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]

This is very simple! It is to completely acknowledge, that we are ALL PRONED, to do such a thing! To make this even stronger, we are hard wired! So then, there are those of us who completely understand what we are "PRONED", and, or, "HARD WIRED", to do, as opposed to those who simply assume it is those who are opposed to us who are "PRONED", and, or "HARD WIRED" to do such a thing.

Could people acknowledge that they are prone to being consciously biased and still be subconsciously influenced by biases?

I would suppose that one who not only acknowledges that we as humans are "prone' to being bias, but are even, "hard wired" to do so, would have to acknowledge one can "still be subconsciously influenced by biases". What would cause me to wonder if one truly understood this to be the case, would be one who even attempts to bring this sort of thing up to another? In other words, since I understand beyond doubt that it could be me who is influenced by confirmation bias, what good would it do to point out what I THINK would be confirmation bias in another, since I fully understand it could be me who is influenced by confirmation bias? This is exactly why I stated earlier,

There are those of us who understand that all we can do at this point, is to exchange our ideas, opinions, and beliefs, concerning the facts, and evidence we have, without assuming the other side must, and has to be influenced by some sort of bias, while there seem to be others ON BOTH SIDES, who seem to be under the impression, that if there are those who are in disagreement with the position that I have, then they must, and have to be persuaded by some sort of bias.

In other words, while I understand that others could in fact be influenced by confirmation bias, it really does no good to point this out, since I also realize it could be myself. Again, if one acknowledges, and realizes that they were convinced of something they held dearly, because of confirmation bias, this may in fact cause them to believe that since they were able to change the mind, they have somehow been freed from confirmation bias. However, simply because they have changed the mind, does not in any demonstrate that the way they think has changed, and it also does not demonstrate that what they were once convinced of is indeed false.

Do you think people could mitigate for bias by first attempting to determine if disconfirming facts and evidence exists for their own beliefs or by considering if the available facts and evidence equally support a different belief? If people were to discover that the facts and evidence equally support a different belief, would that be a sufficient justification for them to be less biased towards their own belief?

Since are talking about Christianity, let's just say so. I believe we should all think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. Some do this and come to the conclusion the claims are true, while others do so, and come to the conclusion the claims are false, while others may come to the conclusion we do not have enough information to make a decision one way, or the other.

I have no problem with either of the decisions, and do not insist that those who come to a different decision, are not using facts, evidence, logic, or reason, to come to their conclusion, and I also do not assume they have arrived to their conclusions based upon confirmation bias. My problem comes in, when there are those who seem to want to insist that those who differ from them, have no reason, facts, evidence, or logic to believe as they do, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. I will go on to say, this is especially a problem with those who want to claim they were once convinced of something, they now want to tell us, there were no facts, evidence, reason, nor logic involved, as if since they were convinced of something they had no facts, evidence, or reason to believe, somehow demonstrates anything at all, who then want to attempt to school us all on, confirmation bias.

[bluegreenearth]

Since are talking about Christianity, let's just say so. I believe we should all think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. Some do this and come to the conclusion the claims are true, while others do so, and come to the conclusion the claims are false, while others may come to the conclusion we do not have enough information to make a decision one way, or the other.

I have no problem with either of the decisions, and do not insist that those who come to a different decision, are not using facts, evidence, logic, or reason, to come to their conclusion, and I also do not assume they have arrived to their conclusions based upon confirmation bias. My problem comes in, when there are those who seem to want to insist that those who differ from them, have no reason, facts, evidence, or logic to believe as they do, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. I will go on to say, this is especially a problem with those who want to claim they were once convinced of something, they now want to tell us, there were no facts, evidence, reason, nor logic involved, as if since they were convinced of something they had no facts, evidence, or reason to believe, somehow demonstrates anything at all, who then want to attempt to school us all on, confirmation bias.

Since the facts, evidence, logic, and reason can lead some people to become convinced the claim is true and some people to become convinced the claim is false, what would you suggest is a justification for the confidence each side exhibits in the debate if the claim is apparently unfalsifiable?

[Realworldjack]

Since are talking about Christianity, let's just say so. I believe we should all think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. Some do this and come to the conclusion the claims are true, while others do so, and come to the conclusion the claims are false, while others may come to the conclusion we do not have enough information to make a decision one way, or the other.

I have no problem with either of the decisions, and do not insist that those who come to a different decision, are not using facts, evidence, logic, or reason, to come to their conclusion, and I also do not assume they have arrived to their conclusions based upon confirmation bias. My problem comes in, when there are those who seem to want to insist that those who differ from them, have no reason, facts, evidence, or logic to believe as they do, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. I will go on to say, this is especially a problem with those who want to claim they were once convinced of something, they now want to tell us, there were no facts, evidence, reason, nor logic involved, as if since they were convinced of something they had no facts, evidence, or reason to believe, somehow demonstrates anything at all, who then want to attempt to school us all on, confirmation bias.

Since the facts, evidence, logic, and reason can lead some people to become convinced the claim is true and some people to become convinced the claim is false, what would you suggest is a justification for the confidence each side exhibits in the debate if the claim is apparently unfalsifiable?

From the web,

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Since the belief in the resurrection is based upon facts, evidence, and reason, and not upon faith, it is not an "unfalsifiable belief".

[bluegreenearth]

From the web,

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Since the belief in the resurrection is based upon facts, evidence, and reason, and not upon faith, it is not an "unfalsifiable belief".

If they are not unfalsifiable beliefs but neither belief is falsified by the available facts and evidence, then what would you suggest is a justification for either side to confidently assert their belief is correct?

[Realworldjack]

From the web,

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Since the belief in the resurrection is based upon facts, evidence, and reason, and not upon faith, it is not an "unfalsifiable belief".

If they are not unfalsifiable beliefs but neither belief is falsified by the available facts and evidence, then what would you suggest is a justification for either side to confidently assert their belief is correct?

First, let us get a definition of the word, "assert". From the dictionary,

1. state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

With this being the case, I have no problem with those on either side, confidently stating what it is they believe based upon the facts, and evidence we have. I am not sure how "forcefully" would factor into the equation? However, you are suggesting there are those who, "confidently assert their belief is correct". Well, if one were to do such a thing, then I think we would have one who would own the burden, don't you think?

As a Christian, I do indeed state confidently what it is I believe, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. As an example, most all the Churches I have been associated with, will have a segment of the service where the pastor will ask the congregation to stand, and will pose the question to us which is, "Christian, what is it you believe" (notice the question is not, what do you assert to be true). At this point, we will recite, "The Apostle's Creed" which states,

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

So then, as you can see, I am not "asserting" these things to be true. Rather, I am "asserting" I believe these things to be true. I am not insisting, nor even asking you to believe these things. Again, I have no problem with what you believe concerning these things, and I will not, and do not, insist that you have no reason, logic, or evidence to support what it is you believe concerning these things, nor do I insinuate you may be influenced by, confirmation bias. My problem comes in, when there are those who freely admit to being convinced just as I am, who now go on to proclaim, they did not use facts, reason, evidence, or logic in order to come to such a conviction, and seem to admit they were influenced by confirmation bias, who now seem to want to transpose this same sort of mindless decision making upon the rest of us, when they continue to fail to demonstrate this to be the case.

So then, exactly where is this, "double standard" you speak of?

[bluegreenearth]

From the web,

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Since the belief in the resurrection is based upon facts, evidence, and reason, and not upon faith, it is not an "unfalsifiable belief".

If they are not unfalsifiable beliefs but neither belief is falsified by the available facts and evidence, then what would you suggest is a justification for either side to confidently assert their belief is correct?

First, let us get a definition of the word, "assert". From the dictionary,

1. state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

With this being the case, I have no problem with those on either side, confidently stating what it is they believe based upon the facts, and evidence we have. I am not sure how "forcefully" would factor into the equation? However, you are suggesting there are those who, "confidently assert their belief is correct". Well, if one were to do such a thing, then I think we would have one who would own the burden, don't you think?

As a Christian, I do indeed state confidently what it is I believe, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. As an example, most all the Churches I have been associated with, will have a segment of the service where the pastor will ask the congregation to stand, and will pose the question to us which is, "Christian, what is it you believe" (notice the question is not, what do you assert to be true). At this point, we will recite, "The Apostle's Creed" which states,

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

So then, as you can see, I am not "asserting" these things to be true. Rather, I am "asserting" I believe these things to be true. I am not insisting, nor even asking you to believe these things. Again, I have no problem with what you believe concerning these things, and I will not, and do not, insist that you have no reason, logic, or evidence to support what it is you believe concerning these things, nor do I insinuate you may be influenced by, confirmation bias. My problem comes in, when there are those who freely admit to being convinced just as I am, who now go on to proclaim, they did not use facts, reason, evidence, or logic in order to come to such a conviction, and seem to admit they were influenced by confirmation bias, who now seem to want to transpose this same sort of mindless decision making upon the rest of us, when they continue to fail to demonstrate this to be the case.

So then, exactly where is this, "double standard" you speak of?

I never suggested or implied that you, specifically, were exhibiting a double standard. Has someone accused you, specifically, of exhibiting a double standard?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]

I am not suggesting that you are, "specifically" targeting me as "exhibiting a double standard". But can we get real here? This is a debate site on the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum, where we debate Christianity. There are those of us who are Christian, and those of us who are not Christian.

You are not a Christian. We also know you were at one time a convinced Christian, and we also know that at the very least, you now are convinced, at least in part, that one of the reasons for this would be, the thinking process you used at the time, and I can also imagine you now are more than willing to admit you may have been influenced by, confirmation bias, along with maybe also having, double standards. Imagine my surprise!

With all this being the case, although you are extremely careful to include unbelievers, along with believers when you bring up things such as, confirmation bias, double standards, etc., can you honestly say you do this out of equal concern for all, and are honestly, only, attempting to help us all, believer, and unbeliever alike, to understand where we all may be guilty of such things?

In order to help you better answer this question, allow me to ask you another question. Do you believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true? If you answer "yes" to this question then I will concede the whole point to you. However, if you honestly cannot answer this question with an affirmative, would this not plainly identify for us the ones who are targeted?

In other words, if you are convinced, sound reason, logic, evidence, and facts, can be used in order to reject the Christian claims, but they cannot be used to believe the claims, then who is it that you are really intending to help through these things?

Of course, you can rightly point out the fact that one can be convinced of a truth, while still being guilty of faulty reason, logic, thinking, and could also be guilty of confirmation bias, along with holding double standards, but I am here to tell you that this still begs the question as to why one would decide to bring these issues forward, on a site which just so happens to have folks who are convinced of the very same things they were, when they came to understand they were guilty of faulty reason, logic, along with maybe even being guilty of confirmation bias, and could also have possibly been guilty of holding double standards?

So then, please pardon me, if I am more than a little skeptical of who the real target may be, when we have one who is not a Christian, who once was indeed a Christian, who admits to using faulty thinking, logic, and reason, while also maybe being guilty of confirmation bias, and holding double standards, in order to be a convinced as a Christian, who for some reason decides to spend an enormous amount of time on a site, which just so happens to be dedicated to the very thing they were once convinced of when they were guilty of faulty thinking, logic, reason, also being guilty of confirmation bias, and holding double standards, who is not in any way attempting to target those who continue to be convinced of the things they were once convinced of, but rather, and simply has the aim, and goal to help us all, believer, and unbeliever alike, to understand where we all may be guilty of these things?

I am simply attempting to point out, that simply because one has the ability to change the mind, does not necessitate that the way in which they think has changed in any way. In other words, if one freely admits that it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to be a convinced Christian, then I think this should tell us plainly, that they are admitting they really did not know what they believed at the time, and more importantly, why they were convinced. Therefore, if it did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them that a dead man was raised, what would now cause us to believe the thinking has changed, simply because this one has now changed the mind?

In fact, allow me to put this another way. There are numerous, well educated, intelligent folks I can point to, who were not only unbelievers, but were completely opposed to Christianity, so much so, they spoke out against it, who claim to have become convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence. As a matter of fact, the one I have in mind right now, was a tenured professor of English at a major university here in the states, and she credits her knowledge of language for her conversion. My whole point here is, do you suppose her thinking is better now that she had the ability to change her mind?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]

I am not suggesting that you are, "specifically" targeting me as "exhibiting a double standard". But can we get real here? This is a debate site on the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum, where we debate Christianity. There are those of us who are Christian, and those of us who are not Christian.

You are not a Christian. We also know you were at one time a convinced Christian, and we also know that at the very least, you now are convinced, at least in part, that one of the reasons for this would be, the thinking process you used at the time, and I can also imagine you now are more than willing to admit you may have been influenced by, confirmation bias, along with maybe also having, double standards. Imagine my surprise!

If I had ever previously described myself as a "convinced" Christian, it would be more accurate for me to say I was a tentatively "persuaded" but not completely convinced Christian. There was always a reasonable level of doubt in my mind. After all, Christianity makes some rather unconvincing claims. So, I was never completely convinced those claims were true but sincerely tried to have "faith" in them.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]
With all this being the case, although you are extremely careful to include unbelievers, along with believers when you bring up things such as, confirmation bias, double standards, etc., can you honestly say you do this out of equal concern for all, and are honestly, only, attempting to help us all, believer, and unbeliever alike, to understand where we all may be guilty of such things?

Nope. I'm just asking critical thinking questions in hopes of gaining a better understanding of the issue. At the same time, I'm prepared to accept the possibility that there may not be understandable answers to my questions.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]
In order to help you better answer this question, allow me to ask you another question. Do you believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true? If you answer "yes" to this question then I will concede the whole point to you. However, if you honestly cannot answer this question with an affirmative, would this not plainly identify for us the ones who are targeted?

In other words, if you are convinced, sound reason, logic, evidence, and facts, can be used in order to reject the Christian claims, but they cannot be used to believe the claims, then who is it that you are really intending to help through these things?

I was of the impression that we've already established that some people are convinced they have the sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence to conclude (i.e. believe) the Christian claims are either true or false. Some people conclude they are true, some people conclude they are false, and some people conclude the claims have been neither proven nor disproven. All those people claim their conclusions are justified by the conviction that they are based on sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]
Of course, you can rightly point out the fact that one can be convinced of a truth, while still being guilty of faulty reason, logic, thinking, and could also be guilty of confirmation bias, along with holding double standards, but I am here to tell you that this still begs the question as to why one would decide to bring these issues forward, on a site which just so happens to have folks who are convinced of the very same things they were, when they came to understand they were guilty of faulty reason, logic, along with maybe even being guilty of confirmation bias, and could also have possibly been guilty of holding double standards?

Honestly, I am trying and failing to comprehend the point you are trying to make in the question quoted above. Nevertheless, I'll give it my best shot and try to respond with something helpful:

I've come to understand where there is wisdom in skeptically examining my own beliefs and inviting other people to critically evaluate my beliefs as well in order to help me identify where any logical fallacies or other errors (i.e. double standards or confirmation bias) might exist in my reasoning process. So, I thought other people might appreciate having an opportunity try this method out for themselves and decide if they find it helpful or not.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]
So then, please pardon me, if I am more than a little skeptical of who the real target may be, when we have one who is not a Christian, who once was indeed a Christian, who admits to using faulty thinking, logic, and reason, while also maybe being guilty of confirmation bias, and holding double standards, in order to be a convinced as a Christian, who for some reason decides to spend an enormous amount of time on a site, which just so happens to be dedicated to the very thing they were once convinced of when they were guilty of faulty thinking, logic, reason, also being guilty of confirmation bias, and holding double standards, who is not in any way attempting to target those who continue to be convinced of the things they were once convinced of, but rather, and simply has the aim, and goal to help us all, believer, and unbeliever alike, to understand where we all may be guilty of these things?

I am simply attempting to point out, that simply because one has the ability to change the mind, does not necessitate that the way in which they think has changed in any way. In other words, if one freely admits that it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to be a convinced Christian, then I think this should tell us plainly, that they are admitting they really did not know what they believed at the time, and more importantly, why they were convinced. Therefore, if it did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them that a dead man was raised, what would now cause us to believe the thinking has changed, simply because this one has now changed the mind?

In fact, allow me to put this another way. There are numerous, well educated, intelligent folks I can point to, who were not only unbelievers, but were completely opposed to Christianity, so much so, they spoke out against it, who claim to have become convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence. As a matter of fact, the one I have in mind right now, was a tenured professor of English at a major university here in the states, and she credits her knowledge of language for her conversion. My whole point here is, do you suppose her thinking is better now that she had the ability to change her mind?

Did her thinking process improve because she had the ability to change her mind, or did she acquire the ability to change her mind as a consequence of improving her thinking process? If her reasoning process is more logical now than it was before, then I would credit her for having improved her thinking skills regardless of whether I agree or disagree with her conclusion about Christianity. I'm less concerned with the belief and more concerned with the reliability of the reasoning process used to acquire the belief or lack thereof.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #49]

In order to keep from getting side tracked on so many different fronts, please allow me to focus simply upon one point here. I asked,

Do you believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true?

To which you respond,

I was of the impression that we've already established that some people are convinced they have the sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence to conclude (i.e. believe) the Christian claims are either true or false. Some people conclude they are true, some people conclude they are false, and some people conclude the claims have been neither proven nor disproven. All those people claim their conclusions are justified by the conviction that they are based on sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence.

Now, do you really believe this is an answer to the question I posed? In other words, I did not ask, what "some people are convinced of". Rather, I asked, "Do YOU, (emphasis on the YOU) believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true"?

Again, if YOU, (not some people) answer yes to this question, I will concede the point to you! I want to be clear here, in that I am not attempting to force you into a, yes, or no, response, because I understand that one may want to elaborate. Therefore, I am fine with you elaborating upon your answer.

Allow me to answer this question myself, in order to maybe help you out. I am convinced we can both look at, study, and analyze the same exact facts, and evidence, both using sound reason, and logic, and come to completely differently conclusions. Therefore, I am fine with whatever conclusion others may come to, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, I have no sound reason, facts, or evidence to believe as I do.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #49]
Now, do you really believe this is an answer to the question I posed? In other words, I did not ask, what "some people are convinced of". Rather, I asked, "Do YOU, (emphasis on the YOU) believe one can indeed use sound reason, logic, facts, and evidence, and arrive to the conclusion the Christian claims are true"?

If there were sufficient facts and evidence available, then I believe it would be possible for people to use sound reason and logic to conclude the Christian claims are true (or false).