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]

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.
It it evolves further [in the movement] it is Conscious.

You're right about this and discussions for scientists are far more nuanced than this. The problem is that a lot of creationist arguments against evolution rely on equivocation between arbitrary definitions and this is an attempt (perhaps misguided) to avoid this by narrowing the definitions down to something manageable.

Conceptually, the antievolution argument involving biogenesis goes something like this: "This bacterial cell is the simplest life form in existence, but it's already super complicated. How could evolution account for random chemicals becoming such a complex cell? That means that evolution is false, birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, dogs are dogs are dogs. Were you there?"

By removing the step from chemicals to a cell or whatever, the discussion can move to the sphere where all the evidence is, from prokaryotes and archaea to eukaryotes to the biodiversity in existence now. "But what about 'life from life?'" Doesn't matter. Different discussion. If that's your favorite gap for God and you're going to jump to it when you're on the ropes anyway, then don't waste my time first by making me explain cladistics, genomics, and phylogenetic analysis to you.

The more complete answer and the one scientists discuss is that "life" in the earliest stages was almost certainly a continuum between nonliving and living. At one end, amino acid and nucleic acid polymer chains are nonliving by any common definition, but under certain conditions can spontaneously replicate. At the other end, we have a cell within a self-created, phospholipid bilayer, inside of which a host of complex chemical reactions are self-sustaining. If A leads to B, and the distinction between nonlife and life is binary, then a line between nonlife and life exists in there somewhere. It's like the proverbial case of building a car. If I start with a single part (an engine block, say), then it's obviously not a car. If I add one more piece, it's still not a car. When I'm done adding parts, I have a car. If I remove a single piece, it's still a car. At exactly what point did the non-car become a car? Two mechanics discussing the differences between a Bentley and a Ford, or even how to build a car from scratch, aren't going to worry about it.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #132]

Yes - I thought what I wrote would be understood as agreeing with what you are saying.

My point was from a theist position and you left that part out when quoting and commenting on what you did quote of what I wrote...

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.

As a theist, I have no problem in thinking that the process(s) described is the way in which a Creator created this Universe - if indeed it is a creation - as uncovering the data [science] shows us much on the how things unfolded.

[John Bauer]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #32]

Please present such data for analysis.

Okay, the original post requested, "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."

I am not going to use an example from these forums here but rather from elsewhere. I was confronting a non-theist who had claimed (a) that creationism is delusional in the sense that it is "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradicting evidence," and (b) that he is including evolutionary creationism. [1] He also presents himself (including in that discussion) as someone who needs real evidence, who thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all the standard New Atheism drivel.

So I began by asking him for this evidence that's supposed to contradict evolutionary creationism. His verbose response amounted to asserting that there is no evidence for evolutionary creationism. I pointed out the clear and important difference between "there is no evidence for X" and "there is evidence that contradicts X," and reminded him that his claim was the latter. He went on and on about how I'm not providing any evidence for my claims and how evolutionary creationism is delusional because it asserts things for which there is no evidence and so on and so forth.

I reminded him what his claim was—that evolutionary creationism is a persistent false belief held in the face of contradicting evidence (delusional)—and pointed out that he had consistently failed to provide a shred of evidence that contradicts it. Since he was making so much noise about Adam and Eve, [2] I chose to narrow our focus to just that element: "What is the evidence that contradicts the belief in Adam and Eve?"

He said that if Adam and Eve actually existed then they would have left genetic evidence when they reproduced with modern humans around them. (Evidently he didn't take into account Adam and Eve being faithful in their marriage to one another.) I asked what kind of genetic evidence we could expect to find but have never found. Long story short: I had to explain to him that Adam and Eve were modern humans (Homo sapiens), as were their contemporaries, because back when they existed (ca. 10,000 years ago) there were no other species of Homo left. Well, he said, then the claim is untestable and worthless—which, again, sounds like a charge of "no evidence."

He belittled Christian beliefs and called me a very nasty name, so I decided the conversation was over. At the end of the day, the guy who presents himself as someone who needs evidence for claims didn't have a solitary shred of evidence for his claim, and committed a host of logical fallacies in his futile attempt at rationalizing his position. If you're going to claim that there is evidence that contradicts X, you had better be prepared to provide that evidence—especially when you make such a spectacle of demanding evidence from others.

Edit: Sorry for late reply, I stumbled up on the post and didnt realize how old it was.

That's quite all right. My reply is likewise late. I've been very busy in real life for the last few weeks.

_____
Footnotes:

[1] Evolutionary creationism is a theological view that deals with how to understand the science and history of evolution from within a biblical world-view. It is not a scientific theory or research program; it is a strictly theological view which holds that natural processes are orchestrated by God's ordinary providence. The evolutionary science it confronts is unadulterated, and the theology is typical evangelical Protestantism.

[2] Some evolutionary creationists believe that Adam and Eve were a real couple who lived less than 10,000 years ago, but no evolutionary creationists believe they were the first humans.

[John Bauer]

... 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?

I really appreciate what the late R. C. Sproul said in this regard (emphasis mine):
.

[H]istorically, the church's understanding of the special revelation of the Bible has been corrected by students of natural revelation. One example is the Copernican revolution. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther rejected Nicolaus Copernicus as a heretic in the sixteenth century [because he said the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the solar system]. However, I don't know anyone in orthodox Christianity today who is pleading for geocentricity. In that case, the church has said, ‘We misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.’ So, I think that we can learn from non-believing scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation. I have a high view of natural revelation.

.
R. C. Sproul, in the introduction to Keith A. Mathison, A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2013). E-book edition. He was recounting an answer he gave to a questioner at the 2012 Ligonier Ministries National Conference

"Ignoring natural revelation" sounds like it might also describe Venom.

[John Bauer]

Sure, according to the theory. Guess what, Christians have a theory, too.

Our theory is that an incredibly long time ago, "God created the heavens and the earth".

That is our theory.

Hi. Christian here. Please do not speak for all of us, okay? Thanks.

First of all, "God created the heavens and the earth" is not a theory, it is a religious tenet—one that is found in Scripture (Gen 1:1) and firmly believed by Christians as an article of faith.

Second, most Christians understand and accept the theory of evolution and have no real problems with abiogenesis (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestants), many of whom are able to seemlessly integrate the facts of the natural world with their religious convictions. In other words, we have no problem affirming religious tenets and scientific theories; for us, it is not a zero-sum game.

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).

No. Just... no.

Again, please stop trying to speak for all Christians. There are some who, like me, use (a) science to explain natural history and (b) theology to explain redemptive history. There are different ways of understanding "ultimate," none of which you bothered to specify, which makes it equivocal and therefore useless. For me, redemptive history is ultimate because it unveils the meaning and purpose of natural history.

Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (i.e., nature), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (i.e. Scripture).

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

He provides a link to support his position because, despite the futility, he wants you to be informed of the position you are summarily dismissing. How can you reject a view which you don't even properly understand?

"Because it contradicts my beliefs," you might say. But you can't know that if you don't even understand the view. For all you know, it actually doesn't.

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.

Right, it was more like 20 million years.

If I split open a 10-pound bag of sugar and dumped it all over the school gym floor, how long would it take for you to clean it up with a pair of tweezers one grain at a time? Because that's somewhere around 20 million grains (just to help us visualize how enormously huge number that is).

I don't want to get suckered into a debate about evolution.

Suckered? You sent out RSVPs, mate.

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

None is required because it is so mundane. I mean, you did it yourself—and in only nine months.

My apologies if you consider it derogatory.

You cannot apologize for his evaluation. You can only apologize for what you said—or you can refuse to. Your choice. (Remember, your an ambassador for Christ.)

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?

The following (emphasis mine) is from Aurelius Augustinus, De Genesi ad litteram ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"), bk. 1, ch. 19, para. 39 (written ca. 401-405 AD). See: John Hammond Taylor, trans., Ancient Christian Writers: St. Augustine - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1 (New York: Paulist Press, 1982). This passage may be viewed at the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science here.
.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1:7]

.

I like this definition:

"All living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to the environment, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, homeostasis, energy processing, and evolution. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life."

You broke my Irony-o-meter.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 133:

I note the OP asks for 'real world' examples, and I note that in such regard anecdotal data will likely rule the day. It's just I can't get me past the irony in this'n...

I am not going to use an example from these forums here but rather from elsewhere. I was confronting a non-theist who had claimed (a) that creationism is delusional in the sense that it is "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradicting evidence," and (b) that he is including evolutionary creationism. [1] He also presents himself (including in that discussion) as someone who needs real evidence, who thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all the standard New Atheism drivel.

So all you can give us is your personal hearsay testimony, and now we gotta sort us out which one of y'all's doing all that driveling.

How can we know you've accurately represented your opponent's argument, when we don't have his actual argument to consider?

That right there is strong indication, if only to me, to conclude you're doing you some driveling too.

So I began by asking him for this evidence that's supposed to contradict evolutionary creationism. His verbose response amounted to asserting that there is no evidence for evolutionary creationism. I pointed out the clear and important difference between "there is no evidence for X" and "there is evidence that contradicts X," and reminded him that his claim was the latter. He went on and on about how I'm not providing any evidence for my claims and how evolutionary creationism is delusional because it asserts things for which there is no evidence and so on and so forth.

How can we know you've accurately represented your opponent's argument, without having that argument to consider?

What "X" is being discussed?

I reminded him what his claim was—that evolutionary creationism is a persistent false belief held in the face of contradicting evidence (delusional)—and pointed out that he had consistently failed to provide a shred of evidence that contradicts it. Since he was making so much noise about Adam and Eve, [2] I chose to narrow our focus to just that element: "What is the evidence that contradicts the belief in Adam and Eve?"

How can we know you've accurately represented your opponent's argument, without having that argument to consider?

Drivel, round 3.

He said that if Adam and Eve actually existed then they would have left genetic evidence when they reproduced with modern humans around them. (Evidently he didn't take into account Adam and Eve being faithful in their marriage to one another.) I asked what kind of genetic evidence we could expect to find but have never found. Long story short: I had to explain to him that Adam and Eve were modern humans (Homo sapiens), as were their contemporaries, because back when they existed (ca. 10,000 years ago) there were no other species of Homo left. Well, he said, then the claim is untestable and worthless—which, again, sounds like a charge of "no evidence."

How can we know you've accurately represented your opponent's argument, without having that argument to consider?

How can we know Adam and Eve existed, and were faithful in their marriage to one another? I've had me a few old ladies who I didn't tell I had intimate, carnal relations with other hens. But then again, I generally set forth the ground rules early on.

He belittled Christian beliefs and called me a very nasty name, so I decided the conversation was over. At the end of the day, the guy who presents himself as someone who needs evidence for claims didn't have a solitary shred of evidence for his claim, and committed a host of logical fallacies in his futile attempt at rationalizing his position. If you're going to claim that there is evidence that contradicts X, you had better be prepared to provide that evidence—especially when you make such a spectacle of demanding evidence from others.
...

How can we know you've accurately represented your opponent's argument, without having that argument to consider?

I submit that by calling your opponent's arguments "drivel", you're doing you some belittleing yourself.

I'm a bit amused you'd fuss about his lack of evidence, while presenting none here for your own claims.

[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"?

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.

It has nothing to do with, "separating me from the mix". Rather, it is the fact that I never insinuated that one should never appeal to science. However, when one seems to be insisting that all of us should neither believe the claims of a resurrection, nor believe the claims to be false, because the claim would be an "unfalsifiable claim", then this one is attempting to force the scientific method upon a subject, which is outside the realm of science.

[William]

[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.

It has nothing to do with, "separating me from the mix". Rather, it is the fact that I never insinuated that one should never appeal to science. However, when one seems to be insisting that all of us should neither believe the claims of a resurrection, nor believe the claims to be false, because the claim would be an "unfalsifiable claim", then this one is attempting to force the scientific method upon a subject, which is outside the realm of science.

Most faith-driven beliefs have been "outside the realm of science" as in unable to be investigated with any device - but over the centuries scientific device has enabled us to understand the unlikelihood of events believed in through faith.

Where there is no evidence for that which is held by faith, 'tis best to remain agnostic.

[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"?

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.

It has nothing to do with, "separating me from the mix". Rather, it is the fact that I never insinuated that one should never appeal to science. However, when one seems to be insisting that all of us should neither believe the claims of a resurrection, nor believe the claims to be false, because the claim would be an "unfalsifiable claim", then this one is attempting to force the scientific method upon a subject, which is outside the realm of science.

Most faith-driven beliefs have been "outside the realm of science" as in unable to be investigated with any device - but over the centuries scientific device has enabled us to understand the unlikelihood of events believed in through faith.

Where there is no evidence for that which is held by faith, 'tis best to remain agnostic.

Opinion noted! I have no problem with your opinion, because opinions are subjective. However, to suggest there would be "no evidence" to support the Christian claim of a resurrection is not an opinion, but rather a statement of fact, and this statement of fact would not simply be an overstatement, rather it is simply, and plainly, a false statement.

Allow me attempt to explain something to you. I do not need an ounce of faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure, who walked the face of the earth, because we have evidence to support such a belief. I do not need any faith whatsoever to believe this Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb as dead. In fact, I do not need any faith in order to believe this same Jesus was raised from the dead.

I do not need faith in order to believe any of the things listed above, because we have facts, and evidence in support of these things, and I can look at, analyze, study, and weigh the facts, and evidence, in order to base what it is I believe upon these facts, and evidence.

What I would need faith in order to believe is, these events above, somehow atone for my sin. In other words, I need faith in order to believe I have been forgiven. Because you see, I cannot look at, analyze, study, weigh, touch, or feel, forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence, in support of the other things.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #140]

Opinion noted! I have no problem with your opinion, because opinions are subjective.

Anything to do with consciousness is - of necessity - subjective. Opinions are all we have to discuss and debate other opinion about "things", with.

However, to suggest there would be "no evidence" to support the Christian claim of a resurrection is not an opinion, but rather a statement of fact, and this statement of fact would not simply be an overstatement, rather it is simply, and plainly, a false statement.

Statements of fact are no doubt contained in a hand basin next to the ocean of opinion.

Allow me attempt to explain something to you.

My mind is open to examining your explanation

I do not need an ounce of faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure, who walked the face of the earth, because we have evidence to support such a belief.

I think that it is fair to understand that the biblical Jesus was modelled upon some real historical figure of an individual or individuals.

I do not need any faith whatsoever to believe this Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb as dead. In fact, I do not need any faith in order to believe this same Jesus was raised from the dead.

This implies you have evidence which you can show me to support that such is not a matter of faith but of fact.

I do not need faith in order to believe any of the things listed above, because we have facts, and evidence in support of these things, and I can look at, analyze, study, and weigh the facts, and evidence, in order to base what it is I believe upon these facts, and evidence.

This is getting exciting! Facts are certainly things we can examine!

What I would need faith in order to believe is, these events above, somehow atone for my sin. In other words, I need faith in order to believe I have been forgiven. Because you see, I cannot look at, analyze, study, weigh, touch, or feel, forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence, in support of the other things.

That's okay really. Let us place the idea of forgiveness to one side and focus on what can be shown to be the facts.

So far as your "Allow me attempt to explain something to you" and your list of things you don't require faith in, you haven't actually provided the evidence you imply that you have, so have not 'explained' anything which can be supported by said lack of evidence.

This leads my open mind to wonder what it is you are trying to 'explain' as to why you do not require 'faith' in order to 'believe' in those things you mentioned.

Disconflating words which mean the same thing is on par with conflating words which do not mean the same thing.
I do not know if your post is therefore an example of double standard but it is an example of implying things which are not supported...so in that - perhaps an example of misguided opinion.