Is There A Double Standard?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Is There A Double Standard?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #2

Post by Difflugia »

This question reminds me of John W. Loftus and his "outsider test of faith." He discusses it in several of his books, but I like the following from chapter 4 of The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.
Given these facts, the central thesis of the OTF is a challenge to believers to test or examine their own religious faith as if they were outsiders with the same presumption of skepticism they use to test or examine other religious faiths. Its presumption is that when examining one's own religious faith, skepticism is warranted, since the odds are good that it is false. Remember, brainwashed people do not know that they have been brainwashed. We know that billions of people have been brainwashed to believe, if you grant that they have been misled by their parents and culture. So you must take seriously the real possibility that you are one of them. If you really want know if you've been brainwashed to believe, then taking the OTF is the best and probably the only way to know the truth about your own religious faith, since there seems to be no reasonable alternative.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #3

Post by Mithrae »

bluegreenearth wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 2:53 pm 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.
On the non-theist side probably the most common example of this that I've seen is misunderstanding/misapplication of the concept of 'burden of proof.' Faced with claims which they don't believe some folk respond with a demand for an arbitrary/unspecified amount of 'evidence' supporting it; such that, for some examples, contemporary local attestation to Jesus and multiple first-hand sources regarding his brother are deemed insufficient evidence of Jesus' existence, or the sworn testimony of four named medical workers is deemed insufficient to acknowledge even any real probability of a miraculously regrown amputation. The problem of course is not so much a demand for evidence (which is generally sensible) nor even what might be considered at times unreasonably high levels of scepticism towards particular claims: It's that a unilateral demand for evidence implies an epistemic standard which usually isn't justified by its own standards (in fact I've rarely even seen it attempted or even acknowledged on this forum); the insistence on others' particular burden of proof is a claim which itself has usually not met its own burden of proof.



(As a point of comparison, one possible alternative epistemic approach would be that it's rational to accept the most reasonable available stance on a given issue, making it incumbent on all parties to either present their best case for their own stance, in addition to critiquing others', or else acknowledge the rationality of the believer's stance even if remaining personally sceptical and unwilling/unable to offer a strong alternative. Another possible alternative epistemic approach would be that it's rational to accept the stance/s which we currently hold and are working for us and modify as required by contrary evidence or pragmatic needs, rather than pretending that we can be some kind of blank slate and painstakingly vet everything in our brains according to 'burden of proof' standards; this approach would actually make it solely incumbent on anyone questioning the rationality of another's views to prove their case!)

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #4

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mithrae wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:14 am On the non-theist side probably the most common example of this that I've seen is misunderstanding/misapplication of the concept of 'burden of proof.' Faced with claims which they don't believe some folk respond with a demand for an arbitrary/unspecified amount of 'evidence' supporting it; such that, for some examples, contemporary local attestation to Jesus and multiple first-hand sources regarding his brother are deemed insufficient evidence of Jesus' existence, or the sworn testimony of four named medical workers is deemed insufficient to acknowledge even any real probability of a miraculously regrown amputation. The problem of course is not so much a demand for evidence (which is generally sensible) nor even what might be considered at times unreasonably high levels of scepticism towards particular claims: It's that a unilateral demand for evidence implies an epistemic standard which usually isn't justified by its own standards (in fact I've rarely even seen it attempted or even acknowledged on this forum); the insistence on others' particular burden of proof is a claim which itself has usually not met its own burden of proof.



(As a point of comparison, one possible alternative epistemic approach would be that it's rational to accept the most reasonable available stance on a given issue, making it incumbent on all parties to either present their best case for their own stance, in addition to critiquing others', or else acknowledge the rationality of the believer's stance even if remaining personally sceptical and unwilling/unable to offer a strong alternative. Another possible alternative epistemic approach would be that it's rational to accept the stance/s which we currently hold and are working for us and modify as required by contrary evidence or pragmatic needs, rather than pretending that we can be some kind of blank slate and painstakingly vet everything in our brains according to 'burden of proof' standards; this approach would actually make it solely incumbent on anyone questioning the rationality of another's views to prove their case!)
Please specifically identify where a double standard exists in the scenario you've described because I'm unable to find it. Are you suggesting the non-theist has to prove that the theist has the burden of proof?

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #5

Post by Mithrae »

bluegreenearth wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:49 am
Mithrae wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:14 am It's that a unilateral demand for evidence implies an epistemic standard which usually isn't justified by its own standards (in fact I've rarely even seen it attempted or even acknowledged on this forum); the insistence on others' particular burden of proof is a claim which itself has usually not met its own burden of proof.
Please specifically identify where a double standard exists in the scenario you've described because I'm unable to find it. Are you suggesting the non-theist has to prove that the theist has the burden of proof?
If a unilateral demand for evidence (ie. without offering a coherent alternative perspective or otherwise refuting the original claim) is to be taken as a "side of the debate" as outlined in the OP, yes.

Such a request could of course represent genuine/ignorant curiousity at times, which is good, or groundless arbitrary personal incredulity, or (when combined with the implications of irrationality on the others' part which we often see) mere empty trolling. But if it were to be taken as a serious debate contribution then the unilateral demand for evidence implies an epistemic approach which would first need to be justified according to its own standards.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #6

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mithrae wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:35 am If a unilateral demand for evidence (ie. without offering a coherent alternative perspective or otherwise refuting the original claim) is to be taken as a "side of the debate" as outlined in the OP, yes.

Such a request could of course represent genuine/ignorant curiousity at times, which is good, or groundless arbitrary personal incredulity, or (when combined with the implications of irrationality on the others' part which we often see) mere empty trolling. But if it were to be taken as a serious debate contribution then the unilateral demand for evidence implies an epistemic approach which would first need to be justified according to its own standards.
What claim is the non-theist making that requires supporting evidence but is not being provided?

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #7

Post by Mithrae »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:58 pm What claim is the non-theist making that requires supporting evidence but is not being provided?
The claim that rational opinions require some particular threshold of supporting evidence, irrespective of whether a coherent alternative or strong critique is offered.

As I noted in my original post there are at least two other possible epistemic approaches which would require both contributors to a debate to offer a coherent position of their own and/or actively critique the other's, in which cases the fairly common (usually non-theist) tactic of simply demanding more 'evidence' for the other person's position would be an irrational/losing one unless their own epistemic approach/claim were justified, according to its own standards at the very least. This double standard of failing to examine and justify the reasoning behind unilateral demands for justification is a problem which I've rarely even seen acknowledged - though I've pointed it out many times over the years - let alone corrected.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #8

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mithrae wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:32 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:58 pm What claim is the non-theist making that requires supporting evidence but is not being provided?
The claim that rational opinions require some particular threshold of supporting evidence, irrespective of whether a coherent alternative or strong critique is offered.

As I noted in my original post there are at least two other possible epistemic approaches which would require both contributors to a debate to offer a coherent position of their own and/or actively critique the other's, in which cases the fairly common (usually non-theist) tactic of simply demanding more 'evidence' for the other person's position would be an irrational/losing one unless their own epistemic approach/claim were justified, according to its own standards at the very least. This double standard of failing to examine and justify the reasoning behind unilateral demands for justification is a problem which I've rarely even seen acknowledged - though I've pointed it out many times over the years - let alone corrected.
So, if an agnostic isn't claiming to know that X is true or false and another person is claiming X is true, is it your perspective that the agnostic has a burden of proof for not knowing if X is true or false? Alternatively, are you suggesting the agnostic should have to defend the claim that X is false if the other person is claiming X is true?

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #9

Post by Mithrae »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:47 pm So, if an agnostic isn't claiming to know that X is true or false and another person is claiming X is true, is it your perspective that the agnostic has a burden of proof for not knowing if X is true or false? Alternatively, are you suggesting the agnostic should have to defend the claim that X is false if the other person is claiming X is true?
As I said in post #5, obviously there are occasionally cases of genuine/ignorant curiousity or the like, but your OP asked about situations involving one or another "side of the debate." Mere curiousity is not a contribution to debate, obviously. On the other hand I'm sure none of us here could pretend with a straight face that we haven't seen (on a fairly regular basis) implications or direct accusations of believers' irrationality or gullibility accompanying requests for more evidence.

If the agnostic opines that her agnosticism is more rational than the believer's inadequately-justified belief, it would be an obvious double standard if that opinion on the basis for rational views were itself inadequately justified. An agnostic who is unable or unwilling to offer a coherent alternative and/or refute the believer's stance, and therefore recognizes the reasonableness of the believer's stance even if personally unconvinced, would not involve any double standard.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is There A Double Standard?

Post #10

Post by Difflugia »

I was reading the Watchtower Society's Insight on the Scriptures article on Hades and ran across this gem:
The remaining text in which Hades is used is found at Luke 16:22-26 in the account of “the rich man” and “Lazarus.” The language throughout the account is plainly parabolic and cannot be construed literally in view of all the preceding texts. Note, however, that “the rich man” of the parable is spoken of as being “buried” in Hades, giving further evidence that Hades means the common grave of mankind.
Heads I win, tails you lose, eh?

Post Reply