Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #182]

That someone who mighta not been real religious just kinda up and becomes em it, that in no way, shape, or form means that religion possesses it any more truth than when I tell the pretty thing I done brushed me my tooth.

Bringing up Butterfield's conversion had nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to demonstrate the truth of the claims of Christianity. Butterfield's conversion to Christianity does nothing to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, any more than the many here on this site, who testify to being convinced Christians at one time, who are now no longer Christians, demonstrates Christianity to be false.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

However, given an agreed upon set of supporting facts and evidence, it has been my experience that differences in people's understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic explain how they can arrive at two contradictory conclusions regarding Christianity.

If I am understanding you correctly here, you seem to be saying, when it comes to Christianity, your experience has always ever been, one of the parties involved, fails to understand what constitutes sound reasoning, and logic? Would this be correct?

People should not conclude that others are guilty of using faulty logic, poor reasoning, or confirmation bias before evaluating the proposed arguments for the demonstrable existence of such errors. However, when such errors are demonstrable or the possibilities for such errors were left unmitigated, it seems fair to ask a few critical thinking questions. At the same time, people should not conclude that others have very good reasons for their positions either before evaluating the proposed arguments accordingly. Of course, it is equally fair to acknowledge when very good reasons have been demonstrated.

I do not disagree with anything you say here. My point has been, this is exactly what we do here most everyday. As an example, right here on this thread, I am being accused of, appealing to numbers, and if I were in fact appealing to numbers, one would be correct to point out this fallacy in my thinking.

In other words, we are always ever here attempting to demonstrate where one may be guilty of things such as, faulty thinking and logic. Therefore, everyone here seems to be more than willing to place what they believe out there for all to see, and examine. I do not believe anyone here is attempting to hide from such evaluations, but rather embraces the exercise.

[Realworldjack]

Moreover, there have been millions, upon millions of folks who have been compelled to believe these things down through thousands of years.

Maybe compelled to believe, but not because they have evaluated any compelling evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of believers have it inculcated through childhood indoctrination. A small proportion of those may try to seek verification later in life, but the well has been poisoned and everything they examine is through the lens of their instilled belief.

Maybe compelled to believe, but not because they have evaluated any compelling evidence.

Are you suggesting no one has ever examined the evidence concerning the Christian claims, and become convinced by this study that Christianity would be true?

There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of believers have it inculcated through childhood indoctrination.

What would this have to do with, one being able to study the evidence, and be convinced by this evidence Christianity is true?

A small proportion of those may try to seek verification later in life, but the well has been poisoned and everything they examine is through the lens of their instilled belief.

Unless of course, they are somehow able as you were, to avoid the poison, and come to the same conclusions you have arrived at. Correct? Sort of strange how that works, isn't? In other words, if these folks do decide to actually examine the evidence, and they come to the same conclusion as you, it is because they were able to break the chains. However, if one comes to a different conclusion than you have, it must, and has to be because they were unable to break the chains.

Again, would anyone like to talk about, "double standards"?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #179]


I am going to admit, I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying.

Up until now, you seem to have been responding intelligently enough to what I have been writing -
as if you have at least gotten the gist of it.

Perhaps if you quote what I wrote in my last post, which you are having difficulty understanding and I will see if I can word it another way for you...

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]
If I am understanding you correctly here, you seem to be saying, when it comes to Christianity, your experience has always ever been, one of the parties involved, fails to understand what constitutes sound reasoning, and logic? Would this be correct?

I wouldn't phrase it as "fails to understand" but as having a different understanding because a failure of understanding would first need to be demonstrated.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]
I do not disagree with anything you say here. My point has been, this is exactly what we do here most everyday. As an example, right here on this thread, I am being accused of, appealing to numbers, and if I were in fact appealing to numbers, one would be correct to point out this fallacy in my thinking.

In other words, we are always ever here attempting to demonstrate where one may be guilty of things such as, faulty thinking and logic. Therefore, everyone here seems to be more than willing to place what they believe out there for all to see, and examine. I do not believe anyone here is attempting to hide from such evaluations, but rather embraces the exercise.

Fair enough.

[Realworldjack]

If I am correct that you were at one time a convinced Christian, there was certainly something which compelled you to believe, and now that you have rejected these things, there certainly must be something which is compelling you to continue to spend much of your time, debating a subject for which you seem to be insisting there would be no reason to believe. Most folks do not spend very much time debating subjects which they view to be nonsense.

I gained my religious beliefs as a child. No evidence and no evaluation involved, and certainly nothing that was compelling other than the trust I placed in those that taught me. In my teens it began to dawn on me that there was nothing behind it all and my beliefs vanished very quickly.

I began visiting forums such as this to try and understand what it was that caused some to believe where I could not. Many years of asking questions and seeking what it was that compelled believers resulted in nothing. Lots of hearsay and faith. All of it cemented my conviction that religious belief is the product of indoctrination coupled with a subconscious fear of the consequences of losing that belief once it has been inculcated. Those consequences include real social loss in this life as well as the expected loss of eternal bliss.

Basically, all you seem to be saying is, you were a convinced Christian simply because it is what you were told to believe. Once became of age, you rejected Christianity, and come to sites such as this one, in order to determine why others claim to believe, and you go on to claim, after having done this, it has done nothing but to "cement" the conviction you already had. WELL, GOOD FOR YOU!

But I am afraid this demonstrates very little. Because you see, not only can I say the same exact thing, I have! In other words, I found on this site, exactly what I expected to find, which is a site full of those who claim to be former Christians, who have now rejected the faith. I cannot imagine why anyone would be shocked at all to find, those who freely admit they were convinced of something they put very little thought into, rejecting what they thought very little about to become convinced of? How would that be a surprise?

At any rate, after conversing with these folks for some seven years now, I can assure you, that I am even more convinced of the position I hold, after having done so. However, I am not under the impression that this would demonstrate much, if anything at all.

[Realworldjack]

It also does not explain the numerous, intelligent, well educated folks who were not only unbelievers at one time, they were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were speaking out against it, who became convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence, in order to speak out against it.

Are you suggesting that it is only Christianity that these numerous, intelligent, well educated folks ultimately become convinced is true? As you appear to be impressed by numbers, how does the fact that there are more believers in Islam affect you? No doubt there are many who have studied the facts and evidence and reached a different conclusion to you. Then there are the numerous, intelligent, well educated Christians who became convinced it was not true after studying the facts, and evidence.

Matt Dillahunty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

Raised Southern Baptist, Dillahunty considered becoming a minister. His in-depth examination of his Christian beliefs, instead of bolstering his faith as he had intended, led him to no longer believe in the basic tenets of Christianity and, eventually, all religions.

Do you seriously believe I was appealing to numbers? I am fully aware there are far more unbelievers, than believers. How could I have been appealing to numbers? I am fully aware there would be far more former Christians, who have rejected Christianity, than unbelievers, and, or atheists, who come to believe. So, how could I have been appealing to numbers? I am also fully aware, that the amount of people who believe one way, or the other, would have no bearing upon the truth. So, how could I have been appealing to numbers?

If were to say, "hey, I know of one well educated, intelligent individual, who examined the evidence, and became a Christian", I knew I would get complaints concerning this being an isolated case. Therefore, I referred to the multiple folks I could point to in order to avoid such a complaint, and even then, here is one of the responses,

viewtopic.php?p=1042873#p1042873

So then, as you can see, even though I qualified it by saying "multiple" (actually I said numerous but have corrected myself) I got the exact response I was attempting to avoid.

Again, I am not appealing to numbers, as if I am under the impression that if I can name more folks than you, then I have demonstrated something. Rather, the whole point was, there are those who seem to want to insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims, and yet we have folks who were opposed to Christianity who were studying the facts, and evidence, in order to speak against it, who claim to have become convinced by the evidence, that Christianity was indeed true.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #179]


I am going to admit, I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying. What does seem sort of clear to me, (but I am not real sure) is that you seem to be suggesting, you have "debunked" (expose the falseness or hollowness of) the Christian claims. If I am correct, then all you need to do, is to demonstrate this to be the case, and I will assure you that I am done. In other words, if you can hold up your end of the bargain here, and "expose the falseness" of the Christian claims, then I will assure you that I am ready to move on from Christianity.

[Replying to William in post #179]


I am going to admit, I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying.

Up until now, you seem to have been responding intelligently enough to what I have been writing -
as if you have at least gotten the gist of it.

Perhaps if you quote what I wrote in my last post, which you are having difficulty understanding and I will see if I can word it another way for you...

I thought that in the mean time I might as well be proactive and go over the post I made which you admit you have trouble understanding.

Firstly, when I say I am an Agnostic Theist I am signifying that I lean toward the idea that we exist within a Creation [therefore a Creator] as do all Theists. I am agnostic in regard to the Theist claims in the world - of which there are too many to count - to do with the nature of The Creator.
The position [of AT] is not one which I was born into, but one which I have cultivated and fine-tuned over time...using whatever evidence presented itself as a device in which to - at least attempt - to get to The Truth of the matter [as to the nature of The Creator].

I understand that Christianity has been boasting the claim [for hundreds of years now] that it has the correct data on that question and before this, Judaism [in its own many forms] was claiming the same boast.

As I am unconvinced, I am Agnostic.

Where I wrote;
My position on the matter of faith-based beliefs is that they simply cannot be proved through evidence because individuals are required to believe such things without supporting evidence, in the initial stages of their coming into said faith-based beliefs.

What I was pointing to was the fact that - all said and done - Christianity is a faith-based religion. One is expected to obey, not to question and what one is expected to obey is what one is told is the [true] nature of The Creator [whom Christians name as "God"].

My own studies on this have led me to see that the nature of the Christian's claim of The Creators Nature, does not fully align with what we know of nature through our experience as Human Beings [collectively].

Thus - those Christians [such as yourself] who claim to have faith-based beliefs and also claim to have evidence supporting said beliefs can be assumed [by this Agnostic Theist - aka - "Me"], to have new data which previously hasn't been tabled. I am simply explaining why I am not convinced by any of the old data [ideas already well known of in relation to this age old claim] as to it being the whole truth of the matter. [re The Creators Nature.]

I feel I have made it clear enough that an individual with average intelligence can understand. I am not insisting on evidence to support faith-based beliefs [which is what Christianity is] as I expect that any evidence which actually supports faith-based beliefs will be new data if indeed such data exists.

We are always acquiring new data [mostly from scientific research] which helps us considerably, to shift the wheat from the chaff. I see no reason why new data cannot be introduced into old data programs, unless those peddling old data programs [ODPs] are somehow threatened by new data programs. [NDPs]

I do however, consider that there is an aspect to Theism which does indeed seek out NDPs in which to add to the overall picture [in my minds-eye] said data projects onto, and in that a different nature of The Creator emerges which is - not unlike - so much as not exactly like the images which the religious branch of Theism [Christianity included] claims.

So yes. When speaking of "The Nature of The Creator", images are naturally enough created in Human minds. We do well to examine those images critically.

Therefore, this can be tested. A theist can give me evidence which they believe is a true representation of the nature of The Creator, along with the reasons as to why they believe it is true, and I will then critique the information and return what I predict will be adequate argument to show that such beliefs are false.

They are false, not because they lack truth, but rather because they do not contain All Truth.
They are incomplete, in other words. Incomplete stories based upon insufficient evidence make for "holes in the story" [claim] and in that - identifying the holes allows us to see if there are any NDPs which can assist us with filling them in, for smoother riding.



Where I wrote that I accept the challenge, it had to do with your claim that thus far the only evidence you have brought forth, would be the reports of a resurrection by multiple different sources, all of which apparently exist within the one source called "the bible". [The Bible]

What I meant by 'bullet points' had to do with you sharing your evidence [reports of a resurrection] being succinct as possibly. We can go into more detail on each point as necessary.
I could probably do this myself off the top of my head but would likely miss out some points in the story line which might be pertinent to your argument, so it is best that you provide the data and then I have something in which to critique.
Part of the process of critique will be to seek clarification where necessary.

[brunumb]

At any rate, after conversing with these folks for some seven years now, I can assure you, that I am even more convinced of the position I hold, after having done so.

If the examination of this evidence has convinced you to believe, why not do as others have suggested and present what you consider to be the most compelling aspects of that evidence here for closer scrutiny. Dot points would suffice. I have been on boards such as this for more than two decades and have still not seen anything remotely convincing. You may hold the key.

[John Bauer]

There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of believers have it inculcated through childhood indoctrination. A small proportion of those may try to seek verification later in life, but the well has been poisoned and everything they examine is through the lens of their instilled belief.

I am going to use a fictional person as an example to illustrate the point I wish to make. We shall call him Smith and assume he was raised by Baptist parents who inculcated those beliefs through catechesis and the lived experience of being Baptists in the world. Let's also assume that his family attended worship services regularly, every week, and were involved in the life of the church (potlucks, charity services, membership meetings, etc.). And, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that as an adolescent he began to question the things he was taught, for not only is this typical of that age but he may have had experiences that produced certain levels of cognitive dissonance which led to introspective questioning.

The first thing I want to note here is that such a person may not necessarily be seeking verification of those beliefs; I think cognitive dissonance tends to lead in another direction, namely, deconstruction (however unsophisticated that process might be for an adolescent). I am aware of countless examples from real life—as even some people here could attest, I'm sure—where that trajectory ultimately led to the abandonment of the faith. Maybe not atheism but certainly no longer a Bible-believing Christian.

But, to be accommodating, let's assume that Smith does seek verification of those beliefs. He's committed, a man of strong faith, but he wants those beliefs to be grounded in something more tangible than naive childhood indoctrination, so he begins to explore his beliefs. He discovers Josh McDowell and Mike Licona and immerses himself in the world of Christian apologetics. This is where we really encounter your argument.

"That well has been poisoned," you would say, "and everything he examines is through the lens of his instilled belief." Sure, let's say that is true. But now what if those instilled beliefs don't hold up under scrutiny? What if a high school education began to erode his young-earth creationism? What if geology made it too difficult to continue believing that the earth is 6,000 years old? Is it unreasonable to suppose that someone like Smith could take those lenses off and scowl at them suspiciously, and maybe even toss them for a better set of lenses? If that is a reasonable supposition, then so what if the well had been poisoned? Given an authentic and thorough examination, it's not really extraordinary for Smith to discover on his own that there was never any poison, that the well contains potable water.

1. That is the question I want to explore: So what if he examines everything through a certain set of lenses? What matters, it seems to me, is whether he keeps wearing them despite constantly bumping into stuff. Viewing everything through specific lenses is uninteresting because we all do it—even you. In my opinion, what matters is what we do with them if wearing them causes us to consistently stub our toe against evidence (logical or empirical or whatever).

2. Here is a secondary question: What is "compelling" evidence? Surely you would not say, "It's compelling for anyone only if it's compelling for me."