Is religion inferior to logic ?

[ratiocinator]

But that's not agnosticism.

But that's not agnosticism.

Yes it is because I'm not claiming to know.

Actually, that's simply not true. Billions of people all over te world take the god-concept very seriously and consider it to be their truth.

They take various (often mutually contradictory) god claims seriously. That doesn't mean that they have a good reason to believe it as fact. If anybody actually does, one has to ask why they are keeping it so quiet.

And the reason they do it is because it functions as true for them in their lives.

You're presuming to speak for billions now, are you? To the extent they do, that is the "I don't care about truth, it works for me" position, which isn't a good reason to take it as a true proposition.

But that's very clearly not what most people are doing with the theist claim, and they all have evidence to support their choice

No. That was the point. People treat god claims differently. It's irrational.

And yet as an agnostic you have already accepted that you can't know the existence or nature of God.

No. I've said I don't currently know. There are two senses of agnostic - does not know or thinks it's impossible to know. I have never claimed the latter.

It would help if you could be bothered to read what I said and try to understand before posting a 'reply'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Name three groups of "religious agnostic atheists" that involve even 100 people. Or name three of them that post on RF.

Buddhists, Taoists, Unitarians, certain schools of Hindus, Jainists.

Name two non-theistic religions besides Buddhism. (And even Buddhism could be considered a theology.)

Broadly, it's not. There are many non-theistic schools of Buddhist thought, and Buddha explicitly says to reject theism. The vast majority of Buddhist are atheists.

And they're still only a very small fraction of the atheist population, which it itself only a fraction of the whole population. Because the huge majority of humans are theists.

Which is irrelevant.

So I'm not over-generalizing at all, as it turns out.

Yes you are.

Anyone can believe anything fo any reason they want to. Certainty is neither required nor expected.

Right. So you accept that what you said was false.

Faith is not belief, and belief is not faith. They share some common motives, but that does not make the the same things.

I didn't say faith and belief are the same thing. I explicitly defined faith as "belief despite a lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary". Faith is a sub-set of belief.

"Just"?

Such is life as a human being.

Yes, "just" wishful thinking is exactly what you described.

I think faith is more complicated than that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But that's not agnosticism.

That was in response to, "They have come to a provisional position that the case for god(s) has not been made, so there is no good reason to accept it." I agree. Unbelief in gods is atheism.

But that's not agnosticism.

This time, you were responding to, "We all live with the fact that there are true things that we don't know yet." And this time, you are wrong. "I don't know" and "I am agnostic on that" mean the same thing.

It's interesting that you choose to obsess over these definitions and argue with others about their sincerity in calling themselves agnostic. Don't forget to liberally season your posting with the words stupid and liar for maximal self-derogation. One can only guess what need such personally unflattering and counterproductive behavior serves in you, but it's not a difficult guess. I can only think of one possibility. Atheism offends you, and you feel a need to strike back at people who reject your way of thinking and what you consider precious.

Compare that to the demeanor of those you're in discussion with. They're emotionally even and self-confident. Why? Because your theism doesn't offend them. Your rejection of their way of thinking isn't taken personally. That's why one side of the discussion is so self-confident and the other so defensive - why only one side uses the word attack to describe debate. That's why only one side ever runs around with its hair on fire complaining about the other.

Actually, that's simply not true. Billions of people all over te world take the god-concept very seriously and consider it to be their truth.

He wrote, "That nobody to date has come up with a reason to take the various god-concepts seriously as true proposition is just a fact." I suspect that he wasn't talking about faith-based thinkers. The statement is correct in the critical thinking community.

And what is the critical thinker's in what faith-based thinkers call truth? Such people use the word to apply to any unfalsifiable, "not-even-wrong" idea that feels comfortable to them - the kinds of ideas you recommended critical thinkers take more interest in hearing about and trying to understand, but failed to give a reason why they should.

the reason they do it is because it functions as true for them in their lives.

Translation: The reason they do it is because they've never learned to be comfortable without a god belief, and they like to use words like true, logical, and reasonable to describe their faith-based thinking because the understand that other people respect those things, and so want to claim them and critical thought for themselves. It's like the creationists with their desire to appear to have science on their side and so learn to write words that they don't understand like thermodynamics and macroevolution in their apologetics.

But that's very clearly not what most people are doing with the theist claim, and they all have evidence to support their choice.

No, they don't, if support involves valid reasoning and not just any reverie connecting evidence to what one wants it to say. Critical thinkers recognize and reject all such thinking.

why are you even demnding to be convinced? It makes no sense.

No it doesn't make sense, but it's your idea, not the critical thinker's, who knows that you have no such thing.

 

[MikeF]

First, we don't actually know, in this case, that it is a 'placebo'.

Not to make a big deal about this, but yes, we can determine what is and is not a placebo with controlled studies.

Secondly, as animals born in ignorance, we are going to be "indoctrinated" one way or another by the people, places, and things that we are going to be living with for the rest of our lives.

We all decide to do as we will with the information that we've been given. There is no such thing as having total control or having total freedom from the control of others. Everyone plays the hand their dealt.

The family and the community the child is born into decide until the child becomes an adult and can decide for himself. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on everyone, but to varying degrees.

Some emotional dependency is inevitable for all of us.

Fair point, we have to start somewhere. How about we start with a placebo belief system that is dynamic, that can change and incorporate our ever expanding understanding of ourselves and the world we live in, and provides a tranquil and patient acceptance of the unknown and unknowable, that there will always be unanswered questions and that is ok. It can be a placebo belief system that focuses on the betterment of lives lived for all with no expectations of an after.

The future of humanity is in it's own hands. And it is a collective responsibility. The more "individuaized" and selfish we become, the more likely it is that we will not survive it.

This is the perennial problem. We want to be individuals and free to express and be ourselves as we see fit, yet certain things require collective agreement and surrendering certain rights or freedoms to attain goals only achievable through collective action. Every society struggles with this. Hopefully in our new dynamic placebo belief system we can strike just the right balance.

 

[MikeF]

"All that is imagined and non-existent" would include most sources of meaning that operate at the mass scale and make us feel part of something bigger than the self (ideologies, religions, etc.).

For example, humanism relies on a concept of Humanity as some kind of collective agent, rather than simply being individual animals with diverse values and interests that often are at odds with each other. A progressive view of history, be it utopian or melioristic, is the defining characteristic of humanistic belief systems.

The idea that atheism should simply be viewed as 'nothing' might be normatively desirable, but in a world shaped so much by theistic convention, is really just one part of a larger worldview that fulfils and individual's search for meaning and reflects the environment in which one exists.

As the current meanings (to/of life) you reference are spoon fed to most in childhood development, can we not try other conventions besides archaic legacy theistic conventions?

I would also point out that an abstract construct that is understood to be mutually created and agreed to by ourselves is a different kettle of fish than an abstract construct of an invented entity that has specific and unalterable demands and expectations on us yet is unchallengeable by definition. In the first case we have ourselves to hold to account and can make flexible changes as conditions change over time. In the latter case, if religiously adopted, we are stuck in a stagnating artificial reality that will only continue to diverge from the real one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, they don't, if support involves valid reasoning and not just any reverie connecting evidence to what one wants it to say. Critical thinkers recognize and reject all such thinking.

You just hide behind a materialist philosophy, and call it critical thinking.

 

[Augustus]

As the current meanings (to/of life) you reference are spoon fed to most in childhood development, can we not try other conventions besides archaic legacy theistic conventions?

We can and we do, but ultimately we need to construct artificial sources of meaning, and there will always be a plurality of these.
Some will produce good results, others will be harmful.

There is no meaningful difference between religious belief systems and irreligious ones, and many historic attempts to produce rational or scientific belief systems have been horrendously illiberal.

I would also point out that an abstract construct that is understood to be mutually created and agreed to by ourselves is a different kettle of fish than an abstract construct of an invented entity that has specific and unalterable demands and expectations on us yet is unchallengeable by definition. In the first case we have ourselves to hold to account and can make flexible changes as conditions change over time. In the latter case, if religiously adopted, we are stuck in a stagnating artificial reality that will only continue to diverge from the real one.

But we don't really see abstractions like that. If you see someone executed for blasphemy, you will probably feel a visceral anger at the injustice and disregard for human rights.

Once we create value systems and systems of meaning, we experience them as realities, not as conventions we are simply transactionally abiding by like the rules in a game of Monopoly. These influence all of our future judgements, and often blind us to reality. We didn't evolve to be truth seeking machines, but for survival and reproduction and often what suits us best in these regards is to be blind to reality. There is no escaping our genetic makeup to become rational animals.

Getting rid of religion doesn't bring us closer to reality, look at American politics if you want to see 2 artificial realities that only continue to diverge from each other based on events happening in real time.

In your opinion what would an ideology based on an unvarnished reality look like? I personally can't see how it would be particularly liberal or humanistic, as civilisation is dependent on fictions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You just hide behind a materialist philosophy

What do you suppose I'm hiding from? Believers? Their gods?

And what's a materialist philosophy to you? One that rejects faith-based belief? Materialism is one of four possible positions on the relationship of mind to matter. Materialism doesn't reject gods. It just asserts that everything that exists is physical including mind, which would be an epiphenomenon of brains. That is, matter can exist without minds, but minds only exist in matter.

Idealism postulates the reverse: mind is the primordial substance and is the source of the physical world, which is an epiphenomenon of thought, like a dreamscape. This is where the religionists come in. They like that idea and call that primordial mental substance God. For him, mind (God) can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without mind, which is made by thought. It's possible. Nobody can say it's not, just as nobody can say it's correct.

Here's a fuller treatment of that topic and my actual position, which is not materialist. I lean toward neutral monism for reasons given in the link, but it's just a hunch. I remain agnostic on the matter.

and call it critical thinking.

Do you resent seeing that phrase? Do you know what it means, what distinguishes such thought from other thought?

The majority of Abrahamic theists not only aren't critical thinkers, they've never learned what that is and might even think the term applies to them just because they form opinions. Most critical thinkers are humanists. They're not all atheists, but if they're not, in my experience, they've been polytheists or liberal, educated monotheists, most Jews or Christians. None of those types of people seem to be harmed by their religions. They aren't homophobic, atheophobic, misogynistic, or anti-intellectual, and they don't consider the behavior of others that doesn't impact them their concern.

Do you ever rebut comments you disagree with? Do you ever post a response that explains why the other guy's argument is incorrect in your estimation? Another poster claimed, "they all have evidence to support their choice" and I explained why that comment was incorrect. I gave a contradictory answer to his, by which I mean that we can't both be correct. If you think I'm incorrect, please explain how. If you can't do that, to what is your objection? An opinion you don't share but can't say why?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What do you suppose I'm hiding from?

You know the answer to that, somewhere deep in your mind..

This is where the religionists come in. They like that idea and call that primordial mental substance God. For him, mind (God) can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without mind, which is made by thought.

Not really .. it does not matter what generates what .. it is just an acknowledgment of the spiritual existence.

Do you resent seeing that phrase? Do you know what it means, what distinguishes such thought from other thought?

Not at all.
I just think you come across as arrogant, in assuming that believers are unable to think rationally, and logically.

Do you ever rebut comments you disagree with? Do you ever post a response that explains why the other guy's argument is incorrect in your estimation? Another poster claimed, "they all have evidence to support their choice" and I explained why that comment was incorrect. I gave a contradictory answer to his, by which I mean that we can't both be correct. If you think I'm incorrect, please explain how. If you can't do that, to what is your objection? An opinion you don't share but can't say why?

If you can't see why people believe what they believe .. other than because they have no intelligence,
then I would say that YOU are the one that is wrong.
People do indeed have valid reasons for their belief, and they are not all the same.
That is because there is so much evidence for G-d, it's overwhelming.

 

[Valjean]

But there is no "contrast" according to you. As atheism asserts nothing.

There is a contrast between feelers and thinkers; those promoting a magical, myth-based world and those pointing out that their reasoning (?) is unsound.

Theists believe what they believe just like anyone else. And they assert what they believe just like anyone else. All different kinds of belief, in fact. You're the one's constantly asserting nothing (or so you claim). Which makes no sense at all. If you believe nothing and have nothing to assert, why are you even debating them? After all, according to you, you have no basis upon which to debate. Or to even care.

Not "just like." The foundations and justifications differ quite a bit. Theists make positive, myth-based assertions about reality. Atheists do not. You're claiming not making unfounded assertions "makes no sense at all."

Atheists aren't the ones making ontological assertions. What we're doing, on platforms like RF, is questioning the reasoning of the theists.

"Why are we debating them?" Because we're in a chat room, on a debate forum.

Perhaps until you finally start getting honest about wat you actually believe, and are constantly asserting.

What is it I believe? Reason? Logic?

But there is only one kind of atheism. That is the adherence to the ideal that gods do not exist. Just as there is only one kind of theism: adherence to the ideal that God/gods exist. The ways these gods are conceptualized vary from person to person. But that's not theism. That's religion.

Now you're back to your straw man. You're misrepresenting the atheist position and you know it.

The ways these gods are conceptualized vary from person to person. But that's not theism. That's religion.

If it concerns gods, Θεοί, of any kind, it's theism.
Not so religion. Gods are not a prerequisite of religion.

 

[MikeF]

We can and we do, but ultimately we need to construct artificial sources of meaning, and there will always be a plurality of these.
Some will produce good results, others will be harmful.

There is no meaningful difference between religious belief systems and irreligious ones, and many historic attempts to produce rational or scientific belief systems have been horrendously illiberal.

And I disagree. Not that there were no horrendously illiberal non-religious belief systems. That there is no difference between religious and irreligious ones. One is indoctrinated as originating from us, the other from a fictional entity that cannot be challenged. That's an important difference.

But we don't really see abstractions like that. If you see someone executed for blasphemy, you will probably feel a visceral anger at the injustice and disregard for human rights.

I would, sure. A religious extremist probably wouldn’t.

What is the social contract of the American constitution but an experiment to wean away from religious belief systems holding sway in their change-resistant way, and create a belief system created by the people and for the people. We are in the midst of an evolving process that represents exactly what I am advocating.

Once we create value systems and systems of meaning, we experience them as realities, not as conventions we are simply transactionally abiding by like the rules in a game of Monopoly. These influence all of our future judgements, and often blind us to reality. We didn't evolve to be truth seeking machines, but for survival and reproduction and often what suits us best in these regards is to be blind to reality. There is no escaping our genetic makeup to become rational animals.

Reason can and does override instinct. Not flawlessly and not all the time, but we can take command of our raging emotions. And we do incorporate our value systems into transactional conventions. Does that not describe the whole legal justice system? We set our rules and enforce our rules and we hold each other accountable (imperfectly) in both compliance and application of justice.

We did evolve to become truth seeking machines, to observe the world around us and use that information to anticipate future events and to imagine preferred outcomes and use our experience to make those outcomes happen. We are the latest expression of what Homo sapiens has evolved into and that process will continue.

Getting rid of religion doesn't bring us closer to reality

Of course it does.

look at American politics if you want to see 2 artificial realities that only continue to diverge from each other based on events happening in real time.

Which side of that dichotomy treats reality as fake news? The fervently religious side. The side that cannot adapt its belief system to keep pace with our ever growing understanding of the world, but also, and importantly, ourselves.

In your opinion what would an ideology based on an unvarnished reality look like? I personally can't see how it would be particularly liberal or humanistic, as civilisation is dependent on fictions.

Again, you want to conflate useful abstract constructions like currency, business entities, sports and game rules as fictions equivalent to imaginary entities that are treated as objectively real and existent entities. Abstract conventions mutually agreed to are born from us, recognized as such, and accountable to us. That is an objectively real and a necessary part of an unvarnished ideology based in reality. Religious fictions are claimed to not be born from us but are eternal, make specific demands of us, and cannot be held to account. There is no appeal, no negotiation, no amendment. If you do not find those two cases starkly different, nor find one more preferable than the other, then so be it. But for me there is a clear choice and it is not the religious one.

 

[Bird123]

That's a safe assumption.

By accident, perhaps.

Belief means uncertainty, it's not truth. What do you mean by "proof"? Valid evidence? Facts?

Theists have many assumptions they never think twice about, so they might believe they have found a "truth" that they "seek", but it isn't a rational approach. Get rid of the religious assumptions and then you can seek truth.

Why assume a God exists? There's your bias that takes you off the path to truth.

Why assume God exists? If one assumes any idea doesn't exist, isn't one narrowing their view of all the possibilities. In doing so, one does not seek all knowledge or the entire picture.

You are right. One should always lead with the reason or rational approach. I have found no religion that understands God at all. Further, there is so much about religion that simply does not add up. I think you have Discovered the reason why. Further, religion does not seek. They claim to know it all. Nothing prevents Discovery more than that.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Valjean]

A reasonable person will recognize that when making assertions to others about what one believes to be true, they are expected to justify them. The agnostic theist can and will do so, logically, using the power and value of faith.

Power and value of faith?
Logic and faith seem incompatible. Faith has social power and value, but not epistemic power.

The agnostic atheist could the same, but almost never does, because he not only rejects theism, he also reject the value and power of faith. And so he rejects the very avenue that he could have used to defend being an atheist while also being agnostic.

But unfounded belief, faith, has no epistemic value, which is why we rely on objective facts and reason, instead.

And that leaves him with no defense at all. Which is why he has to then lie and pretend that he believes nothing. When that is very clearly and demonstrably not true.

We withhold belief in God/s. Lack of belief in unevidenced and unprovable things is reasonable.
Please clearly and demonstrably defend your belief in an invisible, undetectable, unfalsifiable entity.

 

[Bird123]

Hackneyed argument. Life develops and takes turns according to environment. That is how Castorocauda turned into humans over 165 million years.
Castorocauda - Wikipedia: Placental Mammal (1.1–1.8 lb), Middle to Late Jurassic, Inner Mongolia.
View attachment 76188

This is the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more. Fractals, Quantum entanglement, and Dimensions. God is so far ahead of us. We are ants. It all unfolds like a giant tree can grow from a small seed. The genius of God's creation is that the universe unfolds in such a way mankind will be able to figure it all out in time. God is hiding nothing. It all waits to be Discovered.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Valjean]

To you.

To reasonable people.

Yes, but they very rarely do. They think that trust without verification is foolishness. Even though they do so all the time

We're using 'faith' as more than just trust. We're using it in the epistemic sense of unfounded or poorly evidenced belief.

[How is faith the only avenue a person can use to defend being an atheist?] It's the only logically presentable avenue of justification if they claim agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, though you might be using it in the colloquial sense of 'unknown'.
How is unfounded belief logically justified? How does it evidence anything?

[How is it logical to defend a position based on faith?] It is the reasoned alternative to not knowing. We trust, we act on that trust, and we gain a positive outcome. Thus justifying our trusting without knowledge. Faith is based on the hope for a positive outcome, not on knowing it will result.

i would be curious to learn what they are.

Faith is not reasonable, and there's certainly no logic involved. Faith might be a comfortable 'alternative' to ignorance, but it's not a rational one.

Again, you're straw manning and misrepresenting our usage of 'faith'. This is a discussion of ontology, and we're using the term in a technical, epistemic, evidentiary sense. You're using it in the sense of trust, as in hopefulness, or your 'faith' that your mates will meet you in the pub after work. This is a colloquial, everyday usage, not a technical one appropriate for a technical discussion.

 

[Valjean]

They are choosing to trust and act in hope of the positive outcome. That is quite logical when knowledge of the outcome is not available to us.

For everyday purposes, trust is fine, but logical? Logic is a formal system of validity assessment, it's a system of reasoning.

If the atheist is also agnostic, then he has already agreed that he cannot gain the truth.

So he falls back on the logical default: lack of opinion, lack of belief.

So your whole "we love the truth" argument flies out the window. Leaving you with either faith as justification for your constant assertion that no one else's belief in God is valid, or with no justification at all.

No. Validity is determined by logic, not by unfounded belief.

 

[F1fan]

But that's not agnosticism.

But that's not agnosticism.

You like your fuzzy definitions to suit your beliefs.

Actually, that's simply not true. Billions of people all over te world take the god-concept very seriously and consider it to be their truth. And the reason they do it is because it functions as true for them in their lives.

Who cares how people learn to behave in their social experiences? It's observed that children in most global cultures are taught the religion of their society, and the children adopt that behavior. No one coms to a reasoned conclusion that a God exists. There were once hundreds of thousands of KKK members, so they must have been onto something true as well? White supremacists like their attitudes that target minorities, so we should accept them?

Do you think at all about what you're posting?

Yes, and your posts indicate you suffer from an unwillingness to see anyone's views that aren't religious.

But that's very clearly not what most people are doing with the theist claim, and they all have evidence to support their choice.

If theists all over the world and all through time had an amazingly similar set of experiences and beliefs That would suggest they are all tapped into something genuine and real. But we don;t see this ata ll. We see a hugely diverse set of beliefs, rituals, and attitudes. And the social sciences explain why humans evolved the way they did, and why religion served a huge advantage for early humans. Why do modern people believe in old religious ideas? Not because it is knowledge that is fact-based, but due to social and personal reasons.

While all you have is, "I'm not convinced".

Well I'm not. Do you prefer I lie? It's the problem theist have to deal with when they engage with critical thinkers. You have two options: either avoid debate, or bring actual evidence for your claims and beliefs to debate. The religious status quo is not only unconvincing to atheists, but to theists of other religions.

And yet as an agnostic you have already accepted that you can't know the existence or nature of God.

The lack of facts is the problem, no one can know anything without facts. Thus we are all agnostic.

So why are you even demnding to be convinced? It makes no sense.

That is the natural response to anyone who claims truth about something. Christians aren't convinced Hindus have the truth. So this isn;t just an atheist versus theist dispute, it is all over the many believers of the many religions. Look at how protesants aren't convinced Catholics are "real Christians".

Why assume God exists? If one assumes any idea doesn't exist, isn't one narrowing their view of all the possibilities. In doing so, one does not seek all knowledge or the entire picture.

You didn't explain why anyone would assume a God exists.

But sure, maybe the Tooth Fairy does exist and we are missing out.

There is no reason to assume any gods exist, and believers offer no reason why they do. It's certainly not rational.

You are right. One should always lead with the reason or rational approach. I have found no religion that understands God at all.

Not a shock since there are no facts about any of the many gods. Don't confuse the descriptions of gods as evidence of them existing. So no theist can really claim to understand a God. If they do, they can't offer any factual basis, so we throw it out.

Further, there is so much about religion that simply does not add up. I think you have Discovered the reason why. Further, religion does not seek. They claim to know it all. Nothing prevents Discovery more than that.

It's quite evident that religions don't add up to critical thinkers. It takes little brain power to observe inconsistencies and suspicious claims. My own doubt emerged at around 7 or 8 as I watched my Catholic and Baptist cousins conflict on religious holidays. If they were going to set differences aside I figure it would be over holidays, but they split the family. It was bad enough that a young kid could see something wrong going on. These memories were the basis of me doubting religion later in life. I never could reconcile the lofty claims of salvation and love to seeing my family divide over dogma that promoted those ideals.

 

[Valjean]

Since it is your explicit intent to engage in a serious discussion, I would be very interested in your intellectually honest answer as to what your working assumption is or has been regarding where I might fall on the theism vs non-belief divide.

I'm undecided. You're something of a conundrum. You do seem to question all sides, and your questions are generally reasonable, but I haven't quite pigeonholed you yet.

 

[Valjean]

But that's not agnosticism.

But that's not agnosticism.

Sorry, in which sense are you using 'atheism'? Could you clarify?

Actually, that's simply not true. Billions of people all over te world take the god-concept very seriously and consider it to be their truth. And the reason they do it is because it functions as true for them in their lives.

But isn't this just an ad pop?
"Their truth?" As opposed to a universal truth? "Function,? "true for them in their lives?" Are we talking about utility, or ontology?

But that's very clearly not what most people are doing with the theist claim, and they all have evidence to support their choice. While all you have is, "I'm not convinced". And yet as an agnostic you have already accepted that you can't know the existence or nature of God. So why are you even demnding to be convinced? It makes no sense.

How are you defining "evidence?" They might have feelings, sincere belief, or utility, but these are not empirical evidence.
"I'm not convinced" seems a reasonable stance, given a lack of objective evidence, and inasmuch as no positive claim is being made, there is no burden on Ratiocinator.

Faith is not belief, and belief is not faith. They share some common motives, but that does not make the the same things.

Faith is belief, in the sense being used by your interlocutors, as unsubstantiated belief.

 

[Valjean]

I enjoyed this comment. A placebo can have an objective, measurable effect.

Subtle...