Objective Subjective Worldview

[Queller]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[RC Tent]

"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.

By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

This is not how the individual feels, it is based on what the spirit says.

 

[RC Tent]

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

This is why churches are groups of Christians - because it is not one person and one alone, the Holy Spirit creates and maintains a group, not one.

 

[RC Tent]

Many of us who have experienced the Holy Spirit's direction, however, testify that it was pretty darn objective.

Yes, that unconditional love is the most objective thing I ever ran into. There is no prejudice there.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is why churches are groups of Christians - because it is not one person and one alone, the Holy Spirit creates and maintains a group, not one.

Dare I ask what that means with regards to Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus as our savior?

 

[RC Tent]

Dare I ask what that means with regards to Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus as our savior?

I was responding to a person who seemed to assume that all experiences of the Holy Ghost are uniquely the experience of an individual. They are not.

Why would you ask anything about people behind their backs? This section is Christians only.

 

[Queller]

By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

This is not how the individual feels, it is based on what the spirit says.

No, it isn't. It is based on an individual's response to what they believe the spirit says.

 

[Queller]

This is why churches are groups of Christians - because it is not one person and one alone, the Holy Spirit creates and maintains a group, not one.

But it is still not an objective experience. Unless of course, that you are claiming that a Hindu could walk into that church and immediately feel the same way.

Lots of groups are maintained without the Holy Spirit. Subjectively I would think that Westboro Baptist Church would be one. Objectively, I acknowledge that I could be wrong.

 

[Kaon]

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?

Philosophy itself is subjective, so any derivative of it - including sciences - are also subjective.

The only completely objective "belief" is the Truth.

 

[Queller]

Philosophy itself is subjective, so any derivative of it - including sciences - are also subjective.

The only completely objective "belief" is the Truth.

To which "Truth" are you referring and why is that one the "Truth"?

 

[Kaon]

To which "Truth" are you referring and why is that one the "Truth"?

Well of course the (only) Truth is an actual Living entity called the Word of God. Even if we try to apply the idea of truth to philosophy, it fails at the axiom - which isn't a truth, but just an accepted object or idea.

 

[Queller]

Well of course the (only) Truth is an actual Living entity called the Word of God. Even if we try to apply the idea of truth to philosophy, it fails at the axiom - which isn't a truth, but just an accepted object or idea.

And how do you know that the Word of God is the Truth?

 

[RC Tent]

into that church and immediately feel the same way.

Feel? - the whole point here is that it is not down to feelings.

If universal acceptance is a requirement of objectivity then science fails to be objective on the same grounds - young earth creationists don't accept it, therefore it is not objective?

I repeat my point - this is a Christians only forum.

Lots of groups are maintained without the Holy Spirit.

I said the Holy Spirit maintains groups called churches - experiences of the Holy Ghost do not impact on just one individual based on their feelings.

I did not say every group in the world is maintained by the Holy Spirit or that every group that uses the word "church" in the organisational title is maintained by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RC Tent]

No, it isn't. It is based on an individual's response to what they believe the spirit says.

That is really not what the text says - the quote is in the OP.

 

[Kaon]

And how do you know that the Word of God is the Truth?

Because that is a radical kernel built into every living thing. Some people call it a fingerprint of Creation (philosophy).

I suspect you may mean how do I, intellectually and logically, know the Word of (the Most High) God is the truth?

 

[Job 33:6]

But it is still not an objective experience. Unless of course, that you are claiming that a Hindu could walk into that church and immediately feel the same way.

Lots of groups are maintained without the Holy Spirit. Subjectively I would think that Westboro Baptist Church would be one. Objectively, I acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Precisely

 

[Queller]

Feel? - the whole point here is that it is not down to feelings.

But that's exactly what it is, a feeling. When I go to church, and especially when we sing something like the Lord's Prayer, 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, and it isn't how everyone feels during that portion of the service but it is very real to me. That doesn't mean it isn't subjective though. In fact, it's very much an example of why it is subjective.

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?

If universal acceptance is a requirement of objectivity then science fails to be objective on the same grounds - young earth creationists don't accept it, therefore it is not objective?

No, universal acceptance is not a requirement of objectivity. But to bring the discussion back to evolution for a moment, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and other scientists can agree on the evidence for evolution is fairly convincing evidence that said evidence is objective from a religious point of view.

I repeat my point - this is a Christians only forum.

And I'm a Christian discussing the topic of thread with you. What's the problem?

I said the Holy Spirit maintains groups called churches - experiences of the Holy Ghost do not impact on just one individual based on their feelings.

I did not say every group in the world is maintained by the Holy Spirit or that every group that uses the word "church" in the organisational title is maintained by the Holy Spirit.

But Westboro calls themselves a church. Your implication that they are not (and I would tend to agree) is based on your subjective understanding of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Queller]

That is really not what the text says - the quote is in the OP.

Thta's exactly what the text in the OP says. If you test the "spirits" (supernatural) do you think everyone else is going to receive the same answers as you if they also test the spirits? Why else would some people believe false prophets and not others?

 

[RC Tent]

Thta's exactly what the text in the OP says. If you test the "spirits" (supernatural) do you think everyone else is going to receive the same answers as you if they also test the spirits? Why else would some people believe false prophets and not others?

If any others get the same response or hear it simultaneously to me, then it is not just the feelings of one person - it is something a group of people are aware of. I absolutely expect that I can ask a fellow believe to check on spiritual things with and for me, that is exactly what the cited text tells us to do.

There are ways to check for false prophets that do not depend on personal feelings - many listed in the Bible. People cannot be expected to control what others do with their free will, it is not necessarily subjectivity that leads to being mislead by false prophets - a lack of knowledge or experience can lead to someone doing that, that is ignorance not subjectivity.

 

[RC Tent]

But Westboro calls themselves a church. Your implication that they are not (and I would tend to agree) is based on your subjective understanding of the Holy Spirit.

No, it is not, it is based on applying the principles to which I have made a conscious and rational commitment - it is not based only or even predominantly on how I feel and as an individual.