Objectivity?

[Remus]

As a “fundy”, when it comes to objectivity, I use the Bible, as I believe that that is one of its main purposes. What do you use to give you objectivity when it comes to spiritual matters?

 

[troodon]

Erm, I don't think you quite understand what 'objectivity' means. To be objective is try and remove all prejudice and bias from your evaluation of evidence. To use something as a standard of objectivity is to be unobjective; an objective person will examine every claim and position individually, from all points of view, evaluating all pros and cons in the most empirical manner possible. When you start using something (such as the Bible) as a standard of objectivity (which I'm not even sure what that means) then you assume a bias towards that thing, thus losing any objectivity you might have had.

My objectivity in spiritual matters, as in all matters, comes from my consciousness. My consciousness allows me to be as objective as possible (no one can ever be perfectly objective) when examining evidence.

 

[Remus]

I see that my wording has failed me. Please allow me to reword it.

Since, as troodon pointed out, perfect objectivity is impossible, what would you use as an objective "check"?

 

[Vance]

Well, not to beat the horse further, the Bible would is a wonderful "check", but it is definitely not an objective check. The point of objectivity would be to not have any "checks", but to weigh everything without any any pulls or tugs.

But I think you mean objective in the sense of "outside yourself", and that is fine.

But really, I don't think perfect objectivity is either possible or even desirable. We need a non-objective standard by which we measure many of the things around us. For theological, moral and religious issues, the Bible is a crucial standard to use. Roman Catholics would add much else, and other Christians would say that the Truths taught in the Scripture are actually more important that the word for word Scripture itself.

As you, I personally use the Bible as my most important standard as well.

 

[gluadys]

While the bible is an essential check for Christians, we also have to remember that we have no purely objective way of checking out how we read and interpret the bible. That is why we get disagreement on the meaning and importance of a passage of scripture.

Overall, I find the Wesleyan quadrilateral to come the closest to an objective Christian standard. It recommends four checks:

1. the witness of scripture
2. the historical witness of the church
3. the current witness of trusted Christian leaders
4. the personal interior witness of the Holy Spirit

None of these on its own is a certain guide, for we can mistake another spirit for the Holy Spirit, and how does one choose leaders who are trustworthy? Furthermore, what if they disagree with each other? And sometimes all four together are not determinative.

But, as in science, when multiple lines of evidence point in the same direction, the probability that it is the right direction increases.

 

[adam149]

As a “fundy”, when it comes to objectivity, I use the Bible, as I believe that that is one of its main purposes. What do you use to give you objectivity when it comes to spiritual matters?

There is no objectivity. It is something completely impossible for humans to achieve. THere are only presuppositions and prior commitments which influence our interpretations of evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

I'd suggest there are degrees of objectivity. Accepting and obeying the plain assertions of inspired Scripture with the illuminating work of God's Spirit is the best way to understand the truth God seeks to impart.

When people come up with arguments that go along the lines

'Well that may be the plain meaning of the Bible, but that is not what God wants us to understand as truth. We know this because sources outside Scripture which are far more reliable - eg. test results and conclusions of an evolutionist studying chimpanze DNA - show us that the Bible is clearly wrong. Therefore the plain meaning is not the plain meaning. Plain as day...'

then we can be very sceptical of their objectivity. They are simply making Scripture fit their preconceived ideas. Of course no one on this forum would think of doing that because we all believe the plain teaching of Scriture.

 

[Vance]

I'd suggest there are degrees of objectivity. Accepting and obeying the plain assertions of inspired Scripture with the illuminating work of God's Spirit is the best way to understand the truth God seeks to impart.

When people come up with arguments that go along the lines

'Well that may be the plain meaning of the Bible, but that is not what God wants us to understand as truth. We know this because sources outside Scripture which are far more reliable - eg. test results and conclusions of an evolutionist studying chimpanze DNA - show us that the Bible is clearly wrong. Therefore the plain meaning is not the plain meaning. Plain as day...'

then we can be very sceptical of their objectivity. They are simply making Scripture fit their preconceived ideas. Of course no one on this forum would think of doing that because we all believe the plain teaching of Scriture.

Well, good thing nobody on these boards has said anything like your hypothetical quote! That would be a silly combination of things to say!

 

[Remus]

We need a non-objective standard by which we measure many of the things around us.

Can you explain this point? I can't think of a reason why we would want a non-objective standard.

1. the witness of scripture
2. the historical witness of the church
3. the current witness of trusted Christian leaders
4. the personal interior witness of the Holy Spirit

Are these equal or does one lend more weight than the others?

 

[Playerslight77]

h

 

[gluadys]

Are these equal or does one lend more weight than the others?

That is hard to say.

In theory the witness of scripture could be seen as primary. But there is still the question of how one understands the meaning of scripture. So the other three can be seen as checks on the proper interpretation of scripture.

From another perspective, since the witness of the Holy Spirit is a direct witness from God, it could be seen as primary with the other three as a check to verify the validity of what is necessarily a subjective experience.

And in the Catholic tradition at least, the witness of the church, both historical and contemporary, would likely be seen as primary, with the others as cross-checks.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

this is a real nice summary of the problem

the image is from: http://www.christianmind.org/chr/images/clouds2.gif

worth a few minutes to poke around the site, lots of nice well thought out images here.

 

[artybloke]

I tend to think of my spirituality as an emotional trait of mine. Since it is necessary to remove all emotional bias to make an objective decision, I would conclude that emotions and objectivity are contradictory. I, therefore, don't think it is possible to make objective spiritual decisions.

Surely emotions are also evidence? If you feel bad about something, then it might indicate that something is wrong; but of course emotions by themselves cannot be proof of the rightness or wrongness of an action. Nevertheless, they might be a starting point to a questions: why do I feel bad/good about this?

Like the rest of you, I don't think certainty's possible. Or desirable: fanaticism is certain.

 

[Vance]

What I mean by a non-objective standard is one which contains what we believe (by faith) to be the truth. This standard, by taking a position (or better "being" a position), can not be objective.

For determining those things which can be understood by sheer rational processes, objectivity should be strived for. But for those things which are matters of faith and belief alone, I don't see how there can be an objective standard that will guide us to the truth. I don't think, for example, you can "reason" your way to the correct religious belief.

 

[Remus]

That is hard to say.

In theory the witness of scripture could be seen as primary. But there is still the question of how one understands the meaning of scripture. So the other three can be seen as checks on the proper interpretation of scripture.

From another perspective, since the witness of the Holy Spirit is a direct witness from God, it could be seen as primary with the other three as a check to verify the validity of what is necessarily a subjective experience.

And in the Catholic tradition at least, the witness of the church, both historical and contemporary, would likely be seen as primary, with the others as cross-checks.

Let's try this a different way. What if the church leaders and the historical church had a teaching that clearly disagreed with the Bible and you were getting no indication from the Holy Spirit, which would you believe to be correct?

 

[Remus]

But for those things which are matters of faith and belief alone, I don't see how there can be an objective standard that will guide us to the truth. I don't think, for example, you can "reason" your way to the correct religious belief.

How can one find the truth without an objective standard?

 

[Vance]

How can one find the truth without an objective standard?

You can find some kinds of truth, but other truths are accepted on faith, the evidence of things NOT seen.

The Bible itself would be an objective standard in the sense that it is outside yourself, but it is in no way objective in the overall sense. If you accept its message it is because you believe it.

As for your hypothetical, the first problem is determining whether the doctrine "clearly" disagrees with Scripture. But assuming that I, personally, concluded that the teaching of ANY human contradicted Scripture, I would go with what I believed Scripture said.

In short, I would never accept anything that I believe contradicted the Truths contained in Scripture.

 

[artybloke]

In short, I would never accept anything that I believe contradicted the Truths contained in Scripture.

Always supposing, as you say, that you could determine what they were: which is why we have the traditions of the church, the thinking of the contemporary church, our own reason and conscience to help us.

All of which - one would hope - are inspired and influenced by the Holy Spirit - but none of which are themselves infallible, because they too are also human organisations, as well as being Godly organisations at the same time.

Ah, the paradoxes of incarnational theology!

 

[gluadys]

Let's try this a different way. What if the church leaders and the historical church had a teaching that clearly disagreed with the Bible and you were getting no indication from the Holy Spirit, which would you believe to be correct?

I honestly don't know. I have never experienced that situation, so I can only cross that bridge when I get to it.

Probably I would suspend judgment until I did feel a clear leading of the Holy Spirit--either to follow scripture as I understand it, or to re-evaluate my interpretation of scripture.