Monday, November 11, 2013

Atheist Double Standard on Evidence: Knee Jerk Reaction, or just Jerk Reaction?

  photo double-standard_zpsad242ac8.jpg


 Caveat: do not assume this means I think we should
trash the Koran or any book sacred to a people. I'm
saying the Atheist want to trash the Bible but not
other sacred books. That's a double standard.

On CARM 11/10/13



This is about a bright idea I had to point out the discrepancy between the way atheists responded to the M scale studies of mystical experience vs a study an atheist put forward that uses a similar methodology. The M scale is a method for determining the validity of a particular experience as to it's mystical nature. It does this by comparing it to a standard validated theory by W.T. Stace. Mysticism scale is a series of 32 questions designed to determine if one's experiences are like those described by Stace. One can read more about it here.

I do not argue that the M scale proves the existence of God. I never have said that. I have said that it's findings can be extrapolated to make an argument about the warrant for belief.


read this becuase I will show that Royce's studies (at least one) has the very same flaw for which atheists condemn the M scale.

Many times atheists on this board refer to the M scale (mysticism scale method for understanding if one has had a valid mystical experience in relation to W.T. Stace's theory). They have slandered it and called it names and said it's stupid it's horible pice junck ect ect.

One of the major basis for this reaction is the fact that the M scale is a scale (duh) (not knowing what that means in sociology) they didn't realize a scale is a range of answers given to survey. So they find it's a survey they go ape. "they could be lying." So they assume all the responded to Hood's studies lie about their experiences of God's presence and stuff. that accounts for all the right answers and stuff that just happens to validate Stace's theory. this mass of people in six different countries just happen to lie at the time in the same way and it validates this theory they have never read.


Now in present time


Royce throws a study at me.

Saslow, brothers keeper,

says atheists have more compassion than religious people.



It uses a rating scale and questions. just as does the M scale. It asks them questions about their feelings and attitudes they could clearly be lying.


Participants and procedure.
We analyzed participants from the
2004 General Social Survey, which is a nationally representa-tive sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United Statesover the age of 18 (Davis & Smith, 2005; 624 men, 713...
mark that "survey" because atheists have surveys are worthless. yes in relation to the M scale they said more than one said it, big thinker said it, I think Diest said it (sorry if I'm wrong about that) that survey's are always unreliable and can be lied on.

Methodology for study 1

"Compassion.
As compassion, sympathy, and empathic
concern are typically considered highly interrelated (Batson,
2009), we measured the tendency to feel compassion with the
7-item empathic concern subscale of the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (rated from 1,
does not describe very well,to 5,describes very well;a¼.72;M¼4.43,SD¼.67; Davis,
1983). Items include,I often have tender, concerned feelings
for people less fortunate than me,When I see someone being
taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them, and
Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great
deal..."

same deal. they asking them their experiences and feelings they could be lying!


I want to see you guys say Royces study is garbage. I want to you see mock and ridicule that one the same as you do the m scale. the methodologies are much alike.

hey they have a motive to lie because it makes atheism look bad if they don't have compassion.

 So in other words it's a study that uses a similar methodology to the M scale. It uses the very methods that the M scale has been berated by those atheists for: a survey is bad because they could lie. So when they survey finds for atheism (they are compassionate more so than religious peopel) that's ok. When it's finding agaisnt them (religious experience is transformation and could be used as a reason for belief in God) they hate the very same methods.


 If atheists are so brilliant, scientific, rational, they use reason to evaluate and analyze data and arrive at reasoned conclusions bravely and honestly  through their intellects, what do you think they are going to do with this?


Whateverman:

First, we'd have to see Royce claiming that his study proves God does or does not exist.

If you think that doesn't mean they will automaticaly reject any evidence for God withouit cocenr for it's truth content guess again.


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
what does that have to do with it? (what does what it says about God have to do with the methodology being good or not)
 whateverman
Try reading what I've actually written.
Meta:

hu?


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
what you wrote is nonsense, it proves my point about the double standard. I reflected totally accurately.

Whateverman
This is why people ignore you here, Metacrock.

You've not considered anything people have written in this thread, and you've rarely done so elsewhere. If you're so unwilling to listen to what people are saying, raging against atheists for them not listening to you is childish (at best).

Meta:

what's he talking about? He just said didn't he? that it depends upon weather or not it's about God. I'm just taking him at his word.


Maybrick

Its weird.

I cannot see where in the quote provided they appealed to magic, gods and indefinables.

It is almost like the study is studying actual effects.

I would also go out on a limb and suggest the study authors haven't left out whole subgroups that might have messed up their figures.

That is just a guess, but usually Royce seems a lot more thorough than yourself in picking sources.

If you cannot see the differences in concept between "compassion, sympathy, and empathic concern" which are quantifiable things and "ooooh...I felt the touch of god, and just look at the trees!" then the problems are on your end.


Meta:

That still means that they are rejecting not becuase of the method but becuase they don't like the findings. It's hte conclusion they reject but since they have no basis for contradicting the method, they accept it when it's in their favor, then they have no basis for questioning the findings. These are teh big intellecutally suprorr atheists that base their ideas on reason? hu?

Tralala (Trollala)

You used the M scale studies as evidence that god must exist, which is a ridiculous position.

Royce was not saying god does not exist because of the studies he produced..


Metacrock, could you PLEASE be more honest with your arguments.

Meta

this guy is really a brain dead reactionary. everything he says in that quote there si wrong and is demonstrably wrong.


(1) I do not argue God "must exist." I say that the experiences offer a warrant for belief, that is they offer a good reason to believe. I specifically deny proof of God's existence on the basis that he's not subject to empirical proof becuase he's not given in sense data.

(2) I said nothing about Royce's view on God I said the methodology of the study he threw at me was quite similar to the M scale. so much so that it casts a poll on their rejection of the M scale. This is just proves they don't read the posts.

(3) Be more honest. I show a study that they used agaisnt me that has a similar methodology to the M scale they turn around and show their slander of the M scale is base upon not accepting it's data, which is scientific data produced by the methodology they otherwise except. That proves it's not the truth they care about but want they want to be the truth.


whateverman decides to come back and try it again. I guess he feels shamed by my insistance that he think fairly.

Whateverman

You really can't read for comprehension, can you...

I did not say or imply what you did. I implied that a study involving the subjective opinions of people (who may have lied or not) might be useful, but it's not evidence for the existence of God. Royce linked to a study, but people didn't jump all over him because he didn't claim the study's results said anything about the existence or non-existence of gods.

Seriously, grow up.
O wow a "grow up" even! That's such an adult post he didn't claim teh studies result in the existence of Gdo so that's why it's a good study. the one I use that uses the same methodology has findings that one could use to make God arguments so it's bad. The findings have to be pre detemriend to weed out conclusions we don't like that's what he calls "growing up."

Is it scientific to pre determine what your findings can be?






12 comments:

yonose said...

Meta,

I don't know where you get that patience of yours to deal with this.

Whateverman is a funny guy. He loves to patronize everyone who thinks differently than he does.

I saw the Brothers Keepers' study from the link. It is interesting nonetheless.

If there's a positive correlation between compassion, empathy and prosocial behaviour, this would actually imply that, somehow, less religious people need to be fed of compassion more consecutively, to do any good deed with our human brethren, by applying constant sense data by stimuli and induction.

All of the above seems to be correct. I don't see anything weird about that by now.

As a consequence,

This would also mean that less religious people are easier to be lied to with political propaganda e.g. like SOME extremist environmental alarmists.



Where I believe the study is somehow flawed in context, is the linking of a positive correlation between prosocial behaviour and the making of good deeds per se as universal, because many people who love to be vocal about their lack of religiousness, just like to do good deeds in a preferential way: most probably they will help non-religious people only. Such behaviours have been demonstrated by themselves over and over.

It is just overly simplistic to have a positive correlation with compassion, by induction, lack of religiosity, and then conflating such, with the actual making of good deeds to people. There is not a single trace in that study that confirms which types of people they had helped, whether religious or not.

This would also imply that the idea of correlating actual charity with lack of religiousness is not a universal statement, and that it is completely falsifiable, and in consequence, it is not possible to make a proof that "Atheists have more compassion than religious people".

That's where I agree that there's a double standard with these types of Atheists.

This is just reduced to a mere political game. Have these types of Atheists forgot about their intellectual roots??

I bet some intellectual Atheists like LaPlace, were he be alive, would be cheering the movement but at the same time he would be laughing in their faces.

Kind Regards.

yonose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
yonose said...

Meta,

Another thing:

If it's not such a hassle, would you like to show the link to the actual M scale study, please?

I'm really curious about it.

Kind Regards.

Metacrock said...

I used to have several on line sources that showed some of Hood's studies. I mean there's no one study he'd done 40 years worth of studies. the process has developed and been refined so many times there's no one study to point to. Most of the sources I had online are to down. they were in Google books.

two hard copy sources:

Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.” Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.


[25] R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.

Metacrock said...

Where I get my patience? what patience? haven't you seen me blow my stack and insult them?It's all they can talk about.

Your analysis of the Brother keeper thing is acute but you are giving away my post for tomorrow! Leave something for me to say! ;-)

yonose said...

Meta,

My apologies because for all of this, including the duplicated post. Sometimes blogger becomes nasty with those.

I'm just sad about the state of the art in scientific studies in general; not an expert in the matter, not a scientist at all, but a lay person, an amateur, has seen problems that should not be seen with such peer-reviewed scientific papers.

I'll stop here. Your analysis will be much more in-depth anyway :P

Kind Regards.

Metacrock said...

That wasn't a real criticism. I am grateful for your comments. I really need comments on these bolgs I'm always happen to get them. your analysis was right on. I am actually planning on doing a post on that study tomorrow.

Your analysis, with which I agree, is not a problem.I am glad to get it.

yonose said...

And I forgot to say any thanks for the references!

my bad.

Metacrock said...

That's cool. keep the comments coming.

Ken Orcutt said...

Atheists are MUCH MORE compassionate than religious people, they prove it each and every time they refuse to tolerate anyone who believes in God, and instead constantly mocks them, and call God things like SKY GENIE and the like.

You know Compassion causes that. Just ask an atheist. They know everything.


Metacrock said...

ahahaha good point. see my article:that shows flaws in studies that supposedly show atheists are more giving.

Are Atheists Theri Brother's Keepers?

Past studies have shown that atheists don't like the concept of love and that they are less giving than religious people.

Metacrock said...

Opps. that should say "thier" bothers keepers. O well, I warned you about my dyslexia.