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?

[Difflugia]

Evolution starts once there is some kind of population of living things for it to work with.

Big Bang -> matter -> molecules -> abiogenesis? -> simple life -> complex life.

The Theory of Evolution only applies to the last two terms in that series.

To make a single, pedantic point, evolution doesn't even require life, as such, but it requires something that spontaneously replicates in a way that occasionally results in an imperfect copy. Self-replicating molecules, for example, aren't alive by any common definition, but evolution can act upon them.

[Realworldjack]

As usual, (because this very same thing has happened in the past between us) it does not seem as if we are going to make any sort of progress. In other words, we have been at this very same question for days now, and are no closer than when we started. Therefore, please allow me to give an answer to my own question.

I believe we can both look at the same exact facts, and evidence, concerning something like the resurrection, and we can both use sound reason, and logic, and come to completely different conclusions. One leaves sound reason, and logic, when something has been demonstrated one way, or the other, yet continues to insist the position they hold, which has been clearly demonstrated to be false, would be correct.

Or, one would leave the realm of sound reason, and logic, when they seem to want to insist their position must, and has to be the correct position, when they fail to be able to demonstrate this to be the case.

How do you determine if someone else had used sound reason and logic in arriving at their conclusion?

This is exactly why we cannot make any sort of progress! When I answer my own question by saying, "I believe we can both look at the same exact facts, and evidence, we can both use sound reason, and logic, and come to completely different conclusions", this would have nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to determine if someone else is actually using sound reason, and logic. Again, the two would have nothing to do with each other!

In other words, I do not have to know if someone, or, anyone for that matter is indeed using sound reason, and logic, in order to answer the question as to whether I believe it is POSSIBLE for two folks to look at the same exact facts, and evidence, arrive to completely different, and opposing conclusions, and both use sound reason, and logic?

Of course, if I were to ask someone why they were convinced a certain way, and they were to go on to explain to me, they were convinced as they are, because this is what they had been told by their parents, and others, then of course, I could demonstrate to them, how this would not be the use of sound reason, and logic. If however, this person were to begin to use facts, evidence, and reason, in order to explain to me why they are convinced the way they are, then I would have to admit, they were at the very least, basing what they believed to be true, upon the facts, and evidence involved. However, even if they have based what it is they believe, upon the facts, and evidence involved, this still does not tell me if they are using sound reason, and logic.

The thing is though, I do not have to know, if this person is using sound reason, and logic, nor if they are even capable of such a thing, in order to answer the question as to if I believe, different folks can indeed use sound reason, and logic, and come to differing conclusions?

So then, can you imagine my frustration? I ask you a question, and we go back, and forth for days, (weeks sometimes) and I never really get an answer. Instead, what I get is questions, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked. In other words, when I ask, "do you believe it is possible, for different folks to look at, study, analyze, examine, etc., the same exact facts, and evidence, both using sound reason, and logic, and come to completely, and conflicting conclusions, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to determine if anyone at all, even had the ability to do such a thing.

So, allow me to attempt, one more time! Do you believe it to be possible for differing folks to look at, examine, study, analyze, etc., the same exact facts, and evidence, both using sound reason, and logic, and come to completely different, and conflicting conclusions? To be clear, this question would have nothing whatsoever to do with your ability, my ability, nor anyone else's ability, to determine if another was indeed using sound reason, and logic. One does not have to be able to determine this, in order to answer this question.

[bluegreenearth]

This is exactly why we cannot make any sort of progress! When I answer my own question by saying, "I believe we can both look at the same exact facts, and evidence, we can both use sound reason, and logic, and come to completely different conclusions", this would have nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to determine if someone else is actually using sound reason, and logic. Again, the two would have nothing to do with each other!

In other words, I do not have to know if someone, or, anyone for that matter is indeed using sound reason, and logic, in order to answer the question as to whether I believe it is POSSIBLE for two folks to look at the same exact facts, and evidence, arrive to completely different, and opposing conclusions, and both use sound reason, and logic?

Of course, if I were to ask someone why they were convinced a certain way, and they were to go on to explain to me, they were convinced as they are, because this is what they had been told by their parents, and others, then of course, I could demonstrate to them, how this would not be the use of sound reason, and logic. If however, this person were to begin to use facts, evidence, and reason, in order to explain to me why they are convinced the way they are, then I would have to admit, they were at the very least, basing what they believed to be true, upon the facts, and evidence involved. However, even if they have based what it is they believe, upon the facts, and evidence involved, this still does not tell me if they are using sound reason, and logic.

The thing is though, I do not have to know, if this person is using sound reason, and logic, nor if they are even capable of such a thing, in order to answer the question as to if I believe, different folks can indeed use sound reason, and logic, and come to differing conclusions?

So then, can you imagine my frustration? I ask you a question, and we go back, and forth for days, (weeks sometimes) and I never really get an answer. Instead, what I get is questions, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked. In other words, when I ask, "do you believe it is possible, for different folks to look at, study, analyze, examine, etc., the same exact facts, and evidence, both using sound reason, and logic, and come to completely, and conflicting conclusions, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to determine if anyone at all, even had the ability to do such a thing.

So, allow me to attempt, one more time! Do you believe it to be possible for differing folks to look at, examine, study, analyze, etc., the same exact facts, and evidence, both using sound reason, and logic, and come to completely different, and conflicting conclusions? To be clear, this question would have nothing whatsoever to do with your ability, my ability, nor anyone else's ability, to determine if another was indeed using sound reason, and logic. One does not have to be able to determine this, in order to answer this question.

Your response above clarifies where I was confused before. I'll have to think about whether to agree or disagree with that claim and update this post once I've reasoned through it.

Update: Sound reasoning and logic seems to dictate that a claim must be either true or false regardless of whether it is possible for the available facts and evidence to demonstrate it is true or false. When the available facts and evidence are sufficient to be equally supportive of two contradictory conclusion but insufficient to demonstrate either conclusion is true or false, sound reasoning and logic appears to dictate that it is tentatively impossible for one conclusion to be more justified than the other. So, differing folks using the same sound reasoning and logic would seem to have no justification for tentatively accepting one conclusion over the other until additional facts and evidence become available to support one conclusion over the other or to falsify one of the two contradictory conclusions. If two people are using the same sound reasoning and logic to evaluate a set of facts and evidence but subsequently arrive at contradictory conclusions, then for one or both of them to continue endorsing one conclusion over the other upon discovering that both conclusions are equally supported and not falsified would be for each person to depart from using the same sound reasoning and logic. Of course, with a seemingly tricky philosophical question such as this, I anticipate being in error somewhere and look forward to being educated accordingly.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #114]

You gotcha a pretty good argument, but I note that when science does happen to support theists' claims, well how bout that.

That's kinda a double standard right there, but I accuse none of nefaricity, I'm just saying.

Where in the world have I ever suggested, those on either side should never appeal to science? It is perfectly legitimate for those on either side to appeal to science, when and if, science does indeed support the argument they are making. In fact, they should appeal to science, if science does indeed back the argument. The problem comes in, when there are those on either side, who attempt to come at a question from a scientific perspective, which is outside the realm of science.

Therefore, since I am fine with those on either side appealing to science, when, and if it is appropriate, where is the "double standard"?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #114]

You gotcha a pretty good argument, but I note that when science does happen to support theists' claims, well how bout that.

That's kinda a double standard right there, but I accuse none of nefaricity, I'm just saying.

Where in the world have I ever suggested, those on either side should never appeal to science? It is perfectly legitimate for those on either side to appeal to science, when and if, science does indeed support the argument they are making. In fact, they should appeal to science, if science does indeed back the argument. The problem comes in, when there are those on either side, who attempt to come at a question from a scientific perspective, which is outside the realm of science.

Therefore, since I am fine with those on either side appealing to science, when, and if it is appropriate, where is the "double standard"?

I pologize, my comment didn't clearly separate you from the mix. I plow under any implication you'd employ such a seeming, or real, double standard.

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #101]

Abiogenesis does not equal Evolution.

noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
HISTORICAL
another term for spontaneous generation. [Definitions from Oxford Languages]

It appears the word cannot be explained without also using the word 'evolution'. I think it is appropriate to view the part [Abiogenesis] in relation to the whole [Evolution] it is true that the part does not equal the whole, but that is different from implying that the part is behaving unlike the whole. The part behaves like the whole, and in that, is equal with the whole.

Typical great way of putting things.

Shucks – I suppose if I ain’t got lady-looks to win ones affections, I have to do something else…

My amateur understanding of evolutionary theory would imply that chemicals were combining and forming new and unique structures, such that eventually we get self replicating 'life(like?)' chemicals. I consider this a reasonable and logical take on evolutionary theory (even if evolutionary theory is wrong in any, each, or all aspects). I'm just commenting on my understanding, and not making truth claims per se, but I am prepared to defend such based on reason and logic alone (or at least that I may put such arguments together).

My concern isn’t about the theories based on what is commonly referred to as ‘evolution’, but how this notion of Abiogenesis appears to be used by some to apparently try to argue against theist thinking when some theists argue against the theory of evolution…by introducing a newer theory called “Abiogenesis” which “is not evolution” as if somehow it is so completely different as to warrant special pleading…

So I ask and am informed further and thus step back and have a think about it…

So far what I am seeing in my thoughts is that with Christian Theists claiming that “God is Life”, Abiogenesis shouts back that it was around long before “God”…or some such thing…

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #101]

Abiogenesis does not equal Evolution.

noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
HISTORICAL
another term for spontaneous generation. [Definitions from Oxford Languages]

It appears the word cannot be explained without also using the word 'evolution'. I think it is appropriate to view the part [Abiogenesis] in relation to the whole [Evolution] it is true that the part does not equal the whole, but that is different from implying that the part is behaving unlike the whole. The part behaves like the whole, and in that, is equal with the whole.

Typical great way of putting things.

Shucks – I suppose if I ain’t got lady-looks to win ones affections, I have to do something else…

My amateur understanding of evolutionary theory would imply that chemicals were combining and forming new and unique structures, such that eventually we get self replicating 'life(like?)' chemicals. I consider this a reasonable and logical take on evolutionary theory (even if evolutionary theory is wrong in any, each, or all aspects). I'm just commenting on my understanding, and not making truth claims per se, but I am prepared to defend such based on reason and logic alone (or at least that I may put such arguments together).

My concern isn’t about the theories based on what is commonly referred to as ‘evolution’, but how this notion of Abiogenesis appears to be used by some to apparently try to argue against theist thinking when some theists argue against the theory of evolution…by introducing a newer theory called “Abiogenesis” which “is not evolution” as if somehow it is so completely different as to warrant special pleading…

So I ask and am informed further and thus step back and have a think about it…

So far what I am seeing in my thoughts is that with Christian Theists claiming that “God is Life”, Abiogenesis shouts back that it was around long before “God”…or some such thing…

Yeah, I can let abiogenesis inform my thinking, but again we're back to not really knowing either way.

As an amateur, it's little more to me than one among several possible explanations.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #122]

To make a single, pedantic point, evolution doesn't even require life, as such, but it requires something that spontaneously replicates in a way that occasionally results in an imperfect copy. Self-replicating molecules, for example, aren't alive by any common definition, but evolution can act upon them.

When one particular anti-evolutionist (WaV) equates TOE with "your couch coming to life and talking" (a phrase (or one similar) repeated more than once on this site) it appears we have a great deal more work to do to get across even much higher levels of appreciation for how it all works. But you are correct of course.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #127]

My concern isn’t about the theories based on what is commonly referred to as ‘evolution’, but how this notion of Abiogenesis appears to be used by some to apparently try to argue against theist thinking when some theists argue against the theory of evolution…by introducing a newer theory called “Abiogenesis” which “is not evolution” as if somehow it is so completely different as to warrant special pleading…

Merriam-Webster define the two words as follows:

Definition of abiogenesis
: the origin of life from nonliving matter specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances.

Definition of evolution
1a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.
also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)

Abiogenesis is the opposite of biogenesis ("life from life") and would be the mechanism for how the first entities that fit the definition of "life" came about from the constituents involved, when those constituents did not themselves qualify as "life" as we currently define it. Evolution (at least the Darwinian type) operates on these life forms once they have come into existence, but it does not specify any particular mechanism for how that happened (god did it, abiogenesis, etc.).

I see these as two words describing two very different things (abiogenesis being a mechanism for life from nonlife, and evolution describing how the life forms diversify over time once they have appeared). Evolution requires some mechanism for the origination of the replicating entities, but does not require abiogenesis as the mechanism. If "god did it" is the correct answer for that mechanism, then abiogenesis could be discarded entirely and evolution can happily carry on without any reference to it.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #127]

My concern isn’t about the theories based on what is commonly referred to as ‘evolution’, but how this notion of Abiogenesis appears to be used by some to apparently try to argue against theist thinking when some theists argue against the theory of evolution…by introducing a newer theory called “Abiogenesis” which “is not evolution” as if somehow it is so completely different as to warrant special pleading…

Merriam-Webster define the two words as follows:

Definition of abiogenesis
: the origin of life from nonliving matter specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances.

Definition of evolution
1a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.
also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)

Abiogenesis is the opposite of biogenesis ("life from life") and would be the mechanism for how the first entities that fit the definition of "life" came about from the constituents involved, when those constituents did not themselves qualify as "life" as we currently define it. Evolution (at least the Darwinian type) operates on these life forms once they have come into existence, but it does not specify any particular mechanism for how that happened (god did it, abiogenesis, etc.).

I see these as two words describing two very different things (abiogenesis being a mechanism for life from nonlife, and evolution describing how the life forms diversify over time once they have appeared). Evolution requires some mechanism for the origination of the replicating entities, but does not require abiogenesis as the mechanism. If "god did it" is the correct answer for that mechanism, then abiogenesis could be discarded entirely and evolution can happily carry on without any reference to it.

Even so - it is down to definition of "Life".

I do not see the logic in the idea that describing two very different things in relation to the one thing these two things are operating within...if the words are describing entirely opposing notions, then it is the words which need examining.

Can "Life" be regarded as say..."anything to do with movement" and "Biological Life" as specific to movement of organic matter, which can and does produce conscious beings who then can describe 'things' which appear to have existed 'before conscious life" [and can "conscious life" therefore be a third category of "Life's differing layers'?]

Life:
If it moves - it is living. Abiogenesis redefined.
If it evolves [from the movement] into biological forms it is Evolution.
If it evolves further [in the movement] it is Conscious.

Thus:

Abiogenesis redefined = unconscious life [not knowing one is living/alive]
Evolution = biological life [forms]
Consciousness = Conscious life [knowing one is living/alive]

Therefore, in relation to theist thinking [Creator/Creation] this is begotten through the lack of wanting to presume that "Abiogenesis redefined = unconscious life" as we all cannot say for sure that the process of Abiogenesis is unware of being living/alive.