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?

[Realworldjack]

You seem to always ever, want to look at things, whatever they may be, from a scientific standpoint. However, science is not in the business of attempting to give answers to every question. Science, is in the business of falsifying claims. If a claim is unfalsifiable, it is outside the realm of science. This does not mean that there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claim. It simply means, it is outside the realm of science. The scientific method is not able to tell us if an unfalsifiable claim would be true, or false. Science can only tell us if the claim would be scientifically possible. If science demonstrates to us, a certain claim is scientifically impossible, this does not tell us if the claim would be true, or false. This would only tell us, if the claim is indeed true, science would not be able to explain it.

Having explained this, the resurrection is not an "unfalsifiable claim" since it is based upon facts, and evidence. However, this does not mean the question of the resurrection would be in the realm of science. The point is, while the scientific method is a wonderful thing, which science should adhere to, there are certain things outside the realm of science, and we should not expect science to answer such questions.

Actually, I had a "pragmatic" approach in mind when I answered your question but can understand how it could be perceived as scientific. Having been previously informed of your belief that the resurrection claim is not unfalsifiable or scientific, I inferred you would be more receptive to receiving a pragmatic answer to your question. Nevertheless, in your response above, I'm unable to identify a direct objection or refutation to the answer I provided to your question. Please clarify exactly where my answer to your specific question was insufficient. Thanks.

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.

[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.

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).

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

You seem to always ever, want to look at things, whatever they may be, from a scientific standpoint. However, science is not in the business of attempting to give answers to every question. Science, is in the business of falsifying claims. If a claim is unfalsifiable, it is outside the realm of science. This does not mean that there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claim. It simply means, it is outside the realm of science. The scientific method is not able to tell us if an unfalsifiable claim would be true, or false. Science can only tell us if the claim would be scientifically possible. If science demonstrates to us, a certain claim is scientifically impossible, this does not tell us if the claim would be true, or false. This would only tell us, if the claim is indeed true, science would not be able to explain it.

Having explained this, the resurrection is not an "unfalsifiable claim" since it is based upon facts, and evidence. However, this does not mean the question of the resurrection would be in the realm of science. The point is, while the scientific method is a wonderful thing, which science should adhere to, there are certain things outside the realm of science, and we should not expect science to answer such questions.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Proving something impossible does show that the claim is false though ...

Consider this example:
“And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

As a claim about the relative sizes of giants to humans found in the Bible (Numbers 13:32), we can’t test this directly. But there are well-established physical laws (the ‘square-cube’ law, specifically) which prove that giants beyond a certain size are ‘impossible’ due to the pressures exerted on bone. So we can’t seemingly falsify the biblical testimony, but we can - by proving its impossibility.

NUMBERS 13: 32, 33

And they kept on giving the Israelites a bad report+ about the land that they had spied out, saying: “The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size.+ 33 And there we saw the Nephʹi·lim, the sons of Aʹnak,+ who are from* the Nephʹi·lim, and in comparison we seemed like grasshoppers, both to us and to them.”

There is absolutely no way to prove the statement in numbers 32 "impossible" and the square cube law specifically cannot be used. Namely because no data (measurements) are provide. All we have is an undefined classification "giants" , a biblical reference ("Nephelim") and a similie (....as /like "grasshoper to a giant") .
Nothing in the bible can be proven to be impossible, mathematical or otherwise.
JW

That's kinda the problem with two thousand year old, sense assaulting claims.

No matter how goofy they're shown to be, "well ya can't prove it ain't" is just strong enough an argument to have folks thinking dead men can hop up and catch em an Uber into towm.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

You are incorrectly assuming that religion is making any progress.

LOL. That was kind of funny.

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

I didn't bother to supply a link, because...

"Links aren't really helpful.."

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

"Links aren't very helpful."

You’re coming across as a bit ‘ranty’, to be honest.

I am kicking the actual factuals.

And still no supporting links.

"Links aren't very helpful."

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

Perhaps you should take some time to consider how you'd feel if and when you stand before the Almighty on judgement day.

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

And who are the peers? Those who already believe in the theory and buy into the mess, perhaps?

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

Sooo, if God doesn't exist, and if abiogenesis is false...where does evolution rear its ugly head in this equation?

Please. Tell me.

It is at this point where you can go ahead and get a sense of how important abiogenesis is to the truth value of evolution.

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

People have been making arguments for God's existence for hundreds of years, without one person having seen God.

That is why it is "obvious" that a belief in God doesn't have to be based on observation.

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

How can you conduct an experiment to see at what temperature water freezes, if you've never observed the natural phenomena of water freezing when it gets to a certain temperature?

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.

Never mind...because if I respond how I'd like to respond, it will open up another can of worms.

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

Yes, there are some intelligent folks on this site.

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

That one went over your head. SMH.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #109]

They were men of extraordinary size and they devoured people. At a maximum height of about 9 feet the average person would not have described themselves as relative grasshoppers. No maths required, just basic human nature. It is clearly fiction and your explanation simply doesn't wash. But, good on you for trying to shore up this ridiculous story.

Here in the south, there's a long tradition of exaggerating to prove one's point.

"He's taller'n a Georgia pine" comes to mind.

But I can't tell for how bible folks'd say it.

[bluegreenearth]

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?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
People have been making arguments for God's existence for hundreds of years, without one person having seen God.

That is why it is "obvious" that a belief in God doesn't have to be based on observation.
...

They've neen making arguments for the existence of tooth fairies and Santa Clausi for a good bumch of time.

And funnily enough, not one comfirmable observation in the bunch.

It's as if folks'll tell tales in order to influence the thoughts and actions of others.

Kinda like how they'll mention in this thread about evolution, then right then and there declare they'll not be bothered with the supporting their claims.

Liars lie, and preachers preach.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #116]

Sooo, if God doesn't exist, and if abiogenesis is false...where does evolution rear its ugly head in this equation?

Please. Tell me.

It is at this point where you can go ahead and get a sense of how important abiogenesis is to the truth value of evolution.

Evolution starts once there is some kind of population of living things for it to work with. The formal "Theory of Evolution" (TOE) does not specify or care how that situation came about. It is consistent with abiogenesis, panspermia, a god being creating life, etc. Any mechanism for how life came about can coexist with TOE.

The first sentence quoted above eliminates a god being and abiogenesis, and if you only consider those two options as mechanisms for how life initiated on Earth then of course there could be no evolution because there would be no life for it to work with. But TOE itself does not specify any mechanism for how life originated ... only that it did by some means. The truth value of evolution is intact whether a god being, or something like abiogenesis, is responsible for life starting. If you reworded your third sentence above as "It is at this point where you can go ahead and get a sense of how important the existence of a mechanism for origin of life is to the truth value of evolution" it would be more generally valid.

How can you conduct an experiment to see at what temperature water freezes, if you've never observed the natural phenomena of water freezing when it gets to a certain temperature?

That's simple. Just put some liquid water into a container and cool the container down to lower and lower temperatures to see if a phase change occurs. If it does then your experiment was a success, and if it doesn't you can conclude that either water does not change phase (freeze) when it gets colder, or you didn't get cold enough and need to find a better cooling gadget to continue the experiment. You could conduct the experiment just from an idea that a phase change might happen, without ever having seen water freeze before.

[Diagoras]

Links aren't really helpful.

Opinion noted.

Perhaps you should take some time to consider how you'd feel if and when you stand before the Almighty on judgement day.

Sure, we can play the game of “But how about you...” if you like - but I asked first...

And who are the peers? Those who already believe in the theory and buy into the mess, perhaps?

Do you not grasp how science works? Demonstrating a flaw in someone else’s theory gets you more kudos than ‘buying into it’. Those scientists are a pretty competitive bunch.

Sooo, if God doesn't exist, and if abiogenesis is false...where does evolution rear its ugly head in this equation?

Abiogenesis hasn’t been falsified as a theory, so you’re getting ahead of yourself.

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

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

People have been making arguments for God's existence for hundreds of years, without one person having seen God.

And it still astounds me that this is seen as somehow a strong argument.

How can you conduct an experiment to see at what temperature water freezes, if you've never observed the natural phenomena of water freezing when it gets to a certain temperature?

Already answered, but I’m not sure whether you meant the question as written, since it’s so easily answered.

Never mind...because if I respond how I'd like to respond, it will open up another can of worms.

I know what you mean. Always let your opponent know your best answers are being kept in reserve, because reasons.

Yes, there are some intelligent folks on this site.

Hurrah! Agreement is possible!

That one went over your head.

Congratulations. Feel free to add something appropriate to your ‘score’.