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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

When you can name me one Christian who doesn't believe that "God created the heavens and the earth", then I won't speak for all Christians.

Until then, I will speak for all Christians, at least as it pertains to that.

Second, we can split hairs about what constitutes a "theory" all night long...it still doesn't change the fact that Christians believe Genesis 1:1, and naturalists believe the contrary.

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.

First off, Judeo-Christianity (and monotheistic religions, in general) is incompatible with abiogenesis...so there is no "real problem" to be dealt with there.

Second, if you are a "believer", and you accept the theory of evolution (macroevolution), then I simply disagree with you.

Plain and simple.

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.

Well, let me put it to you this way; I am speaking for all Christians, besides you.

"Ultimate" origins as it pertains to the universe, simply means "God created all natural reality". Plain and simple.

Now, if you disagree that God created ALL natural reality, then me and you aren't talking about the same God, as I am referring to the God in Biblical scripture..

"Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you." Jeremiah 21:17

You know, that guy.

What you are talking about, I don't know...but whatever it is, it need not be a distraction from the focal point, which is that God is the ultimate foundation of all natural reality.

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?

I don't reject beliefs I don't understand, I reject beliefs I DO 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.

Ok, so on the flip side...everyone who rejects Christianity and the idea that God created all physical reality...they reject it because they don't "understand it".

Cool.

Right, it was more like 20 million years.

As long as God was behind the wheel, I could care less about the duration.

Suckered? You sent out RSVPs, mate.

No, I didn't. I mentioned it in passing as it pertains to what I believe to be a double standard, which is subject matter of the thread.

It wasn't meant to sprout a full fledge debate on the subject.

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

Sounds like you are the one who doesn't understand what is going on here...because as far as I can tell, my parents were "alive" when I was conceived.

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.)

Too late. He already accepted the apology, which means that me and him have an understanding between each other, which deems the opinions of 3rd parties quite irrelevant.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #114]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I stand by my plowing of the under, and I stand by my comment regarding some theists and the happy to promote the science on the rare occasion it aligns with their religious notions.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #141]

While I would love to respond to everything you say here, I find that it tends to get us going back, and forth between too many points at one time, and the conversation gets bogged down at that point many times. Therefore, if you do not mind, allow us to focus upon one of your comments here, and if, and when we hash this out, then maybe we can go back into the rest of what you have to say. So then, let us start here,

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

You see, you have really messed this up, badly. When one says, "my belief in the resurrection is not a matter of faith", this is not in any way equivalent to saying, "the resurrection is a matter of fact". While I am convinced the resurrection to be a fact, I am not insisting that it is indeed a fact, nor am I insisting that you consider it to be a fact. Rather, what I am insisting is, there are indeed facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, and one can use sound reason, and logic in order to believe the resurrection did take place.

I am certainly fine with you believing the resurrection to be false, or doubting the resurrection. The problem comes in when there are those who seem to want to insist, there would be no facts, and evidence to support of the resurrection, and that it would be and unreasonable, and illogical belief, when they cannot demonstrate this to be anything other than an opinion they hold.

So then, I am not insisting the resurrection to be a matter of fact, (although I am convinced it is a matter of fact) rather, I am insisting the facts, and evidence my belief rests upon, would be matters of facts.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #143]

and I stand by my comment regarding some theists and the happy to promote the science on the rare occasion it aligns with their religious notions.

You can stand by your comment all you want! The problem is the fact that I have never once suggested, that those on either side, should never appeal to science, which is what your comment seems to be suggesting.

[Realworldjack]

[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?

[John Bauer]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #137]

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?

Two things. First, you cannot legitimately infer that personal testimony is the ONLY thing I can provide ("So all you can give us is...") from the fact that that is what I provided. My opponent made a similar error when he said, "All you can offer is the Bible." From the fact that I offered the Bible, he drew the conclusion that the Bible is all I can offer—an inference that cannot be rationally justified. If he handed me a $20 bill, I couldn't legitimately conclude that that's all he can give me; for all I know, he could have a wad of cash from which that $20 bill was withdrawn.

Second, if you would rather suppose that I've misrepresented the views of a real opponent and just let that prejudice be your final word on the matter, so be it. Makes no real difference to me. It is kind of interesting, though, that you would choose to make that insinuation rather than simply ask me, "Is that discussion accessible for myself and others?"

What "X" is being discussed?

I had already made clear in post 133 that X = evolutionary creationism. That is to say, his claim was that "there is evidence that contradicts X" or evolutionary creationism.

How can we know Adam and Eve existed, and were faithful in their marriage to one another?

That is simply irrelevant to the claim being made by my opponent, who said there is evidence that contradicts evolutionary creationism. We may even narrow his claim further, just to help him out, and say that there is evidence contradicting evolutionary creationist beliefs about Adam and Eve. In other words, it doesn't matter whether they actually existed or not; it only matters that evolutionary creationists believe they did. And my opponent claimed there is evidence that contradicts that belief, rendering it delusional—and yet failed to produce any at all, thus violating his own epistemic standards.

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.

That is relevant only if you and Adam or Eve were alike in that regard. Did either one of them sleep around with other hens, as it were?

That's probably not a claim you care to make or defend, so let's just mark that as irrelevant autobiographical material and move on.

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

Yes, I am. And what should we make of that? I mean, you're not going for a tu quoque fallacy here, are you?

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

As anyone can observe, I did not make any claims. The issue was his claim that there is evidence that contradicts evolutionary creationism and his refusal or inability to present said evidence—and, relevant to this thread, it is an example of a non-theist failing to meet his own standards which he expects the claims of others to meet.

[John Bauer]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #142]

When you can name me one Christian who doesn't believe that "God created the heavens and the earth", then I won't speak for all Christians.

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.

Until then, I will speak for all Christians, at least as it pertains to that.

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

Second, we can split hairs about what constitutes a "theory" all night long ...

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

... it still doesn't change the fact that Christians believe Genesis 1:1 ...

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

First off, Judeo-Christianity ... is incompatible with abiogenesis, ...

How so?

Second, if you are a "believer" and you accept the theory of evolution (macroevolution), then I simply disagree with you. Plain and simple.

Okay.

Well, let me put it to you this way; I am speaking for all Christians, besides you.

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.

"Ultimate" origins, as it pertains to the universe, simply means "God created all natural reality." Plain and simple.

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

Now, if you disagree that God created ALL natural reality, then me and you aren't talking about the same God, as I am referring to the God in Biblical scripture..

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.

What you are talking about, I don't know ...

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.

... but whatever it is, it need not be a distraction from the focal point, which is that God is the ultimate foundation of all natural reality.

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.

[brunumb]

So then, I am not insisting the resurrection to be a matter of fact, (although I am convinced it is a matter of fact) rather, I am insisting the facts, and evidence my belief rests upon, would be matters of facts.

Talk about having an each-way bet. All of those alleged facts and so-called evidence do not lead to the fact of a resurrection, just to the opinion that it is a fact. Big deal. They lead others to the opinion that it is not a fact.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to John Bauer in post #134]

Thanks for posting that - it sounds like it was a rather unpleasant encounter with an ill-informed person.

Let’s hope the anecdote serves to remind us all that our behaviour away from this site makes an impression on others - who may then choose to share our ‘shortcomings’ online.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #137]

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?

Two things. First, you cannot legitimately infer that personal testimony is the ONLY thing I can provide ("So all you can give us is...") from the fact that that is what I provided. My opponent made a similar error when he said, "All you can offer is the Bible." From the fact that I offered the Bible, he drew the conclusion that the Bible is all I can offer—an inference that cannot be rationally justified. If he handed me a $20 bill, I couldn't legitimately conclude that that's all he can give me; for all I know, he could have a wad of cash from which that $20 bill was withdrawn.

Meh. "All you've given us* is personal testimony". All better?
*At the time

Second, if you would rather suppose that I've misrepresented the views of a real opponent and just let that prejudice be your final word on the matter, so be it. Makes no real difference to me. It is kind of interesting, though, that you would choose to make that insinuation rather than simply ask me, "Is that discussion accessible for myself and others?"

Please note, I got in this thread by asking you to provide pertinent data. Granted, I didn't use the magical words, "Is that discussion accessible for myself and others", and for that I'm so deeply, deeply sorry.

I can only beg your forgiveness for not asking in a way that'd provide you maximum comfort, and I'll tell the pretty thing I ain't allowed me no cookies for the rest of the day.

I just couldn't get past the irony that you were carrying on about evidence, and not offering anything - now don't let me upset ya - but your personal testimony.

What "X" is being discussed?

I had already made clear in post 133 that X = evolutionary creationism. That is to say, his claim was that "there is evidence that contradicts X" or evolutionary creationism.

Please note, I was responding to your post 133, where no link was provided to substantiate your claims. Now that ya have, I'm so proud for ya I could bust.

How can we know Adam and Eve existed, and were faithful in their marriage to one another?

That is simply irrelevant to the claim being made by my opponent, who said there is evidence that contradicts evolutionary creationism. We may even narrow his claim further, just to help him out, and say that there is evidence contradicting evolutionary creationist beliefs about Adam and Eve. In other words, it doesn't matter whether they actually existed or not; it only matters that evolutionary creationists believe they did. And my opponent claimed there is evidence that contradicts that belief, rendering it delusional—and yet failed to produce any at all, thus violating his own epistemic standards.

I preciate the clarification, and pologize for my misunderstanding.

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.

That is relevant only if you and Adam or Eve were alike in that regard. Did either one of them sleep around with other hens, as it were?

Beats me, I've yet to see any confirmable evidence Adam and Eve existed, much less were hippies.

That's probably not a claim you care to make or defend, so let's just mark that as irrelevant autobiographical material and move on.

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

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

Yes, I am. And what should we make of that? I mean, you're not going for a tu quoque fallacy here, are you?

I make of it that some folks are hypocritical.

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

As anyone can observe, I did not make any claims. The issue was his claim that there is evidence that contradicts evolutionary creationism and his refusal or inability to present said evidence—and, relevant to this thread, it is an example of a non-theist failing to meet his own standards which he expects the claims of others to meet.

You claimed to have had a conversation, where it was writ out, but ya didn't actually, within your post 133, provide anything - again, I'm sorry to upset ya so - but your personal testimony.

I was carrying on about the irony of fussing about evidence, but not offering any.

Now that ya have, we all have some measure of your integrity.