Objective Subjective Worldview

[RC Tent]

My opening point for this discussion is that both science and religious faith have subjective and objective elements, and therefore the currently popular opinion that science is objective and religion subjective is an error.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary on each word:

subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 1 John 4 - 1 and 2.

Does this quote instruct us to use our subjective feelings to establish the source of a spirit?

Regarding subjectivity and it's influence on science - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach

Relationship between subjective and objective in religion - Distinctions that Make a Difference: Objective Religion/ Subjective Religion

Are creationists whose beliefs stand in contradiction to mainstream science being entirely subjective to do so?

Are evolutionists whose beliefs are consistent with mainstream science being entirely objective, or not?

 

[royal priest]

My opening point for this discussion is that both science and religious faith have subjective and objective elements, and therefore the currently popular opinion that science is objective and religion subjective is an error.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary on each word:

subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 1 John 4 - 1 and 2.

Does this quote instruct us to use our subjective feelings to establish the source of a spirit?

Regarding subjectivity and it's influence on science - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach

Relationship between subjective and objective in religion - Distinctions that Make a Difference: Objective Religion/ Subjective Religion

Are creationists whose beliefs stand in contradiction to mainstream science being entirely subjective to do so?

Are evolutionists whose beliefs are consistent with mainstream science being entirely objective, or not?

Finding Joseph of Arimathea's tomb empty of Jesus' corpse was not a subjective experience. Nor were His appearances after He was raised. We never see the disciples sharing their inner experiences when preaching the Gospel. They appealled to the facts regarding Jesus' existence: claims which those who were opposed to Jesus could not refute.

 

[Halbhh]

Finding Joseph of Arimathea's tomb empty of Jesus' corpse was not a subjective experience. Nor were His appearances after He was raised. We never see the disciples sharing their inner experiences when preaching the Gospel. They appealled to the facts regarding Jesus' existence: claims which those who were opposed to Jesus could not refute.

It's a good point...but...suddenly I'm remembering instances where Paul does say to us his subjective views, and sometimes clearly saying this part isn't from the Lord, but....keeping in mind that definitely Paul at least did share at times some things Paul told us were not from the Lord but just his own view, still, at the moment of presenting the Good News, the saving message, that at least is definitely not from us, but from Him.

 

[Halbhh]

My opening point for this discussion is that both science and religious faith have subjective and objective elements, and therefore the currently popular opinion that science is objective and religion subjective is an error.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary on each word:

subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 1 John 4 - 1 and 2.

Does this quote instruct us to use our subjective feelings to establish the source of a spirit?

Regarding subjectivity and it's influence on science - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach

Relationship between subjective and objective in religion - Distinctions that Make a Difference: Objective Religion/ Subjective Religion

Are creationists whose beliefs stand in contradiction to mainstream science being entirely subjective to do so?

Are evolutionists whose beliefs are consistent with mainstream science being entirely objective, or not?

It's good to have clear definitions...but....ah, here's from the link you gave, a helpful clue-hint to the real complexity:

‘historians try to be objective and impartial’
objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Historians are trying. They attempt to be objective and impartial. But the attempt while laudable doesn't mean they 100% succeed of course.

Our more general situation I think for all human beings is that we cannot entirely remove the subjective from our presentations of what we think is objective.

Even if someone merely quotes to you agree-on fact, they are already editing in a way -- they have chosen to highlight one fact, and not another. The best we can do is to recognize we are not all-knowing, and always realize we cannot be Truth, but have to rely on God, really, and try as best we can to own that what we say is just our own viewpoint, and not try to make out that our own views are Truth (as if we were Him). This is why it is very often best for certain moments to only quote a scripture (and in a way that has the needed contextual verses if some are nearby that affect the meaning).

It's not that our viewpoints are useless -- they are endearing in good moments. If I say I like a certain song, and you do too, and we share our appreciation, it's truly subjective, and a good thing most often, as we are doing a part of 'love one another' usually in that moment.

 

[Halbhh]

My opening point for this discussion is that both science and religious faith have subjective and objective elements, and therefore the currently popular opinion that science is objective and religion subjective is an error.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary on each word:

subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 1 John 4 - 1 and 2.

Does this quote instruct us to use our subjective feelings to establish the source of a spirit?

Regarding subjectivity and it's influence on science - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach

Relationship between subjective and objective in religion - Distinctions that Make a Difference: Objective Religion/ Subjective Religion

Are creationists whose beliefs stand in contradiction to mainstream science being entirely subjective to do so?

Are evolutionists whose beliefs are consistent with mainstream science being entirely objective, or not?

I think none on either side of such debates are entirely objective, but inevitably must be partially subjective, as we cannot do better than that, by nature, no matter our learning or even being able to quote scriptures. Because unless the quote is a full chapter, for instance, with the attitude of "let's listen" -- without that attitude too often people are trying to paint an extra meaning onto some verse, and too often insisting their idea is the verse, or the only way to understand the verse.

The way to best understand is instead to humbly be silent and just truly listen.

Just listen, and hear.

So that we are the ones that get taught, instead of being the ones thinking to use the verse to become the Teacher. We are the student, and the meaning isn't trivial like merely 144 hours or something trivial, but profound meaning that happens to us.

It happens to us, instead of us happening to it.

The meaning doesn't come from us. We can't improve on the text, or help explain it better than the often subtle and deep things it is really saying which are never mere meaningless details, but deep stuff that is immediately useful right now in life, for us, to apply in our lives here and now in terms of how we are relating to God (example: in our attitude in prayer, or a dozen other ways). If we listened.

If we can listen that way, the scripture changes us, and also it does not mean some doctrine people have, not at all, but something deeper and better.

 

[RC Tent]

Link - bias in science.

How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop

 

[The Barbarian]

Link - bias in science.

How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop

Which is why all that "null hypothesis" stuff gets into scientific work; it's no coincidence that scientific advances are happening at a faster rate today. And at least in sciences like biology, physics, chemistry, and the like, we know it works, because those advances are fueling useful new tools for people to better get along in this world.

It's why ID crashed and burned. If ID led to useful new knowledge, scientists would use it, regardless of who disapproved. Since it doesn't, no one of any consequence uses it. It doesn't do anything.

And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

 

[RC Tent]

It's why ID crashed and burned. If ID led to useful new knowledge, scientists would use it, regardless of who disapproved. Since it doesn't, no one of any consequence uses it. It doesn't do anything.

Oh really? When did ID "crash and burn"? At what point was it anything more than the opinion of some people ? It is a philosophical concept based on the gamut of scientific discovery, why would anyone have ever expected it in itself to "do anything"? No one is suggesting the concept has a physical existence - without which it cannot actually "do anything" - it is about the things which physically happen it is not meant to be one.

 

[RC Tent]

Our more general situation I think for all human beings is that we cannot entirely remove the subjective from our presentations of what we think is objective.

Absolutely this.

The best we can do is to recognize we are not all-knowing, and always realize we cannot be Truth, but have to rely on God, really, and not try to make out that our own views are Truth (as if we were Him).

This is why I reckon science is overstating it's capacity for objectivity - God is objective - we cannot do it, we are stuck in a mixture of successfully being objective mixed with subjective. We have a tendency to think whatever people around us think and base our conclusions on the limited total of knowledge we currently have - an inadequate capacity to be objective.

Science is not the ultimate in objectivity - God is.

 

[RC Tent]

Because unless the quote is a full chapter, for instance, with the attitude of "let's listen" -- without that attitude too often people are trying to paint an extra meaning onto some verse, and too often insisting their idea is the verse, or the only way to understand the verse./QUOTE]

My point in quoting the instruction to "test the spirits" is that we are not told to rely on personal feelings, tastes and opinions, nor does it rely on the individual's mind for existence. That is the dictionary's definition of "subjective", and these verses do not refer to it.

I would like to add that I agree with you about the tendency to add meaning, or mistake their personal perspective on a verse for the verse itself.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh really? When did ID "crash and burn"?

Dover trial. It was, as ID founder Philip Johnson admitted, "a train wreck" for ID. It exposed the creationist roots of ID, and the court decision was that it was creationism under another name.

At what point was it anything more than the opinion of some people ?

Dover trial.

It is a philosophical concept based on the gamut of scientific discovery, why would anyone have ever expected it in itself to "do anything"?

That was the shtick they were giving us. It was presented as a research tool. But it's a religious doctrine.

That wasn't supposed to be known, but the Discovery Institute accidentally released the "Wedge Document" that admitted the "governing goal" of ID was to advance theism. Which would be a good thing, if it was honestly presented as the religious movement it is.

No one is suggesting the concept has a physical existence

At least no one here did.

- without which it cannot actually "do anything"

As opposed to science, which can illuminate the way the physical universe works. ID can't do that. Which is why scientists have overwhelmingly ignored it.

 

[RC Tent]

Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

from the link....

"The common belief is that there are two kinds of knowledge: subjective and objective. The latter is held to be more certain than the former, and is usually contrasted with it. However, the distinction is ultimately untenable. Objective knowledge is actually derived from subjective knowledge. This is because of the absolute privacy of conscious experience, which ensures that there can be no composite or collective view of reality. So every so-called ‘objective fact’ is derivative – that is, it is derived from the private observations of individuals insofar as they seem to agree with each other."

 

[RC Tent]

ID can't do that. Which is why scientists have overwhelmingly ignored it.

You invalidate your own point that it was demolished - "crashed and burned" - it just is not science.

There is a difference between science conquering a thing and it simply being not relevant because it is not science.

 

[RC Tent]

Dover trial. It was, as ID founder Philip Johnson admitted, "a train wreck" for ID. It exposed the creationist roots of ID, and the court decision was that it was creationism under another name.

Thus it was identified as philosophy not science, but the Dover trial was not a scientific experiment was it? It was a legal dispute.

 

[Halbhh]

Absolutely this.




This is why I reckon science is overstating it's capacity for objectivity - God is objective - we cannot do it, we are stuck in a mixture of successfully being objective mixed with subjective. We have a tendency to think whatever people around us think and base our conclusions on the limited total of knowledge we currently have - an inadequate capacity to be objective.

Science is not the ultimate in objectivity - God is.

In the ideal, science is only the effort/work to try to find out how nature works.

But...actual scientists are humans.

Therefore, actual science is very much fits and starts, and a lot of wrong ideas during the effort to figure out what are the realistic ideas/theories.

Being human, scientists won't always be as objective as they ideally should. But, while many times they do poorly, they also have times they make breakthroughs and find another piece of the awesome things God has done.

Even in the most foundational science of all, physics, the situation right now is that most of matter and energy are not yet understood -- we actaully only understand about 5% of the matter and energy in the Universe, and the other 95% is still very mysterious, and the subject of a huge amount of speculative ideas. Perhaps in time more will be figured out on that, but it's perfectly correct to understand that science has only figured out some modest portion of how nature works so far, even in the basic fundamental parts of nature. How much more so is understanding imperfect in complex systems like reliably forecasting the weather somewhere 2 weeks in advance (in reality those forecasts are very hit and miss).

 

[Queller]

My opening point for this discussion is that both science and religious faith have subjective and objective elements, and therefore the currently popular opinion that science is objective and religion subjective is an error.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary on each word:

subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 1 John 4 - 1 and 2.

Does this quote instruct us to use our subjective feelings to establish the source of a spirit?

Yes

Regarding subjectivity and it's influence on science - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach

Relationship between subjective and objective in religion - Distinctions that Make a Difference: Objective Religion/ Subjective Religion

Are creationists whose beliefs stand in contradiction to mainstream science being entirely subjective to do so?

It depends on what rationale those beliefs are based.

Are evolutionists whose beliefs are consistent with mainstream science being entirely objective, or not?

No human being is entirely objective. I like the words on Dr. Todd Wood on the matter.

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

...

There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."

He is objective in noting that there is evidence for evolution but acknowledges he rejects that evidence because of his subjective beliefs about the Bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

My opening point for this discussion is that both science and religious faith have subjective and objective elements, and therefore the currently popular opinion that science is objective and religion subjective is an error.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary on each word:

subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 1 John 4 - 1 and 2.

Does this quote instruct us to use our subjective feelings to establish the source of a spirit?

Regarding subjectivity and it's influence on science - Subjectivity and Objectivity in Science: An Educational Approach

Relationship between subjective and objective in religion - Distinctions that Make a Difference: Objective Religion/ Subjective Religion

Are creationists whose beliefs stand in contradiction to mainstream science being entirely subjective to do so?

Are evolutionists whose beliefs are consistent with mainstream science being entirely objective, or not?

Those who don't believe the Holy Spirit influences believers in our time today of course consider those who testify to the same as going by subjective feelings, and seriously doubt it is anything other than that. Many of us who have experienced the Holy Spirit's direction, however, testify that it was pretty darn objective.

As to your closing two questions, were Spinoza and Einstein being subjective when they both observed the physical world around them and via reason and logic concluded that the odds of everything happening purely by chance simply didn't compute. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but because he observed and reasoned and applied logic instead of feelings, he could see a strong argument for some kind of intelligent design being involved. Should such logic and reason be judged as subjective? It isn't to me.

Likewise, those who study the scientific evidence for evolution--and I believe such evidence exists--are not being at all subjective in their conclusions. But those who carry it further than the scientific evidence and extrapolate it into a universe created and developed by pure happenstance, are doing so subjectively and basing their conclusion on nothing other than what they want to believe.

 

[Queller]

My point in quoting the instruction to "test the spirits" is that we are not told to rely on personal feelings, tastes and opinions, nor does it rely on the individual's mind for existence. That is the dictionary's definition of "subjective", and these verses do not refer to it.

I would like to add that I agree with you about the tendency to add meaning, or mistake their personal perspective on a verse for the verse itself.

"testing the spirits" doesn't rely on personal feelings, tastes, opinions, or the individuals mind? It seems to me that there is no way to avoid those things when dealing with the supernatural.

 

[Queller]

Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

from the link....

"The common belief is that there are two kinds of knowledge: subjective and objective. The latter is held to be more certain than the former, and is usually contrasted with it. However, the distinction is ultimately untenable. Objective knowledge is actually derived from subjective knowledge. This is because of the absolute privacy of conscious experience, which ensures that there can be no composite or collective view of reality. So every so-called ‘objective fact’ is derivative – that is, it is derived from the private observations of individuals insofar as they seem to agree with each other."

By this logic, 1+1=2 is a subjective viewpoint.

 

[Tone]

Our more general situation I think for all human beings is that we cannot entirely remove the subjective from our presentations of what we think is objective.

And when we explore this philosophical concept too deeply, we may experience vertigo when we see that they (subjective/objective)are one.

deep stuff that is immediately useful right now in life, for us, to apply in our lives here and now in terms of how we are relating to God (example: in our attitude in prayer, or a dozen other ways). If we listened.

This is where we should reside...in the existential balance of relationship.