affairs to be a sufficient condition for the justificatory status of belief in God. Presumably, we take basic beliefs to be justified so why can't belief in God be included among our sets of beliefs that are said to be basic?

Thanks,

James

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

Post #33

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Help I'm Alive wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:Nevertheless, the "double standards" charge is a favored tactic in defense of theistic positions.
Hello and greetings.

Why can't the theist stake their claim in the market place of ideas and charge the non-theist with employing double standards in their uses of evidence if the theist believes it to be the case that non-theists do in fact employ double standards in regards to how beliefs are justified?

You provided a list of what may be acceptable evidences to the theist for use but I'd simply skip your list altogether since I take experiential affairs to be a sufficient condition for the justificatory status of belief in God. Presumably, we take basic beliefs to be justified so why can't belief in God be included among our sets of beliefs that are said to be basic?

Thanks,

James
That's great for some, but in debate it is kind of necessary for folks to offer some kind of evidence (physical or logical or such) for a given position. Personal observations and experiences don't do us one bit of good unless they can be proven. Some folks don't quite get a grasp on what verifiable means (maybe not you, just generally).
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Help I'm Alive
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

Post #34

Post by Help I'm Alive »

joeyknuccione wrote: That's great for some, but in debate it is kind of necessary for folks to offer some kind of evidence (physical or logical or such) for a given position. Personal observations and experiences don't do us one bit of good unless they can be proven. Some folks don't quite get a grasp on what verifiable means (maybe not you, just generally).
Hello and greetings.

The problem with what you are saying is that it puts too strict a burden on how most beliefs are justified; we don't first verify by physical or logical arguments certain beliefs before we hold them. Remember, in saying that belief in God is a basic belief (or any belief one takes to be basic), I am saying that belief in God is grounded in its own experiential states of affairs and is not derived from other beliefs. Therefore, I am not obligated to ask or demand of myself whether it can first be verified by physical or logical means.

Thanks,

James

User avatar
Fallibleone
Guru
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Scouseland

Re: Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

Post #35

Post by Fallibleone »

Help I'm Alive wrote:
joeyknuccione wrote: That's great for some, but in debate it is kind of necessary for folks to offer some kind of evidence (physical or logical or such) for a given position. Personal observations and experiences don't do us one bit of good unless they can be proven. Some folks don't quite get a grasp on what verifiable means (maybe not you, just generally).
Hello and greetings.

The problem with what you are saying is that it puts too strict a burden on how most beliefs are justified; we don't first verify by physical or logical arguments certain beliefs before we hold them. Remember, in saying that belief in God is a basic belief (or any belief one takes to be basic), I am saying that belief in God is grounded in its own experiential states of affairs and is not derived from other beliefs. Therefore, I am not obligated to ask or demand of myself whether it can first be verified by physical or logical means.

Thanks,

James
Hi, Help I'm Alive. You are of course not obliged to ask or demand of yourself anything. If you are fine with your belief, well that is fine for you. The problem comes when personal convictions are offered as evidence of existence, for example in debate on this board. Then one is most definitely obliged (by the rules) to ask of oneself whether one can verify one's beliefs by physical or logical means before truth statements are made.
''''What I am is good enough if I can only be it openly.''''

''''The man said "why you think you here?" I said "I got no idea".''''

''''Je viens comme un chat
Par la nuit si noire.
Tu attends, et je tombe
Dans tes ailes blanches,
Et je vole,
Et je coule
Comme une plume.''''

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #36

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Page 4 Post 34:
Help I'm Alive wrote: ...Therefore, I am not obligated to ask or demand of myself whether it can first be verified by physical or logical means.
I pretty much agree with your entire statement, but this line seems the "meat" of it.

It's otherwise perfectly fine for someone to come to their own beliefs in any fashion they choose (in a free will, you do your thing, I do mine sorta way). In regards to debate though, where you would ostensibly be asking others to accept your belief, then evidence should rule the day.

"God spoke to me and I am absolutely, 100% convinced." Great. Now where's the evidence? If this is the only way to know of one's god belief, it is nigh on impossible to provide evidence for such. In rejecting the claim of God's existence, implied or overt, this atheist would not be saying, "There is no God", so much as I would be saying, "Insufficient evidence".

Backing up a bit, I can agree when you say:
Help I'm Alive wrote: I am saying that belief in God is grounded in its own experiential states of affairs and is not derived from other beliefs.
However, not having any of these experiences, shouldn't I ask for evidence? Not having such experiences, and needing to rely on others' experience, shouldn't I ask for evidence and not just accept something just because the claimant is so sure?

Given my amateur understanding of how God belief and religion in general can come about, shouldn't I require of myself sufficient evidence to overcome what I myself know about the world?

For me at least, asking for evidence is not a childish game of "You can't prove it". Mine is asking for evidence so I too can believe.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Flail

Dogma

Post #37

Post by Flail »

The problem lies in the proofs or lack thereof....ie,Dogma...Dogma is simply the doctrine created by a particular belief system or religion...it is not to be doubted or questioned...it is,by definition,irrefutable an unverifiable from any logical or reasoned standard of evidence....you just believe...have faith....and therefore it is impossible to debate....because it is not founded upon anything with substance...

If a dogmatic belief or faith is not founded on reason or logic or evidence,then no amount of reason or logic or evidence will disprove it....and so we waste our time....

The real debate would therefore,IMO,need to be centered around 'which God(s)'....not 'if God(s)...in other words, if you have adopted a particular Dogma about a particular God, rather than debating the existence of God(s) generally, we should debate the qualities,characteristics and demands of particular God(s)....ie...assuming a God,how do we know which one to put our stock into?....is God of the OT?...the NT?....Paul?...Mohammed?....Bhudda?....Rev Moon or Rev Jones or Mr. Pope?....which rituals will gain us the best blessings?....the surest salvation?....

User avatar
Help I'm Alive
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Post #38

Post by Help I'm Alive »

joeyknuccione wrote: Given my amateur understanding of how God belief and religion in general can come about, shouldn't I require of myself sufficient evidence to overcome what I myself know about the world?
Hello again and thanks for your response.

I suppose that depends a great deal on what standards you employ in the justification of other beliefs. If you have a headache, your experience of having a headache is sufficient evidence, and your belief that you have a headache is justified. When we say that beliefs are justified, we are saying that our beliefs count as knowledge (I posted my thoughts on this subject from another forum, so I'll post it here). Knowledge is roughly the idea of a justified true belief. In order for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be (if we assume the above definition of knowledge to be adequate), among other things, at least two things: i) true and ii) justified in some sense. What epistemological stance one espouses matters here because evidence ties in directly with epistemology and some epistemic justifications do not count evidence as a primary form of justification for sets of beliefs (for example, reliabilism ).

Since my opening post deals primarily with “evidence� and how evidence is used and/or what is meant by the atheist, the assumption is that when atheists are asking for evidence for the existence of God they are hinting that our beliefs are primarily justified by evidentialism (though perhaps not strictly so). At any rate, you have tied “factual information� with evidence and evidence with the justification for belief in God, thus making it an epistemological issue we are dealing with. Getting back to your definition, let me explain what I mean.

One definition of "evidence" that an atheist provided to me states that evidence is “sufficient factual information and sound reasoning to make a convincing case.� Ignoring for the moment what, exactly, constitutes “sufficient factual information� and “sound reasoning�, I think a classic example of a Cartesian Devil or mad, other-worldly scientist would facilitate in demonstrating some flaws with your criteria for what constitutes evidence. It would at least show that you have provided a definition that is lacking any kind of vigorous usefulness in working out how evidences apply to our understanding of how beliefs or lack of beliefs are justified by such evidences.

Let’s say that you and I are having a cup of coffee and talking about philosophy. Let’s say further that we have worked out the kinks with your definition and ironed out our differences and I accept your definition as adequate. Certainly, you believe that an external world exists and that you live in this world. This belief, the belief that an external world exists that you are a part of and that, conversely, you are not being fooled by a Cartesian Devil or that you are not a brain-in-a-vat, must in some sense be justified if it is to meet the above criteria of what constitutes knowledge.

Maybe you take your experiences (memory, perceptions, mental processes, observations of other people, etc.) to be valid kinds of evidence/justification for your believing that you are living in a world external to yourself. Just as you believe that the pain you feel while having a toothache is valid evidence/justification for your having a toothache, you also feel that your experiences and mental perceptions count as “sufficient factual information and sound reasoning to make a convincing case� that you live in a world external to yourself. You at least feel justified and perfectly rational in believing that an external world apart from you exists.

Now, let’s flip the coin on this. Let’s say that there is some Cartesian Devil who tricks you into thinking that all your experiences are valid in such a way that living in an external world and the illusion of living in an external world are no different to you. That is, there is nothing that you can know that can distinguish between you living in the actual world and one that is an illusion, a trick played on you by our wily devil. So let me ask you these two questions:

1) If you are now justified in believing that you live in a world external to yourself as supported by “factual information and sound reasoning�, that is, what you take evidence to be, is it rational for you to believe that you live in a world external to yourself when in fact you do, based on the evidence available to you?

2) If so, and since the same kinds of evidence that justifies such a belief is the same kinds of evidence available to you if you were being tricked, is it also rational to believe that you live in a world external to yourself even though you don’t, since there is no distinguishable difference between a reality that exists externally to you and one in which everything is an illusion?

It seems on these grounds and the criteria that has been provided for evidence, if evidence is limited to purely empirical or logical standards, that if one is justified, then so is the other. The problem with this line of thought is that if you maintain that 1) and 2) are both justified, then you have severed the connection between “factual information� and rationality. If you maintain that 1) is justified but that 2) is not, then you have surrendered the notion that “factual information� counts as evidence unless you can explain why such evidences count for one but not for the other given that in both cases the evidence of one is indistinguishable from the evidence for the other.

Thanks,

James

User avatar
LittlePig
Sage
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:51 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post #39

Post by LittlePig »

Help I'm Alive wrote: I suppose that depends a great deal on what standards you employ in the justification of other beliefs. If you have a headache, your experience of having a headache is sufficient evidence, and your belief that you have a headache is justified.
A headache is a sensation, not a theory about the sensation. The only belief you seem to be talking about here is belief you really had a sensation, not what that sensation is or how it relates to the rest of the world.

We are all forced to depend on sensory information as basically true. However, there are times when it is misleading or altogether false.

The experience of alleged supernatural events is really a set of convoluted beliefs attached to a sensation, or the report of such.
Help I'm Alive wrote: When we say that beliefs are justified, we are saying that our beliefs count as knowledge (I posted my thoughts on this subject from another forum, so I'll post it here). Knowledge is roughly the idea of a justified true belief. In order for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be (if we assume the above definition of knowledge to be adequate), among other things, at least two things: i) true and ii) justified in some sense. What epistemological stance one espouses matters here because evidence ties in directly with epistemology and some epistemic justifications do not count evidence as a primary form of justification for sets of beliefs (for example, reliabilism ).

Since my opening post deals primarily with “evidence� and how evidence is used and/or what is meant by the atheist, the assumption is that when atheists are asking for evidence for the existence of God they are hinting that our beliefs are primarily justified by evidentialism (though perhaps not strictly so). At any rate, you have tied “factual information� with evidence and evidence with the justification for belief in God, thus making it an epistemological issue we are dealing with. Getting back to your definition, let me explain what I mean.
It sounds like you are saying there is a reliable process for gaining knowledge of God. Is there?
Help I'm Alive wrote: One definition of "evidence" that an atheist provided to me states that evidence is “sufficient factual information and sound reasoning to make a convincing case.� Ignoring for the moment what, exactly, constitutes “sufficient factual information� and “sound reasoning�, I think a classic example of a Cartesian Devil or mad, other-worldly scientist would facilitate in demonstrating some flaws with your criteria for what constitutes evidence. It would at least show that you have provided a definition that is lacking any kind of vigorous usefulness in working out how evidences apply to our understanding of how beliefs or lack of beliefs are justified by such evidences.
I think theories of experience being pure illusion are discarded out of practicality, not by disproof. I don't know of any reliable process for gaining knowledge about the definitionally unknowable.
Help I'm Alive wrote: Let’s say that you and I are having a cup of coffee and talking about philosophy. Let’s say further that we have worked out the kinks with your definition and ironed out our differences and I accept your definition as adequate. Certainly, you believe that an external world exists and that you live in this world. This belief, the belief that an external world exists that you are a part of and that, conversely, you are not being fooled by a Cartesian Devil or that you are not a brain-in-a-vat, must in some sense be justified if it is to meet the above criteria of what constitutes knowledge.
Does it really require justification? Since the illusion theory cannot be justified, one is left with no theory if such must be disproved. Practicality wins.
Help I'm Alive wrote: Maybe you take your experiences (memory, perceptions, mental processes, observations of other people, etc.) to be valid kinds of evidence/justification for your believing that you are living in a world external to yourself. Just as you believe that the pain you feel while having a toothache is valid evidence/justification for your having a toothache, you also feel that your experiences and mental perceptions count as “sufficient factual information and sound reasoning to make a convincing case� that you live in a world external to yourself. You at least feel justified and perfectly rational in believing that an external world apart from you exists.

Now, let’s flip the coin on this. Let’s say that there is some Cartesian Devil who tricks you into thinking that all your experiences are valid in such a way that living in an external world and the illusion of living in an external world are no different to you. That is, there is nothing that you can know that can distinguish between you living in the actual world and one that is an illusion, a trick played on you by our wily devil. So let me ask you these two questions:

1) If you are now justified in believing that you live in a world external to yourself as supported by “factual information and sound reasoning�, that is, what you take evidence to be, is it rational for you to believe that you live in a world external to yourself when in fact you do, based on the evidence available to you?
Is it rational to believe the conclusions of reliable evidence? Sure.
Help I'm Alive wrote: 2) If so, and since the same kinds of evidence that justifies such a belief is the same kinds of evidence available to you if you were being tricked, is it also rational to believe that you live in a world external to yourself even though you don’t, since there is no distinguishable difference between a reality that exists externally to you and one in which everything is an illusion?
IOW, can rational thinking lead you to false conclusions. Sure.

But what can you do about that?
Help I'm Alive wrote: It seems on these grounds and the criteria that has been provided for evidence, if evidence is limited to purely empirical or logical standards, that if one is justified, then so is the other. The problem with this line of thought is that if you maintain that 1) and 2) are both justified, then you have severed the connection between “factual information� and rationality.
No, you allow the possibility that reasoning from perceived facts may lead to wrong conclusions about reality. And then you move on.
Help I'm Alive wrote: If you maintain that 1) is justified but that 2) is not, then you have surrendered the notion that “factual information� counts as evidence unless you can explain why such evidences count for one but not for the other given that in both cases the evidence of one is indistinguishable from the evidence for the other.

Thanks,

James
This if fun and all, but does it have some application? Are you suggesting that factual evidence should be ignored? Maybe in favor of some more reliable process of knowing?

Beto

Post #40

Post by Beto »

Help I'm Alive wrote:1) If you are now justified in believing that you live in a world external to yourself as supported by “factual information and sound reasoning�, that is, what you take evidence to be, is it rational for you to believe that you live in a world external to yourself when in fact you do, based on the evidence available to you?

2) If so, and since the same kinds of evidence that justifies such a belief is the same kinds of evidence available to you if you were being tricked, is it also rational to believe that you live in a world external to yourself even though you don’t, since there is no distinguishable difference between a reality that exists externally to you and one in which everything is an illusion?
One isn't required to "believe" in an "external reality". "Illusion" or not it is perceived as an "external reality" to everyone. That's a false issue, and not something worthy of "belief" either way. "Belief" applies to our perceptions, or someone else's, in our reality, "illusion" or otherwise. Being an "illusion", it's a very consistent one, and the scientific method seems to be applicable without exception. So nothing really changes to the formulation of one's worldview.

Post Reply