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?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #90]

Well believe it, or not, we MAY have come to some sort of agreement.

Based on the sound reasoning, logic, facts, and evidence I'm aware of, agnosticism is my most justifiable position at this time.

I take this to be an opinion you hold, and while I am happy to allow you to hold, and express this opinion, I happen to be in disagreement, and hold to a completely different opinion. My point has been the same all along in that, we are in the same boat. In other words, all either of us can do, is to explain what we believe, along with the facts, evidence, and reasons we believe as we do, with neither of us being able to demonstrate the position we hold would be the correct position.

Apart from demonstrating my own self-awareness to myself, I could never demonstrate any claim is absolutely true because the problem of underdetermination dictates that it is logically impossible. However, I don't need to demonstrate a claim is absolutely true to tentatively know it is the most reasonable explanation as long as it is consistent with other accepted demonstrable claims and/or makes novel testable predictions.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #90]

Well believe it, or not, we MAY have come to some sort of agreement.

Based on the sound reasoning, logic, facts, and evidence I'm aware of, agnosticism is my most justifiable position at this time.

I take this to be an opinion you hold, and while I am happy to allow you to hold, and express this opinion, I happen to be in disagreement, and hold to a completely different opinion. My point has been the same all along in that, we are in the same boat. In other words, all either of us can do, is to explain what we believe, along with the facts, evidence, and reasons we believe as we do, with neither of us being able to demonstrate the position we hold would be the correct position.

Apart from demonstrating my own self-awareness to myself, I could never demonstrate any claim is absolutely true because the problem of underdetermination dictates that it is logically impossible. However, I don't need to demonstrate a claim is absolutely true to tentatively know it is the most reasonable explanation as long as it is consistent with other accepted demonstrable claims and/or makes novel testable predictions.

Okay? So what of those who hold that they "tentatively know" the most reasonable explanation, which happens to be in complete contrast to what it is you "tentatively know"?

Next, is the "most reasonable explanation", always, ever the correct explanation?

[We_Are_VENOM]

There’s a false equivalence here. A scientific theory is very different from religious dogma.

Any proper scientific theory can be tested and either proved or falsified, whereas a reliance on a single historical source (be it the bible, koran, etc) for such knowledge cannot offer the same iterative progression.

It is the same thing...unbelievers (who are normally very gung-ho about science) use science at attempts to explain ultimate origins (life, universe, species, etc).

Well, believers (who are obviously gung-ho about theology/God) use religion to explain ultimate origins (life, universe, species, etc).

We are traveling to the same destination, just taking different paths.

A link to support your claim would be helpful. For any readers curious about this, here’s a short article explaining what the Cambrian Explosion was, and why it doesn’t falsify the Theory of Evolution - in fact, it further supports it.

Links aren't really helpful, because for every link you provide to support your position, I can provide a link to support my position.

But to the point, what the Cambrian Explosion proves is that there wasn't this long, drawn out hundred million year process of one species to the other.

What the evidence shows is that fossilized remains of animals shows up in FULL BODY FORM.

There were no transitional phase, which is completely in contrary to any voodoo pertaining to hundred million year evolutionary changes.

But you can have the last word as it pertains to this. I don't want to get suckered into a debate about evolution. Been there, done that

As noted above, you have presented a false equivalence, since the rigour of multiple, independent scientific experiments is not matched by a claim that ‘God did it because the bible says so’.

No scientific experiment has EVER proved that life can arise from nonliving material.

'Mother Nature did it, because a science text book says so'.

Answered by DrNoGods already.

You are giving that guy wayyy to much credit here.

Here’s an example of ‘shifting the goalposts’. The ‘problem’ of understanding how non-living material changed into living material is separate from the ‘problem’ of how consciousness arose, since they involve hugely different types of life in the first place.

It is all part of the same process; which is evolution.

Observation doesn’t support the idea of an intelligent creator or designer.

But belief in God isn't based on a methodology which involves "observation", science is. And obviously, one doesn't have to "observe" God in order to provide solid/valid argumentation that such a being exists.

It happens all the time in Christian apologetics.

We can observe crystals ‘growing’ in obviously very ordered and predictable ways, but we understand the causes: the physical forces and molecular arrangements that determine growth without any external guidance.

Yeah, but you can't cross over one thing we can prove via science to something else which we can't prove.

This is "science/Mother nature of the Gaps".

Perhaps you felt being derogatory was entertaining, but to me it suggests one of two things: either you didn’t understand my point, or you consider the science to be flawed.

My apologies if you consider it derogatory.

As far as the science is concerned; it isn't the science that is flawed, it is the scientists.

If we’re debating, then I’m willing to clarify that part of my post if you have a particular question about it. But if there’s no willingness to learn from the other side, then further explanation would be a waste of time.

Learn? Tell ya what; learn the ways of the Lord. How about that?

Genesis 1:1 to me details a creation myth - an attempt to explain the beginning of the universe and ‘why we are here’. Such myths are found in most civilisations, but Genesis is notable for surviving in writings and becoming part of a worldwide religion. So it has had an undeniable cultural influence. But its usefulness as a true guide to how things really are and how they came to be has been superseded by the scientific method.

Ok, and let me tell you what I think about your side...

Abiogenesis to me also details a creation myth - an attempt to explain the beginning of life without divine intervention. Such myths are found in naturalistic circles, and evolution (following abiogenesis) is notable for being a creation myth which is funded by tax payers, as it is taught (unlike religion) in public schools all across America and even the world, to some degree.

Evolution has also had an undeniable cultural influence. But its usefulness as a true guide to how things really are and how they came to be has been superseded by Christian theology.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.

The fact that the universe began to exist is now common knowledge in cosmology. The devil is in the details.

My point is that what occurs in the universe is, definitionally, natural. So trying to fuss on folks for accepting naturalist answers is kinda goofy.

No one is denying that what occurs in the universe, is definitionally, natural.

Then life goes on and the pretty thing'll find something to get mad at me about like she always does.

Actually, the correct answer is; if abiogenesis is false, then you can't use "nature" to explain the origins of life now, can you?

Hmm.

Can youshow abiogenesis didn't occur? That's kind the problem here, I'm not saying it did, as you suggested atheists believe such.

Some of them do say it, but practically all of them imply it.

Your definition fails to address the fact that all life is composed of atoms, and emboldenating it doesn't address the question put to you.

All living organisms are made of atoms.

Do you contend that atoms are alive?

Well, let me put it to you this way...again, the universe began to exist. So before we even get to atoms, we need to found out why/how the universe began to exist...because after all, no universe, no atoms.

But no need to answer that question. I won't get suckered into a debate on cosmology and such, not on this thread.

I said all I needed to say on the matter.

[bluegreenearth]

Okay? So what of those who hold that they "tentatively know" the most reasonable explanation, which happens to be in complete contrast to what it is you "tentatively know"?

If their claim is equally consistent with the other relevant demonstrable claims and/or equally succeeds in making novel testable predictions, then neither my claim nor their claim can be objectively identified as the most reasonable explanation. Accordingly, I would be compelled to revise my position from tentatively endorsing my claim to tentatively endorsing neither claim as the most reasonable explanation.

If their claim is more consistent with the other relevant demonstrable claims and/or succeeds in making more precise novel testable predictions, then it will be an objectively more reasonable explanation. Accordingly, I would be compelled to revise my position from tentatively endorsing my claim to tentatively endorsing their claim as the most reasonable explanation.

Next, is the "most reasonable explanation", always, ever the correct explanation?

If by "correct" you mean absolutely true, then the problem of underdetermination prohibits me from having that level of certainty. If by "correct" you mean the most consistent with the other relevant demonstrable claims and/or has the most success in making the most precise novel testable predictions, then "yes" is my answer to your question. If I'm misunderstanding your question, please provide a clarification. Thanks.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I needed to ask because, if you were doxastically closed, there would be no point in continuing this discussion as you would have no way to discover if you were mistaken about a belief or if you were misunderstanding a proposed concept.

I agree, but can you acknowledge the fact that the same is true for the other side, too.

Have you ever interacted with or could you imagine interacting with a non-theist who confidently dismisses a theistic belief or doctrine you are endorsing, but it is obvious to you that this person clearly lacks an accurate understanding of the complexities and nuances of the theistic belief or doctrine being dismissed?

Yes!!! But this is something that, again, is true for both sides. Both the theist and non-theist will walk away from the table feeling the same way about each other..

"This guy just doesn't get it".

If so, would you be willing to consider the possibility that the roles of such a scenario could be reversed to where you are the person who is confidently dismissing a scientific perspective endorsed by your interlocutor, but it is obvious to your interlocutor that you lack an accurate understanding of the complex and nuanced scientific perspective being dismissed?

It could be that, OR, maybe I understand it very well, I just don't agree with it..so I ain't buying it.

Lets not forget that one.

Again, I've said this countless times on the evolution threads...because it never fails..

Anytime someone expresses a disbelief in evolution (typically, it is evolution), they always get accused of not understanding the theory.

"You just don't understand evolution"

"That's not what evolution says"

Any variation of those two^.

It is as if once you accept evolution, your IQ level suddenly jumps to astronomical degrees and you become this science whiz kid guru. LOL.

But all jokes aside, it isn't what I don't understand about certain scientific theories as to why I reject them...it is what I DO understand about those scientific theories that causes me to reject them.

Would you agree that, in either scenario, the person doing the dismissing will more likely make progress in the dialogue by first asking the interlocutor to provide an accurate description of the concept to be considered and subsequently verify with the interlocutor if the concept was properly understood before launching objections at it?

You are asking this question based on a false presupposition, which is that I either don't understand the concept that I am objecting to.

False premise...because again I reject certain scientific theories based on what I understand, not what I don't understand.

Or, would you like me to conclude that you don't understand Christianity, since you are not one (assuming).

Can I play that game as well?

[JoeyKnothead]

Pre-post edit: I pologize, I'm usually real good at marking out my snippages, but I forgot and beg anyone who wonders to fetch on back through the thread if they think I'm being deceitful, or lazy, or whatever...

It is the same thing...unbelievers (who are normally very gung-ho about science) use science at attempts to explain ultimate origins (life, universe, species, etc).

You're clod clumping again. This non-believer doesn't think science will ever get at the real or potential "ultimate origins" of neither the universe, nor life.

Well, believers (who are obviously gung-ho about theology/God) use religion to explain ultimate origins (life, universe, species, etc).

Here's where I think your confusion begins. You, and some other believers seem to have an inborne need or desire to have an answer for what is -ahem- ultimately unanswerable. I can expound on that notion upon request.

We are traveling to the same destination, just taking different paths.

Where one path leads to understanding, and the othern leads to a magic eight ball?

Links aren't really helpful, because for every link you provide to support your position, I can provide a link to support my position.

I sure preciate that.

From Post 80, in this thread, here.
...
Moot point, since the universe began to exist.
...

I eagerly await your supporting this claim of yours from within this thread.

But to the point, what the Cambrian Explosion proves is that there wasn't this long, drawn out hundred million year process of one species to the other.

What the evidence shows is that fossilized remains of animals shows up in FULL BODY FORM.

Many to most fossils are incomplete, granting us a jawbone here, and a femur there, so no whole body form. Fossilization is actually kinda hard to do, what with all the requirements to get it done.

There were no transitional phase, which is completely in contrary to any voodoo pertaining to hundred million year evolutionary changes.

Ah yes, good ol gappy God.

But you can have the last word as it pertains to this. I don't want to get suckered into a debate about evolution. Been there, done that

"I'm just gonna make me claims about evolutionary theory, then I'm gonna hustle me out the room before the hard questions get asked" is not a good look for anyone who seeks honorable debate.

No scientific experiment has EVER proved that life can arise from nonliving material.

I've asked you before when you made this claim in this thread, and I'll ask you again...

Life is made of atoms.

Do you contend that atoms are living?

In anticipation of having my question ignored yet again, I'm gonna go ahead and start a thread about it, while maintaining this challenge within the thread in which it was made.

But belief in God isn't based on a methodology which involves "observation", science is. And obviously, one doesn't have to "observe" God in order to provide solid/valid argumentation that such a being exists.

Then do it. Here in the thread in which you make the claim.

[JoeyKnothead]

I note the poster got in before I got my last post in, but here we go..

Your definition fails to address the fact that all life is composed of atoms, and emboldenating it doesn't address the question put to you.

All living organisms are made of atoms.

Do you contend that atoms are alive?

Well, let me put it to you this way...again, the universe began to exist. So before we even get to atoms, we need to found out why/how the universe began to exist...because after all, no universe, no atoms.

But no need to answer that question. I won't get suckered into a debate on cosmology and such, not on this thread.

I said all I needed to say on the matter.

"I'm just gonna make me a claim, and refuse to support that claim" is a tactic I've come to expect from so many Christians on this site.

I'm reminded of the time I heard me a Christian say such as, "I like to sneak me a bit of 'The Word' into conversations".

Why even enter debate, make claims, and then tuck tail and run when called out on those claims?

[bluegreenearth]

I agree, but can you acknowledge the fact that the same is true for the other side, too.

Yes.

If so, would you be willing to consider the possibility that the roles of such a scenario could be reversed to where you are the person who is confidently dismissing a scientific perspective endorsed by your interlocutor, but it is obvious to your interlocutor that you lack an accurate understanding of the complex and nuanced scientific perspective being dismissed?

It could be that, OR, maybe I understand it very well, I just don't agree with it..so I ain't buying it.

Lets not forget that one.

Again, I've said this countless times on the evolution threads...because it never fails..

Anytime someone expresses a disbelief in evolution (typically, it is evolution), they always get accused of not understanding the theory.

"You just don't understand evolution"

"That's not what evolution says"

Any variation of those two^.

It is as if once you accept evolution, your IQ level suddenly jumps to astronomical degrees and you become this science whiz kid guru. LOL.

But all jokes aside, it isn't what I don't understand about certain scientific theories as to why I reject them...it is what I DO understand about those scientific theories that causes me to reject them.

Please describe a method we could employ to objectively distinguish between non-theists who have an accurate understanding of a theistic concept and non-theists who mistakenly believe they have an accurate understanding of a theistic concept?

Please describe a method we could employ to objectively distinguish between theists who have an accurate understanding of a scientific concept and theists who mistakenly believe they have an accurately understanding a scientific concept?

You are asking this question based on a false presupposition, which is that I either don't understand the concept that I am objecting to.

False premise...because again I reject certain scientific theories based on what I understand, not what I don't understand.

Or, would you like me to conclude that you don't understand Christianity, since you are not one (assuming).

Can I play that game as well?

Could someone have an accurate understanding of a proposed perspective but still ask her/his interlocutors to further clarify this perspective and have them subsequently verify her/his understanding is accurate for the purpose of ruling-out the possibility that a misunderstanding occurred?

If someone demonstrates to her/his interlocutor's satisfaction that the proposed concept has been accurately understood, wouldn't this person be better positioned to offer objections that the interlocutor could not easily expose as being based on a misunderstanding?

If I were to fail at demonstrating to your satisfaction that my understanding of a particular theistic concept was accurate, what would your response be if I claimed my objections to the given theistic concept are based on what I understand as opposed to what I don't understand?

If I were to succeed at demonstrating to your satisfaction that my understanding of a particular theistic concept was accurate, would I be better positioned to offer objections you could not easily expose as being based on a misunderstanding?

[Diagoras]

We are traveling to the same destination, just taking different paths.

You are incorrectly assuming that religion is making any progress.

Links aren't really helpful, because for every link you provide to support your position, I can provide a link to support my position.

And yet you don’t bother to supply one, making further debate difficult.

What the evidence shows is that fossilized remains of animals shows up in FULL BODY FORM.

Over a still substantial timeframe, though. Why not post a link to some research supporting this claim of yours?

There were no transitional phase, which is completely in contrary to any voodoo pertaining to hundred million year evolutionary changes.

You’re coming across as a bit ‘ranty’, to be honest. And still no supporting links.

But you can have the last word as it pertains to this. I don't want to get suckered into a debate about evolution.

I don’t think it could be dignified by the name.

No scientific experiment has EVER proved that life can arise from nonliving material.

Perhaps you should take some time to consider how you’d feel if and when such an experiment succeeds.

'Mother Nature did it, because a science text book says so'.

Ignores all of the scientific work and peer-review done before the text book was written, obviously.

It is all part of the same process; which is evolution.

Abiogenesis does not equal Evolution. An oft-repeated point that many people still don’t fully grasp.

And obviously, one doesn't have to "observe" God in order to provide solid/valid argumentation that such a being exists.

Why ‘obviously’? This appears to be in fact an excellent example of argument that this thread was started for.

Perhaps you’d care to elaborate and build a case for why observation is required for one side and not the other?

Yeah, but you can't cross over one thing we can prove via science <crystals growing> to something else which we can't prove.

I was simply providing an example of a non-designer observed growth seen in nature to refute your claim that some intelligence ‘must’ be involved. I wasn’t claiming that seeing crystals grow must necessarily prove abiogenesis is true.

My apologies if you consider it derogatory.

Accepted. Thank you.

Learn? Tell ya what; learn the ways of the Lord. How about that?

I’ve learnt quite a lot since joining this site already.

Ok, and let me tell you what I think <...>

Well, I never asked, so no particular need to waste your time there.

"I'm just gonna make me claims about evolutionary theory, then I'm gonna hustle me out the room before the hard questions get asked" is not a good look for anyone who seeks honorable debate.

Indeed. In formal debating contests, there are rules against introducing new claims when the order of speaking prohibits your opponents from addressing them. Much more reasonable to simply not make the claim in the first place.

To be fair, the apparent lack of appetite for debate on the Theory of Evolution, or cosmology, has been made abundantly clear.