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?

[JoeyKnothead]

]
Okay, so exactly what would most scientists believe to be true, which a Christian can appeal to, in order to back the argument they are making?

I don't presuppose to know what evidence may or may not support a claimant's claims.

I consider the presentation of evidence to be a claimant's responsibility.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's not what I was talking about and you know it (or at least I hope you do). I was addressing your comment that presumes to speak for all Christians when you said "our theory" is that God created the heavens and the earth. Again, as I had said, there is a vast swathe of Christianity—from Roman Catholics to Eastern Orthodox to mainline Protestants—who would say that's not a "theory" but a deeply held article of faith. Many of them could even point to relevant creeds or catechisms which contain that article of faith (e.g., Nicean Creed).

In the context of evolution, the term "theory" refers to a scientific explanation, and Genesis 1:1 is neither science nor a theory but divine revelation and theology.

Theory, in this case, is a blanket term I am using for belief. I hope that is good enough for you.

Okay, and I will hold you accountable if I see you stick your foot in your mouth, like calling Genesis 1:1 our theory.

Belief/theory. Take your pick.

Not if the context is evolution (and it is). That's science, which immediately narrows the definition and excludes colloquial usage.

And that is the point of contention, as I reject evolution (macro) as science.

Of course they do. And it is affirmed as an article of faith, not as a scientific explanation.

I agree, because believers understand that not every natural phenomena can be explained via science, which is why we appeal to the supernatural.

How so?

Because if God created life, then life did not evolve naturally from nonliving material, did it?

Sure, until I bring in a few Roman Catholic sources that agree with me. Then you would speak for all Christians except me and them. After that, I could call upon a bunch of Eastern Orthodox sources and you'd have to clarify that you're not speaking for them either. And then again with a few mainline Protestants. It would eventually become obvious that, by your own admission, you're not speaking for all Christians after all.

Really, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox sources don't believe that God created the heavens and the earth?

Just another reason for me to reject Catholicism.

You will not get any disagreement with me on that score. It is not a scientific theory, however, but rather a religious doctrine.

Okey dokey.

What I reject is the notion that this is a theory. It's not. It is a religious doctrine, plain and simple.

Look at the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, quantum field theory, etc. Those are theories. Genesis 1:1 (and Jeremiah 21:17) is divine revelation and theology.

Christian theology is a theory, it just isn't a scientific theory, and no one ever claimed that it is.

Evolution is also not a scientific theory...it is also a borderline religious theory.

I am talking about the manufactured but untenable notion that science and faith are necessarily locked in mortal combat. You point to the theory of evolution and insist that "Christians have a theory, too"—as if it's a zero-sum game where it's either evolution or creation. "I see your evolution theory, and raise you a creator God"—as if it's impossible for both to be true.

Please understand, that I definitely see your point. However, as I keep stating, I don't view evolution as a viable scientific theory, whatsoever.

So therefore, "theory" is being used as an idea/belief that each side has for their....side.

Again, you will not get any disagreement from me on that score. However, God is the ultimate foundation of all natural reality and evolution best explains our planet's biodiversity. Both are true.

Ok, and that is where the disagreement is. I do not see any evidence that evolution is true, regardless of whether it allegedly occurred through divine intervention, or via natural processes.

[brunumb]

In fact this debate has been raging for thousands of years. If there were not facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims, there would be nothing to debate.

If those alleged facts and evidence were at all compelling there would have been no need for thousands of years of raging debates. All we have are basically unsupported claims along with some spurious evidence that requires a fair degree of interpolation. Would have, should have and could have are not the same as actually did. Once the belief has been inculcated then all of that so-called evidence is viewed with a much less critical eye by the believer as far as I'm concerned.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #124]

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.

Is the process you are describing above, the scientific method?

No. The scientific method does not intend to answer purely philosophical questions but requires experimentation for the purpose and expectation of discovering if a disprovable claim about our perceived external reality is false or not. The response I provided in the previous post was the result of my amateur attempt at using sound reasoning and logic to answer the purely philosophical question you asked me. If my understanding of what constitutes sound reasoning and logic is in error, I'm open to being educated accordingly and revising my response. Did you identify an error in my reasoning or logic?

[John Bauer]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #163]

Theory, in this case, is a blanket term I am using for belief. I hope that is good enough for you. ... Christian theology is a theory, it just isn't a scientific theory ...

In normal, everyday language that's perfectly fine, I think. I'm even comfortable agreeing with you that the biblical creation account is a theory in a colloquial sense (if that word means "explanation").

However, the moment we bring up the theory of evolution, we must be very careful with our terms because now we are discussing categorically different things, theology on the one hand and science on the other. What "theory" means over here is significantly different from what "theory" means over there, and we should try to seek clarity and avoid equivocation. In such cases, let science have the term "theory" and let theology have the term "doctrine." When discussing creation and evolution, it provides more clarity if we restrict "theory" to its scientific sense and use "doctrine" in reference to what we had been describing with its colloquial sense.

In this scenario, you would say, "If we restrict ‘theory’ to its scientific sense, then evolution is no more a theory than creation. Rather, they are both doctrines." (This is what you did say, but in slightly different words.)

Now that's an argument we could have. See my next response:

I reject evolution (macro) as science. ... I don't view evolution as a viable scientific theory, whatsoever.

I would like to engage this argument but, in order to do that, I need to know how you define science.

I do not see any evidence that evolution is true, regardless of whether it allegedly occurred through divine intervention, or via natural processes.

Nothing in science is ever true. Truth is something that science only approximates. To take it the rest of the way—that is, if we want to say that something is true—we must move beyond science into philosophy (deductive and inductive reasoning).
Science traffics in abductive reasoning, which starts with observations and seeks to find the best (i.e., simplest and most likely) explanation for them.

Consider the heliocentric theory of our solar system as an example. (Yes, heliocentricism is "just a theory.") It makes sense of otherwise strange planetary motions. It is not so much true as it is just our best scientific explanation of what is true—the celestial bodies and their "wandering" motions—an explanation so powerful that it enables us to intercept planets with satellites and rovers, land scientific instruments on comets (e.g., Churyumov-Gerasimenko), even calculate the location and orbit of a tiny Kuiper belt object roughly ten billion kilometers away accurately enough to perform a photographic fly-by (e.g., 486958 Arrokoth, "Ultima Thule"). As falsifiable predictions, these also amount to empirical tests of the theory. In a very similar way, evolution is not true, it's just the best scientific explanation we have for all these things that are—the facts of paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, and so on. These are the empirical observations made of the real world. But how are we to understand and make sense of all these categorically different observations being made? In science, that is the role of a theory, a conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding the massive wealth of data we possess, drawing all the relevant facts together into a coherent scientific model that makes sense of them or explains them—an explanation so powerful that it makes predictions which result in new, previously unknown evidence being discovered (e.g., Tiktaalik roseae) which then adds to the credibility of the theory (Shubin 2008; Coyne 2009, 37–38).

... believers understand that not every natural phenomena [sic] can be explained via science, which is why we appeal to the supernatural.

Sure, that's common—but also unnecessary. I mean, you say that "not every natural phenomenon can be explained via science," but why not?

Brief aside: I come from a theological tradition which recognizes the one genuine dichotomy in biblical thought, namely, the Creator-creature distinction. As a result of that view, I have come to realize that there is no such thing in the Bible as "the supernatural." There is only God and everything that he has made—and "everything he has made" is entirely natural, including things like angels. Just because we don't have a scientific understanding or explanation of how one thing works or what another thing is made of, that doesn't mean we never will. Our baryonic understanding of physics fails to account for 95% of the universe; in other words, we have good reason to suspect that there is a vast host of natural things we currently cannot directly explore, understand, or explain. They're not supernatural, they're just non-baryonic.

[Judeo-Christianity is incompatible with abiogenesis because] if God created life, then life did not evolve naturally from non-living material, did it?

Why not? God creating and life evolving are not mutually exclusive concepts. Just because we can explain something naturally (using science), that doesn't mean God didn't do it. I'm sure you can explain human reproduction naturally (using science), and yet you also believe God knits us together in the womb. You can explain the water cycle naturally, and yet you believe God sends the snow and rain. This is what I mean when I say these things are not mutually exclusive. For Christians, both sides are true.

Brief aside: Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution is a theory on the origin of species and the continuity of biodiversity. For me, a good memory aid for this fact is remembering the title of Darwin's book. If someone wants to know what evolution is about, the clearest answer is, "It is a theory on the origin of species, explained in terms of descent with modification from a common ancestor." Evolution is not about the origin of life, or the origin of the solar system, or the origin of the universe, much less the origin of everything (the world-view of evolutionism). Rather, evolution presupposes the existence of these things in order to address the origin of species.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that life indeed could not originate through natural processes. How would that falsify evolution? As far as I can tell, it simply wouldn't—indeed it couldn't, for the theory of evolution presupposes the existence of life. It is a biological theory, hence life is presupposed. Allow me to use different terms to clearly express the salient point as I understand it: Notwithstanding how life arose, it has nevertheless evolved. Ergo, undermining origin of life research doesn't undermine evolution.

_____

References:

Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking Penguin.

Shubin, N. (2008). Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. New York: Pantheon.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #161]

I myself am not insisting there are [or are not] facts pertaining to the claims.

Well, imagine my surprise! The conversation is ending up just as I expected. In other words, you are not now insisting there are no facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims. However, I believe it would have been you, in your initial response to me who said,

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

So then, was Christianity included in this statement above? If so, then you seem to have changed your tune? If Christianity would not have been included, then what would have been the point? It seems to me you were pretty insistent that there would be no evidence, to now claiming not to be insistent?

As I said, this is no surprise to me, because this is exactly what I expected. In other words, I have grown accustomed to folks making such statements, but when they are challenged to defend these statements, they quickly realize, they cannot demonstrate what it is they want to insist upon.

I am quite happy to say that I have never had any facts presented to me in which to make the call and so remain agnostic in that regard.

Okay? Fine! I have no problem with the position you hold in the least. However, I will take this to mean that you, "have never had any facts presented to you" which would cause you to believe the claims to be false? In other words, you do not believe the claims to be either true, or false? Would I be correct?

That is why I was hoping that you might present your evidence in order that I could ascertain whether I have heard these things claimed as facts already. If so, I have already debunked said claims of facts and moved on.

From the dictionary,

de·bunk
/dēˈbəNGk/
Learn to pronounce
verb
expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).

Okay? Thus far the only evidence I have brought forth, would be the reports of a resurrection by multiple different sources. So then, are you saying, you have actually, "exposed the falseness" of these reports? Or, would this be only in your own mind? If you have actually "exposed the falseness" of these reports, then please do share this with me, in order that I can "move on" as well.

I mean, on the one hand you seem to be suggesting you are unconvinced either way? On the other, you seem to be proclaiming to have demonstrated these reports to be false? Which is it?

You appear to be pointing at old data as if somehow its existence proves it must be matter of fact.

You are not reading very carefully! What I am insisting would "be a matter of fact", would be the facts, and evidence in support of the claims. I am not insisting the claims would be true. I am convinced the claims are true, but this is far from insisting the claims are true.

If you are simply saying that you became a Christian because you accepted that the claim of fact was truth

But this is not what I am saying. What I am saying is, I have closely examined the facts, and evidence concerning the Christian claims, and have become convinced myself of the truth of these claims. In other words, I did not simply accept the claims, but rather thought critically about the claims. What I actually did was, think through what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false. In the end, I became convinced the claims are indeed true. However, I am not insisting that you, or anyone else accept them as being true. The problem comes in, when there are those who seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, or evidence to support what it is I believe, and, or, it would be an unreasonable, and, or, an illogical belief, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

To which [such offer made to me] I politely decline on account of lack of evidence for said claim of truth.

First, let me be clear in that I am not making any offer to you in the least. Next, I have no problem at all with whatever position you take concerning the Christian claims. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no evidence, logic, or reason involved in what I happened to believe, unless they can demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far, after some seven years here on this site, no one has been able to demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

Well that is new data to me. I was under the impression that the only source for the whole story, was the bible.
I am surely happy to review these other sources you claim exist.

This sort of comment, surely demonstrates one who has very little knowledge of what they are so critical of. In other words, the Bible is not in any way whatsoever, a single source. As an example, the overwhelming majority of the New Testament, can be easily demonstrated to be letters addressed to audiences at the time, with the authors having no concern, nor any idea, anyone else would read these letters, other than the original intended audience. Moreover, and more importantly, none of the authors which are contained in the Bible, could have possibly had any idea whatsoever that what they were writing at the time, would have, centuries, and even thousands of years later, be contained in what we now refer to as the Bible.

With all the above being fact, how could anyone possibly refer to the Bible, as a single source?

All I want to do is critique the evidence once it is tabled.

Again, the fact that there continue to be debates concerning this issue, on top of the fact there have been book volumes authored on both sides of the equation, certainly demonstrates the fact that there is evidence. If there were no evidence, there would be nothing to debate. Moreover, the fact that you spend an enormous amount of time on a web site debating the issue, certainly seems to demonstrate that you understand there is indeed facts, and evidence to debate.

Therefore, we start at the beginning with the multiple different sources we have of the resurrection. I will assume this would be evidence you claim to already have "debunked". Since we have already established the definition of this word, can you please tell us how you have "exposed the falseness" of these reports?

[John Bauer]

Meh. "All you've given us is personal testimony." All better?

Whether or not it's better is a value judgment I'll leave to you. It certainly is different and no longer commits a logical error, both of which are matters of fact.

Please note, I got in this thread by asking you to provide pertinent data.

As anyone can verify, that is demonstrably false. Your response to me (Post #136) began with an erroneous allegation, "So, all you can give us is your personal hearsay testimony." And then, from that point onward, nowhere in your post did you ever ask me to provide pertinent data; you just repeatedly pointed out that my opponent's actual argument wasn't included and therefore you couldn't know whether I was accurately representing it.

Trying to pretend that you asked me for evidence is transparently manipulative.

Mine was an anecdotal tale of how some folks don't adhere to societal rules regarding monogamy.

It was an anecdotal tale about you and your own life, which makes it "autobiographical material." It also involves categories and values of the modern West in the 21st century, which makes it "irrelevant" to the subject of Adam and Eve. That's why I said, "Let's just mark that as irrelevant autobiographical material and move on."

I preciate the clarification, and pologize for my misunderstanding.

For the sake of civil discourse, I'll assume that was genuine and thank you.

I am ignoring the rest of your very juvenile comments (e.g., "I didn't use the magical words ...," and "I can only beg your forgiveness for not asking in a way that'd provide you maximum comfort," and "I'm so proud for ya I could bust," and so forth). I'm also going to point out the obvious, that even with the evidence provided you haven't opined about his argument or double-standard.

[JoeyKnothead]

Meh. "All you've given us is personal testimony." All better?

Whether or not it's better is a value judgment I'll leave to you. It certainly is different and no longer commits a logical error, both of which are matters of fact.

My point is that you'd not presented anything but personal testimony - but did eventually present a link, for which I preciate.

Please note, I got in this thread by asking you to provide pertinent data.

As anyone can verify, that is demonstrably false. Your response to me (Post #136) began with an erroneous allegation, "So, all you can give us is your personal hearsay testimony." And then, from that point onward, nowhere in your post did you ever ask me to provide pertinent data; you just repeatedly pointed out that my opponent's actual argument wasn't included and therefore you couldn't know whether I was accurately representing it.
Trying to pretend that you asked me for evidence is transparently manipulative.

What with me and dooficity having a bunch in common, my error exposes me to folks thinking I'm up to no good.

I pologize and retract. I was thinking about a different thread.

Mine was an anecdotal tale of how some folks don't adhere to societal rules regarding monogamy.

It was an anecdotal tale about you and your own life, which makes it "autobiographical material." It also involves categories and values of the modern West in the 21st century, which makes it "irrelevant" to the subject of Adam and Eve. That's why I said, "Let's just mark that as irrelevant autobiographical material and move on."

I reject any accusation by a non-moderator that my comments are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This is important to me cause I struggle to stay in the mod's good graces. Ya know, dooficity.

I feel my comments on this issue were pertinentiary to previous comments, and will provide support in the thereof for em.

I preciate the clarification, and pologize for my misunderstanding.

For the sake of civil discourse, I'll assume that was genuine and thank you.

Thanks. I do my best to understand stuff, but, ya know, dooficity.

I am ignoring the rest of your very juvenile comments (e.g., "I didn't use the magical words ...," and "I can only beg your forgiveness for not asking in a way that'd provide you maximum comfort," and "I'm so proud for ya I could bust," and so forth). I'm also going to point out the obvious, that even with the evidence provided you haven't opined about his argument or double-standard.

I think it's kinda goofy you'd 'ignore' the very stuff ya carry on about.

But I think my comments there were part of my misunderstanding, and retract any of it necessary, while blaming anyone but me for it.

I'll let your not here to argue it opponent's arguments go, as we have no means to know if that argument'd change in light of new data.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to brunumb in post #164]

If those alleged facts and evidence were at all compelling there would have been no need for thousands of years of raging debates.

Would this comment be coming from one who was a convinced Christian at one time? Moreover, there have been millions, upon millions of folks who have been compelled to believe these things down through thousands of years. I cannot imagine another subject which has gained this sort of attention, nor can I imagine another subject which has had so much written about it. So then, there is something that is "compelling" all of this attention. If I am correct that you were at one time a convinced Christian, there was certainly something which compelled you to believe, and now that you have rejected these things, there certainly must be something which is compelling you to continue to spend much of your time, debating a subject for which you seem to be insisting there would be no reason to believe. Most folks do not spend very much time debating subjects which they view to be nonsense.

All we have are basically unsupported claims along with some spurious evidence that requires a fair degree of interpolation.

You are here admitting that we do in fact have the claims which are made. Can you demonstrate these claims to be false? You see, I understand you are no longer compelled to believe these things, and I have no problem with that in the least, my question is, do you have some sort of compelling evidence which would demonstrate these claims to be false?

Once the belief has been inculcated then all of that so-called evidence is viewed with a much less critical eye by the believer as far as I'm concerned.

I will agree with you one hundred percent, that there are many, many folks who like you, were somehow able to simply accept what it is they were taught without thinking critically about such things. What I cannot figure out, is exactly how this would translate into, the claims must be false? It also does not explain the numerous, intelligent, well educated folks who were not only unbelievers at one time, they were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were speaking out against it, who became convinced Christianity was true, while studying the facts, and evidence, in order to speak out against it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

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.

Agreed!

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.

Are you here suggesting it is your position that, the available facts, and evidence we have available concerning Christianity, equally support two contradictory conclusion? If so, that would be a pretty stout admission on your part. But, would this not be, an subjective opinion on your part? I mean, how would one demonstrate the evidence, equally support two contradictory conclusions?

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.

Again, I do not know how one would be able to demonstrate the evidence is equally supportive? If it is the case, that one would not be able to demonstrate how the evidence would be equally supportive, then what would be the problem with sharing with each other what it is we are convinced of, and, or, why we remain to be unconvinced either way, along with the facts, evidence, and reason we have used to arrive to the conclusions we have?

If we were all to do this, while being intellectually honest enough to admit, those opposed may indeed have very good reasons for the positions they hold, then we would not come to the conclusion those opposed must, and have to be guilty of such things as, faulty logic, reason, confirmation bias, only believe as they do because they were indoctrinated, etc., and would rather be able to actually concentrate on the actual facts, evidence, and reasons being used.