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?

[John Bauer]

Please elaborate on the criteria you use to objectively determine if someone’s reasoning skills are well-honed.

The criteria are the ordinary standards of critical thinking. There are a number of books I could recommend that helpfully describe these standards, but here are the three from which I most often draw:

• Colin Swatridge, The Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).
• Galen A. Foresman, Peter S. Fosl, and Jamie C. Watson, eds., The Critical Thinking Toolkit (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2017).
• Matthew Allen, Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Apologetic reasoning ... leads theists to different conclusions about God from the reasoning used by non-theists. My purpose for having this discussion is to investigate whether the theistic reasoning being proposed is reliable or not.

You are assuming a thing called "apologetic reasoning" or "theistic reasoning"—those are interchangeable terms, right?—and questioning whether it is reliable. I understand that. However, I am calling your assumption into question. I don't know if you caught that so now I am stating it explicitly. If you practice the intellectual discipline of critical thinking, then you should recognize that it would be an illegitimate move to simply beg that question (i.e., assume the very thing to be proved).

So, again, what is this thing you are calling theistic reasoning, and how does it differ from non-theistic reasoning? Please be specific, and please provide evidence.

In order to make that determination, I must first identify the disconfirming evidence I would expect to find if the proposed reasoning process is unreliable and then proceed to discover if such evidence exists.

I think you have gotten ahead of yourself. The first step in determining whether theistic reasoning is reliable, it seems to me, is having a clear definition of what it is and demonstrating that it's actually a thing. Judging by your statement just here, it seems safe to assume that you have already settled those elements—so, please, provide those data here. Again, please be specific and please provide evidence.

... [the] inclusion of psychological manipulation techniques or logical fallacies in a belief-acquisition process would render it unreliable.

Agreed. And I am really glad to hear you affirm this, quite honestly, as it gives me hope that you will make every effort to avoid psychological manipulation or persuasion techniques (e.g., weasel words) or logical fallacies (e.g., begging the question) in your own reasoning and arguments, especially if, or when, they are identified and exposed.

Are you claiming I've been duplicitous in my word choices, ...?

Yes—although I assumed it was unintentional and was affording you an opportunity to remedy the weasel words. (I called it an "ironic" state of affairs. If I thought it was intentional, that would not have been irony but hypocrisy.)

It is my understanding that the possibility of such persuasion techniques being intentionally or unintentionally included in a belief-acquisition process should at least be considered and ruled out before concluding the proposed reasoning is reliable.

Is a "belief-acquisition process" something different from "theistic reasoning," or are you adding to your already full plate? If they are one and the same thing, then before we can look at whether psychological manipulation or "persuasion techniques" are used in theistic reasoning you must first provide a clear definition of what it is and demonstrate that it's actually a thing.

If they are different things, then let's set it aside in order to focus on your claim about theistic reasoning.

Do you have a logical justification for me to uncritically accept a proposed theist's reasoning as reliable and discontinue my inquiry in that regard?

Complex question fallacy. Your question assumes that I would have you uncritically accept theistic reasoning as reliable in order to ask if I have a logical justification for it. That assumption is false. I would not have you uncritically accept theistic reasoning as reliable—I would not have you uncritically accept anything, ever—for the simple reason that I haven't the foggiest idea what theistic reasoning is even supposed to be. This should simply underscore the need for you to clearly define what it is and demonstrate that it's actually a thing.

[brunumb]

Please elaborate on the criteria you use to objectively determine if someone’s reasoning skills are well-honed.

The criteria are the ordinary standards of critical thinking. There are a number of books I could recommend that helpfully describe these standards, but here are the three from which I most often draw:

That doesn't really tell us what specific criteria you use. You have somehow managed to avoid presenting any. Interesting.

[John Bauer]

That doesn't really tell us what specific criteria you use. You have somehow managed to avoid presenting any. Interesting.

"The criteria," I said, "are the ordinary standards of critical thinking." In other words, I am not appealing to mysterious or idiosyncratic criteria. If you or anyone else are unfamiliar with the ordinary standards of critical thinking, I cited three specific and relevant sources which "helpfully describe these standards." Was I supposed to include a link to Amazon for each title? I can do that.

Are you unfamiliar with the ordinary standards of critical thinking but don't want to read books to learn what they are? Okay, I could direct you to Wikipedia (s.v. "Critical thinking") but that's not as good a source as the books I had cited.

Edited to add: I just noticed that you quoted me but altered what I had said. I'll let the readers make their own ethical judgment of what you did; I just wanted to point it out.

[brunumb]

That doesn't really tell us what specific criteria you use. You have somehow managed to avoid presenting any. Interesting.

"The criteria," I said, "are the ordinary standards of critical thinking." In other words, I am not appealing to mysterious or idiosyncratic criteria. If you or anyone else are unfamiliar with the ordinary standards of critical thinking, I cited three specific and relevant sources which "helpfully describe these standards." Was I supposed to include a link to Amazon for each title? I can do that.

Are you unfamiliar with the ordinary standards of critical thinking but don't want to read books to learn what they are? Okay, I could direct you to Wikipedia (s.v. "Critical thinking") but that's not as good a source as the books I had cited.

Edited to add: I just noticed that you quoted me but altered what I had said. I'll let the readers make their own ethical judgment of what you did; I just wanted to point it out.

I altered nothing. I used copy and paste and merely left out the titles of the books you recommended as they were not necessary.

And still you have not indicated any specific criteria you applied in this particular circumstance. I too will let the readers make their own judgment of that.

[John Bauer]

I altered nothing. I used copy and paste and merely left out the titles of the books you recommended as they were not necessary.

The link you included, https://www.answers-in-reason.com/scien ... -debunked/, did not exist in my post.

[brunumb]

I altered nothing. I used copy and paste and merely left out the titles of the books you recommended as they were not necessary.

The link you included, https://www.answers-in-reason.com/scien ... -debunked/, did not exist in my post.

Not sure how that got there. It was a link I posted elsewhere. My apologies. I have edited it out.

It was posted here:
Re: The Case for the Historical Christ
Post #127
Post by brunumb » Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:27 pm

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #237]

It is my understanding that psychological manipulation could possibly be involved in many circumstances but not in every case and not always done deliberately or with the intent to deceive.

First, you say the above it is your "understanding" but you have not even established that "psychological manipulation" has been used at all? Your statement really tells us nothing at all that we do not already know. Sure, "psychological manipulation COULD POSSIBLY be involved in MANY circumstances", but it could also be possible that it has never been used by any Church. This would be like me saying something like, "it is possible that atheism has been well branded". The fact of the matter is, one of the folks I have referred to who was an atheist all of her life, claims this would be one of the reasons for her atheism. However, she does not simply say it is a "possibility", rather she states it to be a fact. The point is, if I were to simply say, "it is possible that atheism has been well branded", this statement would tell us nothing we did not already know, unless it can be demonstrated to be a fact.

The ,main point here however is, we are talking about whether it would be possible for one to come to believe the Christian claims outside of having undergone the indoctrination process. Therefore, even if you were to demonstrate that every Church on the planet employed, "phycological manipulation" this would still not explain those who have never undergone such "phycological manipulation" , but are now convinced Christians.

I am suggesting the apologetic reasoning which is commonly endorsed in a church setting could possibly be the same or similar apologetic reasoning being independently discovered and used by people outside the church setting to acquire a particular belief.

All I can say here is, WOW! First, you have not even established this "apologetic reasoning" you refer to, which you go on to insist, "is commonly endorsed in a church setting"? You need to first establish this "apologetic reasoning" you are referring to, and then go on to demonstrate it would be "commonly endorsed in a church setting"?

Dictionary
Search for a word
com·mon·ly
/ˈkämənlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
very often; frequently.

You then go on to say in this very same paragraph,

This possibility would need to be ruled-out before I could reasonably infer that the belief acquisition method used by someone outside the church is more reliable than the "indoctrination" process deployed within the church.

You have not even established that the "indoctrination" process deployed within the church" is unreliable? In other words, this "apologetic reasoning" you refer to, (which you have not established) which you go on to claim is, "commonly endorsed in a church setting" would have to be established, "before I could reasonably infer that" it would be impossible for one to come to believe the Christian claims without having undergone, these things you claim would be possibilities.

I'm not aware of any sound deductive arguments for theism at this time.

Well, that tells us a lot, now doesn't it? It tells us about the same as my saying, "I'm not aware of any sound deductive arguments" which would cause me to doubt the reports we have in the NT".

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to John Bauer in post #252]

A "belief acquisition process" is the epistemology used to acquire a belief. Every epistemology may be unique to each person, and an individual person could consistently employ the same epistemology or employ a different epistemology in the acquisition of different beliefs.

"Apologetic reasoning" or "theistic reasoning" refers to the class of belief acquisition processes that lead to the acceptance of a theistic belief. Unlike "scientific reasoning", this doesn't necessarily describe a single shared line of reasoning but can be any line of reasoning any individual person uses to conclude theism is true.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #237]
First, you say the above it is your "understanding" but you have not even established that "psychological manipulation" has been used at all? Your statement really tells us nothing at all that we do not already know. Sure, "psychological manipulation COULD POSSIBLY be involved in MANY circumstances", but it could also be possible that it has never been used by any Church. This would be like me saying something like, "it is possible that atheism has been well branded". The fact of the matter is, one of the folks I have referred to who was an atheist all of her life, claims this would be one of the reasons for her atheism. However, she does not simply say it is a "possibility", rather she states it to be a fact. The point is, if I were to simply say, "it is possible that atheism has been well branded", this statement would tell us nothing we did not already know, unless it can be demonstrated to be a fact.

The ,main point here however is, we are talking about whether it would be possible for one to come to believe the Christian claims outside of having undergone the indoctrination process. Therefore, even if you were to demonstrate that every Church on the planet employed, "phycological manipulation" this would still not explain those who have never undergone such "phycological manipulation" , but are now convinced Christians.

The objective is to conduct a detailed investigation of the specific line of reasoning a proposed theist used to acquire a particular belief and evaluate it for the existence of any evidence (i.e. psychological manipulation techniques, logical fallacies, etc.) which would demonstrate it is unreliable. Whether the belief was acquired within or outside a church is not relevant to the analysis of a theist's line of reasoning.

[Realworldjack]

From start to finish, these statements are just utterly saturated with weasel words (hedging one's bets; appeal to anonymous evidence or authority; plausible deniability; etc.):

You could just as easily be addressing Realworldjack's "we have the letters" case for the truth of the resurrection. Lot's of ifs, could haves, should haves and would haves sprinkled through that as well. Just looking up Luke-Acts and Theophilus raises a heap of questions and doubts. One really has to view all those alleged facts and evidence with the eye of faith in order to be convinced.

You could just as easily be addressing Realworldjack's "we have the letters" case for the truth of the resurrection.

This is a complete overstatement at best. You continue to ask for evidence in support of the claims, and the letters we have contained in the NT would be evidence. Not only have I referred to these writings as evidence, I have went on to demonstrate how one could reasonably conclude the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. We know it to be a fact that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Therefore, if the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, (which the evidence overwhelmingly supports), then we have an author, of one of what we refer to as the Gospels, being alive at the time of Jesus, acquainted with Paul, and more importantly the other Apostles, who would have been witnesses, which means this author may have very well substantiated everything he wrote, just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

Now, am I to simply suppose this author sat down to write out what would have been false information to an audience at the time, who could have very well verified himself if the author would have been reporting the truth? Or, do you have some sort of facts, and evidence which would demonstrate this author would not have been alive at the time, along with facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate the information would be false?

You see, continuing to simply tell me how most Christians come to believe (which I agree with) does not give me any reason to doubt what this author has to say to an audience at the time.

Lot's of ifs, could haves, should haves and would haves sprinkled through that as well.

Sure! There are some "ifs" involved. However, the "ifs" I am using are based upon known, agreeable facts. I can assure you that your doubt rests upon many, "ifs" as well. The problem is, I do not see where you are using any facts, and evidence which would be relevant, to rest your doubt upon. In other words, the FACT that there are many Christians who believe as they do, simply because this is the way in which they were brought up to believe, is not in any way relevant, as to whether there would be reason to believe the claims.

This argument you continue to use is over, and over, is over, and done with. It has been refuted, and defeated. Because it has been demonstrated, that how others come to believe as they do, has no bearing upon whether what they believe would be true, or false, or whether there would be reason to believe as they do.

Just looking up Luke-Acts and Theophilus raises a heap of questions and doubts.

Well, since there is a "heap" then maybe you can share at least one with us? You know, kind of like where I have supplied facts, and evidence in support of what the author writes? But instead, you insist on making comments like the one above, without a shred of facts, and evidence in support. Sort of like when you seem to want to simply throw the word "hearsay" out there when referring to what this author writes.

hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
Learn to pronounce
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

I have supplied facts, and evidence to in support of this author being alive at the time of the events he records, along with facts, and evidence which would support his ability to substantiate what he records, just as he assured his audience at the time he had done. So then, what facts, and evidence do we have which may support this author simply, passing on information which he would have "received from other people that he could not adequately substantiate"?

One really has to view all those alleged facts and evidence with the eye of faith in order to be convinced.

Well no! One can base it solely upon the facts we have. You know, like the fact this author was addressing an audience at the time, who could have very well verified what was being said? Or, the fact that the author actually tells his audience at the time that he had in fact, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning"? Or like the fact, this author begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to focus upon the actions of Paul, when the journeys of Paul begins, and does not report on the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them? Or like the fact, that this author actually begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when reporting on the events of Paul's travels, as if he were there to actually witness the events he records? Or like the fact that we have letters in which the author certainly claims to be Paul, and he goes on to mention the name of Luke being with him on his travels? Or, like the fact, in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, this author states to his audience at the time, "only Luke is with me"? Or, like the fact, the author of the second letter, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest?

You see, I could go, on, and on, with these facts, we can know, while you simply throw words out there like "hearsay" without a shred of facts, and evidence in support. So then, it looks to me as if, I would have to have "an eye of faith" in order to believe what you are attempting to sell!