Objective Subjective Worldview

[Job 33:6]

With a time machine?

Welcome to the unfortunate subjective nature of religious faith.

In physics, qualities of reality, evidentially have continued through time. Gravity has been around since before we could even observe it. And here it is, still today, for us to observe.

But this is not the case for many concepts in scripture.

Hence why a Hindu might not come to the same conclusion. He is unable to pull out a ruler to measure the division of the red Sea.

He can read about it. But he has no means of corroborating the information with physical reality.

 

[RC Tent]

Facts of science such as if the planet is round, are indisputable.

That is a measurement, it is a shape and can be measured. Measurements of things that exist in the now are objective yes.

That does not mean that other claims made in the name of science are as reliable as a simple measurement.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is a measurement, it is a shape and can be measured. Measurements of things that exist in the now are objective yes.

That does not mean that other claims made in the name of science are as reliable as a simple measurement.

You would be surprised how much we know, based on physical measurement of physically real things.

Plate tectonics for example. It flies in the face of young earth creationism, and we can measure it. And we can measure rates at which plates move and rates at which they can move by the nature of how they exist.

But young earthers typically ignore measurements of physical reality, and substitute said measurements with subjective and imaginary ideas.

 

[RC Tent]

I feel closer to God in those moments, oftentimes so much so that I am moved to tears. That isn't something I can demonstrate to someone else,

People can see a person crying.

To put it another way, if the Hindu in my previous comment were to walk into a church he could immediately tell, without being told, the Holy Spirit was present. Can he do that?

You would have to ask them about it, I don't think we can speak for a hypothetical person.

Can a person understand science without being taught how to understand it?

 

[Tone]

would say intellect and logic are poor indicators of objectivity. Logic itself is a subjective method of analyzing the world as you know it.

The philosophical concept of subjective vs objective is itself a "subjective method of analyzing the world as you know it" too...right?

 

[Job 33:6]

And if you would like, I would be perfectly happy to give examples of physical measurements that we have, that demonstrate concepts such as plate tectonics as the means of mountain building (contrary to a global flood). Which is denied by young earthers and substituted with imaginary ideas, separated from and contrary to measurements of physical reality.

 

[RC Tent]

You would be surprised how much we know, based on physical measurement of physically real things.

You might be surprised how much I already do know.

I am very open minded about freedom of belief - I am not a convinced young earth creationist.

Measurements are not all there is in science - albeit they are objective.

 

[Tone]

How do we know that our methods (which are imagination based) aren't creating what we perceive as reality?

Isn't the concept of subjective vs objective a form of measurement?

Observer-expectancy effect - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

You might be surprised how much I already do know.

I am very open minded about freedom of belief - I am not a convinced young earth creationist.

Measurements are not all there is in science - albeit they are objective.

In regards to this topic on evolution and young earth creationism...

Young earthers are substituting physical measurements with imagined ideas that run contrary to the physical measurements.

And it is those imagined ideas, that I would consider subjective, as they run contrary to the subject measurements.

But their ideas are a product of their personal religious beliefs. Which are subjective in absence of corroborating measurements in physical reality.

 

[Kaon]

The philosophical concept of subjective vs objective is itself a "subjective method of analyzing the world as you know it" too...right?

That is right.

This is all assuming one doesn't know the Truth, which is an absolute.

 

[Foxfyre]

How can something experienced by one person and one person alone, be called objective? Can you give an example?

Where do you get the idea that Einstein arrived at his views on Spinoza's God on observation, reason, and applied logic?

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive"

Neither of these quotes sound like someone who has arrived at this conclusion by logic and reason. They sound more like a subjective belief than an objective one.

Do you find many of the latter who claim that belief on objective grounds?

The definition of objective is a conclusion or judgment based on evidence and facts rather than personal feelings or opinions. So what a person actually experiences and accurately identifies is 100% objective. it does not have to be a group experience to be objective.

I know what Einstein believed on the subject because I have studied what he has written and what he has said. He describes a conclusion based on observed evidence analyzed via logic and reason. That is what makes his opinion objective. To conclude that he couldn't have done that objectively, however, would be a subjective opinion.

 

[Tone]

That is right.

This is all assuming one doesn't know the Truth, which is an absolute.

Yeah, but we don't know absolutely.

 

[Queller]

Your existence is objective. Your philosophy determines the nomenclature (gods or virtues), and processes (evolution or Creation, for example) that describe your existence.

My existence is objective. My "philosophy" is almost completely subjective.

I am not really worried about the philosophical idea, I just put up as a reference. Where objective truth seems to fail, faith must come in. That goes for religion and academia. But, perception is also subjective, so in reality faith is more important than what one would call objective truth (carnal, human). Psychological abusers use this fact to exploit people who love them - since love is illogical.

I would say intellect and logic are poor indicators of objectivity.

What would you suggest should be the alternative?

Logic itself is a subjective method of analyzing the world as you know it.

No, it isn't. It's as an objective method as we have of analyzing the world as we have for the most part agreed that is.

Intellect is derivative, and most certainly subjective. The majority of the world is a prisoner of logic, which is why they are always surprised when illogical things happen.

I would say that the only illogical things that happen in the world are things that humans have a hand in.

Nature, while random and chaotic at times, follows a logical progression.

Resurrection is illogical, for example. But, it is part of The Truth Himself.

Any miracle is illogical when seen as part of the natural world. That's why we have a different word for it: supernatural.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thus it was identified as philosophy

Religion.

not science,

No kidding. That's what people said. Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitted, under oath that ID is a science in the sense that astrology is a science. Here's the testimony, with Behe being "A":

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
From transcript of Kitzmiller vs Dover

but the Dover trial was not a scientific experiment was it?

Some of it. For example, a typo in the creationist, er, Intelligent Design textbook showed that it was a creationist book in which someone had edited out "creationist" everywhere it occured, and inserted "design proponent" in its place but the typo:
"cdesign proponentsists"
left no doubt about the intended deception.

It was a legal dispute.

Which confirmed ID as a religious doctrine.

 

[Kaon]

Yeah, but we don't know absolutely.

We all have a kernel of the Truth in all of us - it is part of what makes us seek immortality (or longevity), but it isn't all.

Absolute truth can only be ignored, or accepted. We use logic as a crutch for our inability to accept things we know to be true, but have no proof of.

It is similar to the reason why "skeptics" go ghost hunting. They know a kernel of the truth, but they use logic in the form of instrumentation and academia in order to have a psychologically comfortable boundary to refine their thinking - lest their entire mind and world be turned upside down.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

The guy who invented ID called it a "train wreck." So no point in denying it.

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

It might be O.K. as a religion, but since its proponents wanted it to be presented as science, that was the way it "train wrecked" in Phillip Johnson's description.

 

[Kaon]

My existence is objective. My "philosophy" is almost completely subjective.

What would you suggest should be the alternative?

No, it isn't. It's as an objective method as we have of analyzing the world as we have for the most part agreed that is.

I would say that the only illogical things that happen in the world are things that humans have a hand in.

Nature, while random and chaotic at times, follows a logical progression.

Any miracle is illogical when seen as part of the natural world. That's why we have a different word for it: supernatural.

Logic is subjective: the bounds of logic change according to the ages, and human thinking. Logic isn't objective except that people take logic as an intrinsic part of natural man - but it is not intrinsic.

 

[Queller]

I am not asking about scientists disputing things among themselves - I am talking about people disputing the scientific consensus.

You basic layman does not have the knowledge required to judge whether the scientific consensus on a subject is objective or not. If they did, we wouldn't have such huge numbers of climate changes deniers, anti-vaxxers, and moon landing hoaxers.

I mean, if your doctor tells you that you have cancer and need chemo or radiation treatment immediately, do you ignore him and eat a lot of bell peppers instead?

If the beliefs of a person who is not in touch with the Holy Ghost prove that knowledge from the Holy Ghost is subjective, then surely the non-acceptance of scientific knowledge by Young Earth Creationists is proof that the science is not objective?

Not at all. They don't reject the evidence based on scientific knowledge. They reject it because they have made a faith-based decision to do so. The largest creationist organization is the country (if not the world) acknowledges it right on their website in their Statement of Faith:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

They have made a decision to work without subjectivity. Not to mention they require anyone that works for them to sign away their objectivity as well.

If a religious group must be subjective because they do not have everyone convinced, then surely science is also subjective - unless the science has everyone convinced?

You keep asking/saying this in several different ways. No one but you is making this argument.

 

[Queller]

No, my personal feelings did not make those principles.

Really? The Holy Spirit didn't enter into you and guide you in those decisions?

 

[Queller]

By some definitions of the word "church" they are - there can be more than one definition of the word. I assume here that there is a legal definition in the USA that does apply - and that is a definition that is not down to personal feelings too.

Yes, mainly from the IRS.

By the not subjective set of principles that I am committed to living by they do not fit the description of a church that I posted earlier, what I feel is totally irrelevant to whether or not a local group of Christians are lead by the Holy Ghost - my feelings are not part of the process and not relevant to their status there.

Just what are these non-subjective principles that you are committed to living by?