Objective Subjective Worldview

[Queller]

Established religions do possess consensus. They cannot use scientific method because they are not a study of the physical realm. It is not logical to use the method of one subject on another subject, which seeks to explore a different aspect of reality.

But we are talking about the natural world, not the supernatural one. The supernatural realm is unable to be tested by objective measures.

What makes science not objective is the fact that it can only explore one aspect of reality, and it cannot do that without the physically non-existent aspect that is the human minds that conduct it.

The problem is there is no objective/empirical evidence that any other reality exists.

It does contain some objectivity. As I said in the OP - my position is that both science and religion contain subjective and objective aspects.

But you haven't given any examples of situations of religion that are objective.

 

[Queller]

People can see a person crying.

But the reason for the tears is something intrinsic to me. They can't objectively tell the reason for the tears. Am I happy? Am I sad? Did I bang my knee standing up?

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

That's a cop out. If something is so prevalent that a non-believer can see it, you should be able to describe what it looks like.

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

Can a person drive a car without being able to build one? A person can understand enough about a car to utilize it without understanding the fluid dynamics of a torque converter.

 

[Queller]

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.

No, it isn't. What a person experiences can be either objective or subjective depending on the experience. A person standing in the rain can absolutely experience 100% objectivity that they are getting wet. Internal experiences don't work that way.

it does not have to be a group experience to be objective.

No it doesn't and I've never made that argument.

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.

Where does he do that. Everything I've seen about his beliefs on religion don't support that conclusion, as I showed above. Can you give some examples.

That is what makes his opinion objective. To conclude that he couldn't have done that objectively, however, would be a subjective opinion.

I'm not saying he couldn't have. I'm saying the writings that I've read (as I noted above) don't support that conclusion.

 

[Queller]

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.

This sums it up fairly well for me:

"Logic is objective in its absolute form, hence mathematics and its ability to model physics, however subjective logic is merely an ATTEMPT to produce structural equivalence with the objective structure of reality, hence our ability to be wrong about what is mathematically true, although something like 2+2=4 will always be an a priori truth which could never be false, as it follows deductively from the definitions involved.

Mathematics as we articulate it linguistically is subjective, but the structure it uses isn’t merely subjective - it is subjective structure which correlates consistently with objective structure, and therein lies its predictive power."~Matt Acutt

 

[Kaon]

This sums it up fairly well for me:

"Logic is objective in its absolute form, hence mathematics and its ability to model physics, however subjective logic is merely an ATTEMPT to produce structural equivalence with the objective structure of reality, hence our ability to be wrong about what is mathematically true, although something like 2+2=4 will always be an a priori truth which could never be false, as it follows deductively from the definitions involved.

Mathematics as we articulate it linguistically is subjective, but the structure it uses isn’t merely subjective - it is subjective structure which correlates consistently with objective structure, and therein lies its predictive power."~Matt Acutt

Nice quote. Logic is, by definition, subjective. The boundaries of logic are determined by humans - who are at best subjective instruments of analysis.

Mathematics is axiomatic - meaning we take certain things as "truths" without having proven then. Then, we build on those "truths," and we eventually make rings, fields, structures and operations. The entire process is subjective - from the way mathematical operations are represented, to the way the structure of mathematics works to produce results. 1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom; it isn't necessarily TRUTH. We take it as truth so that we can move past the philosophical question of "What is '1'?" We have to do that in math in order to move on with mainstream work, otherwise you get stuck on proving something that takes decades - building axiomatic complexes to support your assertion for what you reason is the truth about "1".

There is no part of logic that is objective, categorically because the instruments of analysis are subjective sources of analysis at best.


When there is Truth, there is no need for logic or faith. But, logic is not objective; there is just a worldly parroting of "be logical" for fear of being illogical, and facing public ridicule for stepping out of the boundaries of the logical status quo.

 

[Queller]

Nice quote. Logic is, by definition, subjective.

Can you point me to a dictionary definition that says that?

The boundaries of logic are determined by humans - who are at best subjective instruments of analysis.

Mathematics is axiomatic - meaning we take certain things as "truths" without having proven then. Then, we build on those "truths," and we eventually make rings, fields, structures and operations. The entire process is subjective - from the way mathematical operations are represented, to the way the structure of mathematics works to produce results. 1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom; it isn't necessarily TRUTH.

Can you give an example where 1+1=2 isn't truth?

We take it as truth so that we can move past the philosophical question of "What is '1'?"

We don't have to philosophically define "1" when we can objectively define it.

We have to do that in math in order to move on with mainstream work, otherwise you get stuck on proving something that takes decades - building axiomatic complexes to support your assertion for what you reason is the truth about "1".

There is no part of logic that is objective, categorically because the instruments of analysis are subjective sources of analysis at best.

When there is Truth, there is no need for logic or faith. But, logic is not objective; there is just a worldly parroting of "be logical" for fear of being illogical, and facing public ridicule for stepping out of the boundaries of the logical status quo.

What defines "Truth" is just as subjective as anything else.

 

[Kaon]

Can you point me to a dictionary definition that says that?

Can you give an example where 1+1=2 isn't truth?

We don't have to philosophically define "1" when we can objectively define it.

What defines "Truth" is just as subjective as anything else.

What type of entity determines what logic is - an entity with purely objective intentions, or an entity that feigns objectivity, but has neither the capacity nor finesse to be completely objective?

As far as truth, Truth is an absolute, which is why there is no such thing as "my truth," or "your truth"; there is just the Truth - specifically He is a living entity.

 

[Queller]

What type of entity determines what logic is - an entity with purely objective intentions, or an entity that feigns objectivity, but has neither the capacity nor finesse to be completely objective?

As far as truth, Truth is an absolute, which is why there is no such thing as "my truth," or "your truth"; there is just the Truth - specifically He is a living entity.

Prove it - objectively.

 

[Kaon]

Prove it - objectively.

Prove what - Objectively?

I think you are missing the point of everything I have said. So, let me reiterate:

1. Since humans are imperfect, subjective entities, it follows that every system made and developed by humans would be at least partly subjective. This includes the heralded mathematics and logic.

2. The Truth is an absolute: one can only accept it, or deny it. But, ignorance of the truth is true degeneracy.

3. Logic is a subjective creation of human intellect. There is no such thing as intrinsic logic, and there is no such thing as objectivity in logic for humans.

4. There is only one Truth: the Word of God Himself. You want me to prove The Truth?

 

[Queller]

Prove what - Objectively?

That "there is just the Truth - specifically He is a living entity."

I think you are missing the point of everything I have said. So, let me reiterate:

1. Since humans are imperfect, subjective entities, it follows that every system made and developed by humans would be at least partly subjective. This includes the heralded mathematics and logic.

I'm not denying that. Some systems are far more objective than others however.

2. The Truth is an absolute: one can only accept it, or deny it. But, ignorance of the truth is true degeneracy.

This is what you can't give objective/empirical evidence for.

Note that I'm not saying it isn't true, just that you can't demonstrate it objectively.

3. Logic is a subjective creation of human intellect. There is no such thing as intrinsic logic, and there is no such thing as objectivity in logic for humans.

4. There is only one Truth: the Word of God Himself. You want me to prove The Truth?

Yes - objectively. Otherwise it is different for everyone. If something is different for everyone, then it can't objectively be Truth, can it?

 

[Kaon]

That "there is just the Truth - specifically He is a living entity."

I'm not denying that. Some systems are far more objective than others however.

This is what you can't give objective/empirical evidence for.

You are imprisoned by the boundaries of logic; there are more ways to prove something than "emperically" - at least as fleeting as it implies. Life, for example, is an example of proof of the Truth. I also remember saying in the absence of Truth, faith kicks in. This goes for all genres. Faith can also be a qualifier for Truth - maybe not for mainstream, though.

Note that I'm not saying it isn't true, just that you can't demonstrate it objectively.

Objectivity with humans is impossible.

Yes - objectively. Otherwise it is different for everyone. If something is different for everyone, then it can't objectively be Truth, can it?

Objectivity with humans is impossible. There is only the Truth (limited, for now), and faith. That a large number of people think the same way, using the same rules is not proof of anything except for a consensus. At one point, the entire world made a consensual agreement to blaspheme before, and create abominations against the Most High God. I am sure it was "logical," and "empirically" sound to sacrifice your child for a better spring harvest when people did it. Today not so much, because humans are fickle creatures of subjective analysis - bounded by their own imaginations (i.e. logic).

This is why illogical people and events surprise those imprisoned by logic the most. The illogical shouldn't happen (in the way or time in which it does) to the logician in the same way a spiritual skeptic should never actually expect to see a real ghost for himself/herself. The psychology is the same.

 

[Queller]

You are imprisoned by the boundaries of logic; there are more ways to prove something than "emperically" - at least as fleeting as it implies. Life, for example, is an example of proof of the Truth.

How so?

I also remember saying in the absence of Truth, faith kicks in. This goes for all genres. Faith can also be a qualifier for Truth - maybe not for mainstream, though.

Objectivity with humans is impossible.

Objectivity with humans is impossible.

Complete objectivity maybe, but I'm not looking for complete objectivity. Just something that someone who disagrees with your faith position could agree with.

There is only the Truth (limited, for now), and faith. That a large number of people think the same way, using the same rules is not proof of anything except for a consensus.

I'm not looking for a consensus.

At one point, the entire world made a consensual agreement to blaspheme before, and create abominations against the Most High God.

When was that?

I am sure it was "logical," and "empirically" sound to sacrifice your child for a better spring harvest when people did it. Today not so much, because humans are fickle creatures of subjective analysis - bounded by their own imaginations (i.e. logic).

Or they objectively decided, based on empirical, repeatable evidence, that sacrificing a child does nothing one way or the other for the spring harvest.

This is why illogical people and events surprise those imprisoned by logic the most.

As I stated before, events are not illogical unless they are acted on by humans. Natural events are quite logical according to the laws of nature.

The illogical shouldn't happen (in the way or time in which it does) to the logician in the same way a spiritual skeptic should never actually expect to see a real ghost for himself/herself. The psychology is the same.

That doesn't follow. A true logician should know that anytime humans are involved the illogical is likely to happen. And by the "logic" you're using an agnostic or atheist can never find God.

 

[Kaon]

How so?

Complete objectivity maybe, but I'm not looking for complete objectivity. Just something that someone who disagrees with your faith position could agree with.

I'm not looking for a consensus.

When was that?

Or they objectively decided, based on empirical, repeatable evidence, that sacrificing a child does nothing one way or the other for the spring harvest.

As I stated before, events are not illogical unless they are acted on by humans. Natural events are quite logical according to the laws of nature.

That doesn't follow. A true logician should know that anytime humans are involved the illogical is likely to happen. And by the "logic" you're using an agnostic or atheist can never find God.

Ok.

 

[Queller]

Ok.

That's a pretty impressive way you have have shutting down discussion. I'm sure it goes a long way with the lurkers.

 

[Kaon]

That's a pretty impressive way you have have shutting down discussion. I'm sure it goes a long way with the lurkers.

The lurkers know when one party is cognizant enough to realize continual exchange would be more detrimental than profitable. I think the lurkers appreciate it.

They are more aware than you may know; transparency can be simplistic if you have the luxury of looking in on something.

 

[Queller]

The lurkers know when one party is cognizant enough to realize continual exchange would be more detrimental than profitable. I think the lurkers appreciate it.

They are more aware than you may know; transparency can be simplistic if you have the luxury of looking in on something.

I have no doubt they are quite aware. They are well aware of when one party makes repeated claims but when pressed to support those claims, refuses to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it isn't. What a person experiences can be either objective or subjective depending on the experience. A person standing in the rain can absolutely experience 100% objectivity that they are getting wet. Internal experiences don't work that way.

No it doesn't and I've never made that argument.

Where does he do that. Everything I've seen about his beliefs on religion don't support that conclusion, as I showed above. Can you give some examples.

I'm not saying he couldn't have. I'm saying the writings that I've read (as I noted above) don't support that conclusion.

We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose. Have a good one.

 

[Queller]

We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose. Have a good one.

Oh well. I cannot understand why some people on this thread refuse to back up their claims with evidence.

 

[RC Tent]

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

The Holy Spirit is the judge of that, not me.

People can decide to follow a set of principles, join a church, and live as if Christianity is true before the Holy Spirit has entered them. Doing so can work as a way to find out if the Holy Spirit will do as Christians claim, and enter them.

 

[RC Tent]

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.

I am already aware that what Young Earth Creationists claim includes the supernatural. Whatever mainstream science can demonstrate, they are not going to believe it because they are using a different framework for reality than you are. Science has no means of knowing if they are correct - because they include the supernatural - the only means of testing that are beyond the scope of science. You seem to regard the physical as the only absolute objective reality, this is a philosophical position, it is not demonstrable with science itself - it is actually an opinion. It is not an impossible opinion to understand, but it is nevertheless only your perspective on what science is.

What Young Earth Creationists regard as a supernatural phenomenon you regard as "imaginary" - they do not use that word to represent their own thinking, you are regarding it as that based on your own framework for perceiving reality.

Some people do not believe in any objective reality, including physical things.