Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could you give an example of objective truth being known through pure reason?

Could you give me an example of "pure reason" uninformed by "external reality"?

 

[firedragon]

For something to be an objective truth, explained in the most simple and best way, in my opinion, means that something has to be true regardless of whether or not we (humans) were here or not.

That's one type of an explanation. But there are some objective truths that can only be true if we are here. For example, "we are here". That's an objective truth, but if we are not here it is not true. But I get what you are saying.

So if we looked at the universe from the outside as a fly on the wall kind of way. It would still be objectively true that a specific mountain on Earth would be taller than the rest. But it would not be an objective truth that killing is always morally wrong, meaning that there is no right or wrong answer to this.

"Killing is not always wrong" maybe an objective truth. Nevertheless, having no answer to some dilemma does not make a category.

And I would agree with religious people, that without God there is no foundation for true objective morality. Some atheists, like Sam Harris will try to make it sound as if we collectively agreed that something is wrong, that it would give a foundation for objective morality, but that is simply not true, it is still subjective, and often when atheists that support this idea has to make their argument, they do it by adding obscurity to it. So for instance, saying that it is objectively wrong to torture and poke out the eyes of a baby for fun or something like that. This is simply a way to try to strawman the argument, making those that do not agree with them seem "insane" if they disagree, and if they do they just keep adding more and more obscure things to it. But none of that has any bearing on whether or not something is subjective or objective. Objective morality, just like objective truth, requires that something is true regardless of whether we are here or not, and there is something against which to judge it. The height of a mountain could be measured with a scale, where 10 is higher than 1, meaning that a mountain with a height of 10 is objectively higher than one with a height of 1.

Sam Harrises argument is fundamentally flawed. At the time he wrote that book, he was an anti religious polemicist and it is very well known in our circles that he is not philosophically trained. He is speaking about relativism, and generalising it to the whole which is only attainable by making it an outcome, not a finding, which will need tyranny to implement. No one takes that seriously. But atheists who are much more astute in philosophy like Michael Ruse who has a Phd, and is probably the top authority in philosophy of biology says that we become "aware" of objective morality because we all have a moral sense. It's inevitable.

And this baby thought experiment is not a strawman? How is that a strawman? This is an analogy taken by atheists all the time to explain objective morality. It's pretty common. I don't see what that is a strawman. It's to show that humans have an objective morality. It's not an argument for theism. What happens is a lot of polemicists immediately associate objective morality to theism. It's like a reflex. So by default they try to deny all discussions as something irrelevant. It's absurd to think this has anything to do with God or theism. Bottomline is, no one should ruin an intellectual thought path just to deny someone else's epistemology or where they place their source of morality. For something to be objective or subjective, the source does not matter. What exists in us is what matters. That's what the famous atheist philosopher and science guru argues.

Likewise, if God is the creator of everything including morality, it would be against him morality that is measured. And if God says that killing is wrong, then killing is objectively wrong.

But as an atheist and not believing in God(s), I see nothing in the Universe that would be a moral judge of whether killing is right or wrong, except for humans, which means that it is subjective and therefore no foundation for objective morality.

The problem is moral philosophy in modern times with internet polemicists being so big time on YouTube etc, we have gotten into this rut of being either for God or not for God in every discussion. Especially morality because these internet debaters and speakers on famous channels are utilising morality as their tool to catch fish. This is how they get their audience. This is a strawman argument to moral philosophy because it is not necessarily a God argument.

Atheists who argue for objective morality don't argue for God. That would be an oxymoron. So being obsessed with God is not sensible. Say the word "conspiracy" to someone in a deep conversation and choke up at this point. Pretend you cant say the next word because words are not coming out. The other person will complete it for you. It's "theory". This is a normal, reflexive reaction. It's due to top of mind awareness due to hearing it repeatedly. Astute philosophers don't work that way. They work on their own trying their best to be "objective"

There probably is, in which case I would assume that they are solipsist, and I don't really see any point in discussing anything with them, because it is honestly pointless. Not meant in, as I don't like them, but I think their arguments are literally pointless.

Not at all. Most of them are either realists or pragmatists from the traditional United States school of thought. But I guess it depends on where they come from. Outside of the U.S, in modern times this type of discourse is scarce outside of the U.S because that's where the biggest market is.

Sure, I don't disagree with that. But again, can only speak for myself, and to me, there is a huge difference as explained above.

Thank you so much for your contribution. It's highly appreciated. Provokes a lot of thoughts and I suppose that's the whole aim.

 

[Alien826]

I don't think confirmation bias if of big issue since one can always research for arguments which go against proposed thesis.
Also one who is really devoted into constructing strong arguments will make sure to account for arguments which could be used against his thesis and then there is not much you can do to undermine proposition.

A grater issue with atheists than confirmation bias and debating religion is their stubborn belief that science is the holly grail to knowledge, but we know for certain (and even scientists confirm that) that science neither seeks nor can have an answer to everything, yet atheists regardless of that fact hold science as the only method.

Imagine expecting a car mechanic to do all the work with just one tool ex. a hammer, while in fact car mechanic has many tools on it's shelf, depending on task he will use appropriate tool.

Likewise it doesn't make any sense to use science for everything but rather we should use the right tool depending on problem that is to be solved.

I agree that some atheists can be very inflexible in their rejection of everything relating to religion, That's one reason why I no longer label my self as "atheist", though I find it difficult to decide what to replace it with.

I think a better version of the "mechanic" analogy would be where the mechanic just thinks about what is wrong with the car based on what typically fits the symptoms then proceeds with the repair based on his conclusions. "Oops, I replaced the entire engine and it still won't start! Er sorry about the huge bill. I'll have another think and try again." An experienced mechanic is likely right using that method a lot of the time, but I'd still prefer it if he checked the actual car before proceeding.

 

[firedragon]

Could you give an example of objective truth being known through pure reason? It seems to me that, outside math and pure logic, everything is provisional until it is tested by examining external reality.

I would rather not separate reason with math and logic. It's strange to even hear that really.

Logic and math are developed using reason, even as a realist. And you reason using reason with logic and math. They are hand in hand.

Anyway to give an answer to your question about an example of objective truth being known through pure reason, let me give you two.

1. Analytical truths.
2. Mathematical truths.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

The map is not the territory. - Alfred Korzybski

Bloody excellent.

 

[firedragon]

Could you offer some examples?

Read this very thread from the beginning. It will not take long to find what you ask for.

I will never give examples of people in this forum naming them directly. Though it's a common question and people can dismiss an OP based on that.

 

[Augustus]

Qualia does not mean there is no objective truths which is a usual thought experiment or example taken to explain this in philosophy. An orange, when cut up and you make a juice out of it, several different people will have subjective experiences. One might think it's too sweet, the other that it's sour etc. But that does not mean the orange is round or that it's an orange, or that it's a fruit or that it's orange in colour. Though you may have subjective experiences, there is an objective truth

You seem to be conflating 2 different things here.

The orange itself, its mass, chemical composition, etc. are natural kinds. These are part of the natural world, and exist regardless of the thoughts, actions, behaviours or experiences of humans. These are truly objective.

That it is taxonomically a fruit, or is orange (in the sense of perceived colour, not light refraction) are not as they depend on human perception, not to mention the taste experienced and whether it is enjoyable. These all have a degree of subjectivity.

This is what you did in the other thread you redirected me from where you compared evolution (a natural kind) with the aesthetic qualities of language. The argument was that because evolution can exist without humans knowing/agreeing/understanding, then so can judgements of aesthetic merit, or judgements on imitability.

But evolution would exist regardless of humans understanding it , witnessing it or having language to explain it.

On the other hand, aesthetic judgements on the features of language and composition are entirely dependent on human experience. In fact, all features of any linguistic construct is entirely dependent on human experience.

At a basic level if we can't understand the language it's just noise/squiggles on a page. Stylistically imitating a text in a language we understand may be difficult, stylistically imitating a text in a language no one understands is an exercise in penmanship. A message written in a forgotten and impenetrable language no longer exists.

How we describe the language: nouns, verbs, etc. are artificial categories. Stylistic features like metaphor or synecdoche only exist once we give them meaning. If everyone forgot what a metaphor was, metaphors would no longer exist. Word meanings are fluid, so texts also change in meaning over time, even if they stay the same. Only human experience matters.

While we can say that "run" is objectively a verb, the concept of verbs is subjective (dependent on the mind for existence).

Mellifluence of a language is also subjective experience. There may be some objective neurological reasons why some sounds are preferred to others, but our formative experiences will also impact our preference for one sound over another. Also a forgotten language has no sound at all.

Why do you think we should view the human experience of language as being comparable to an objective natural kind such as evolution?

 

[firedragon]

You seem to be conflating 2 different things here.

The orange itself, its mass, chemical composition, etc. are natural kinds. These are part of the natural world, and exist regardless of the thoughts, actions, behaviours or experiences of humans. These are truly objective.

That it is taxonomically a fruit, or is orange (in the sense of perceived colour, not light refraction) are not as they depend on human perception, not to mention the taste experienced and whether it is enjoyable. These all have a degree of subjectivity.

This is what you did in the other thread you redirected me from where you compared evolution (a natural kind) with the aesthetic qualities of language. The argument was that because evolution can exist without humans knowing/agreeing/understanding, then so can judgements of aesthetic merit, or judgements on imitability.

But evolution would exist regardless of humans understanding it , witnessing it or having language to explain it.

On the other hand, aesthetic judgements on the features of language and composition are entirely dependent on human experience. In fact, all features of any linguistic construct is entirely dependent on human experience.

At a basic level if we can't understand the language it's just noise/squiggles on a page. Stylistically imitating a text in a language we understand may be difficult, stylistically imitating a text in a language no one understands is an exercise in penmanship. A message written in a forgotten and impenetrable language no longer exists.

How we describe the language: nouns, verbs, etc. are artificial categories. Stylistic features like metaphor or synecdoche only exist once we give them meaning. If everyone forgot what a metaphor was, metaphors would no longer exist. Word meanings are fluid, so texts also change in meaning over time, even if they stay the same. Only human experience matters.

While we can say that "run" is objectively a verb, the concept of verbs is subjective (dependent on the mind for existence).

Mellifluence of a language is also subjective experience. There may be some objective neurological reasons why some sounds are preferred to others, but our formative experiences will also impact our preference for one sound over another. Also a forgotten language has no sound at all.

Why do you think we should view the human experience of language as being comparable to an objective natural kind such as evolution?

I didn't speak of evolution in the OP. But do you think it's an objective truth or subjective since you brought it up.

Nevertheless, an orange is objectively an orange. The experience of the taste is subjective.

Hope you understand.

 

[PureX]

Its difficult for me to believe that an atheist would say that the value of the speed of light in vacuum is a subjective truth or that the conservation of mass-energy is a subjective truth.

But labeled properly, those things are 'observed facts'. Not "objective truth". "Objective truth" is an ideological designation, not an observed physical phenomenon.

Perhaps the discussions and debate is whether the moral claims being made by different faith and ideological viewpoints are objective truths or not.

Morality is a value assessment based on some ethical imperative. And all ethical imperatives are 'subjectively' held. Though I suppose it might be argued that some are "objectively determined". (Example: 'it is better to exist than not to exist'.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science does not necessarily work with objective truths but will endeavour within inductive truths,

Idealy, science works with abductive reasoning generating falsifiable theorems which invite intersubjectively verifiable testing.

 

[paradox]

I think a better version of the "mechanic" analogy would be where the mechanic just thinks about what is wrong with the car based on what typically fits the symptoms then proceeds with the repair based on his conclusions. "Oops, I replaced the entire engine and it still won't start! Er sorry about the huge bill. I'll have another think and try again." An experienced mechanic is likely right using that method a lot of the time, but I'd still prefer it if he checked the actual car before proceeding.

OK, your analogy fits into your previous post where you gave an example of science gone wrong and was then "fixed" later...

Could you give an example of objective truth being known through pure reason? It seems to me that, outside math and pure logic, everything is provisional until it is tested by examining external reality.

If that's so then there is no such thing as objective truth, simply because we must wait for future times when science will get better to understand better, but then also when we come to that point we must further wait until science becomes yet again better to be able to explain things, and so on and so forth there is no end to perfect science.
Therefore conclusion is that science is not useful to *know* objective truth.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't speak of evolution in the OP. But do you think it's an objective truth or subjective since you brought it up.

Nevertheless, an orange is objectively an orange. The experience of the taste is subjective.

Hope you understand.

I was pointing out your OP is based on a misunderstanding that you have made in multiple threads. That was the example.

Yes, of course some process of evolution objectively occurs, and would continue to occur even if all humans died.

I'd guess all atheists here believe natural kinds such as this objectively exist.

But you keep mixing up things that exist independently of human experience and things that only exist due to human experience.

Which is why you are misreprenting the views of most atheists.

 

[firedragon]

Idealy, science works with abductive reasoning generating falsifiable theorems which invite intersubjectively verifiable testing.

But it does not work with objective truths Jayhawker. The method is induction, and reasoning with abduction. It does not work with objective truths, but one could, and I think should endeavour to find objective truths like Einstein says. But science does not achieve objective truths by definition. Science will work with inductive truths which means it is a finding based on an inductive method which makes it a possibility that tomorrow another inductive project changes the paradigm of the previous finding. So there is always room for change. Objective truths are not like that. I have explained in the OP.

Let me give a famous example or thought experiment. Put your hand out in the open outside of your home. Do you feel a gush of wind due to motion? No. The wind direction changes. That means the earth is stationary, but the wind is based on the flood tide etc etc etc. So that's someones induction. Today that science has completely changed. So the scientific finding that day, is no more valid. That's not objective truth.

That is what I was speaking of. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

I was pointing out your OP is based on a misunderstanding that you have made in multiple threads. That was the example.

Irrelevant Augustus. The OP explains the discussion.

But you keep mixing up things that exist independently of human experience and things that only exist due to human experience.

Could you give me an example of this mix up?

 

[firedragon]

Which is why you are misreprenting the views of most atheists.

I am not speaking about "most atheists" and you see that in the OP. I think the first paragraph itself if I can remember right.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Idealy, science works with abductive reasoning generating falsifiable theorems which invite intersubjectively verifiable testing.

But it does not work with objective truths Jayhawker.

I clearly do not understand the point you're seeking to make. Abductive reasoning (IBE) leads to a falsifiable theorem which validated through intersubjectively verifiable testing.

Perhaps the following will help me understand. Is the statement "vaccination can markedly reduces COVID-19 adverse outcomes" an objective truth?

 

[Nimos]

"Killing is not always wrong" maybe an objective truth. Nevertheless, having no answer to some dilemma does not make a category.

Not sure what you mean by that, can you elaborate?

Sam Harrises argument is fundamentally flawed.

I understand what he is trying to say, that he is talking about a moral foundation, rather than objective morality, but for some reason seems or seemed to not really want to call it subjective, not sure if he still holds that position.

And this baby thought experiment is not a strawman? How is that a strawman? This is an analogy taken by atheists all the time to explain objective morality. It's pretty common. I don't see what that is a strawman. It's to show that humans have an objective morality.

It is a strawman in that sense, that they try to make it sound like people who don't support objective morality, have the view that there is nothing wrong with hurting babies. But, that is not really an argument, because we have historical evidence that humans did in fact hurt children and adults alike under the assumption that it was for the greater good and that this is not an isolated case, but more or less from different cultures across the world. So if it is objectively morally wrong, then why did they do it? Not many years ago, there was nothing morally wrong with hitting a child that one thought behaved inappropriately, for instance in Denmark there was nothing wrong with teachers hitting and punishing children and I assume it was the same in most countries and probably still applies to some even today. If anyone did that today in Denmark they would be considered to do something highly immoral and fired or potentially thrown in jail.

If this were considered objectively morally wrong, then that should have applied as a general rule throughout history, but it isn't. Morality changes over time and no higher power, besides a potential God, is going to hold anyone morally accountable for wrongdoings. It doesn't matter how vivid a description of an assault against a child you can come up with, it still doesn't provide any evidence of their being a moral truth, especially as history seems to tell another story.

Religious people will obviously use God as the foundation for moral objective truth, which is perfectly understandable as that is part of their belief system. I obviously disagree, as I do not see evidence for such being. But that is a completely different discussion. Atheists in support of objective moral truth, still have to demonstrate what these are measured against, what "agent" in the Universe decides that it is objectively wrong, even if they believe it is found within us.

Because clearly animals eat each other and don't seem morally burdened by it, we also eat meat and kill lots of animals and for the most part, it doesn't bother us either. So again, whether it's a child or an animal, doesn't matter, one still has to present a valid agent for this, and why some people seem to think that killing animals is wrong while others don't. If it was objectively right to kill animals, why do some then seem to think that it is wrong then?

And to me, the most logical answer to these questions is because it is not objective, but subjective.

It's absurd to think this has anything to do with God or theism. Bottomline is, no one should ruin an intellectual thought path just to deny someone else's epistemology or where they place their source of morality. For something to be objective or subjective, the source does not matter. What exists in us is what matters. That's what the famous atheist philosopher and science guru argues.

I'm not saying that it is about God or theism, only that God gives a foundation for objective morality, whereas Atheism doesn't. I do think that religious people supporting this, run into problems nonetheless just as atheists will, but that is beyond the point I'm making here.

For something to be objective, you are correct that the source doesn't matter. It is however not the case with subjective. It is kind of implied in the words.

Object and Subject

You can't talk about subjective without an agent, such as a human. It is from the agent's perspective. Whereas objective is from that of an object, meaning a non-agent.

It is from these different points of view you observe something as either being true or false.

Thank you so much for your contribution. It's highly appreciated. Provokes a lot of thoughts and I suppose that's the whole aim.

Sure no problem and likewise, like talking about morality its a very interesting subject I think.

 

[firedragon]

I clearly do not understand the point you're seeking to make. Abductive reasoning (IBE) leads to a falsifiable theorem which validated through intersubjectively verifiable testing.

Perhaps the following will help me understand. Is the statement "vaccination can markedly reduces COVID-19 adverse outcomes" an objective truth?

"vaccinations can markedly reduce adverse outcomes of COVID-19" is an objective truth. It's a statement. It being objectively true is not scientific, it's analytical. It's analytical based on an inductive truth.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Truth is subjective say some. Mostly atheists in this forum I hear this from. Not "most atheists" but "mostly atheists". It's not true. It's nuanced.

In studies of sociology or sociology of religion, one outcome taught as fact is that religious truths are subjective. For example, an Ethiopian Jesus is black. An American Jesus is white. Sometimes even God is white for an American, and vice versa. This is subjective truth. But that does not mean there are no objective truths. An American some time ago would have thought a mountain close by was the tallest mountain in the world. Maybe, an American who traveled the whole land at that time and explored every inch would have thought that's the whole world, and what ever the tallest mountain he found was the tallest mountain in the world. That's his truth. Subjective. Because the subjective truth of a Sherpa in the Himalaya's was his subjective truth. Today we know, the Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, and that's an objective fact. Where ever you travel in the universe, and even if you find a million taller mountains around the universe, the Everest will always be the tallest mountain on earth, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. The Sherpa were not necessarily "right" in finding an absolute truth about the Everest, but it's just that they have not met the Americans and both have not measured the other's mountain to exchange notes and decide which one is taller. Thus, in studies of sociological background, you don't call it an absolute truth because it's an inductive finding. That does not mean the Everest is not the tallest mountain on earth once you map it out.

Philosophers predominantly have favoured objective truth's although there were philosophers who proposed relative truths like Protagoras. Yet, generally philosophers believe that truth "What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it".

A child may not know who the mother is, but there is a mother somewhere, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. If it's proven via DNA analysis that woman A is the mother, it's objective fact, not relative. But from a child's perspective she may not be the mother. That's only perspective, but not an objective truth. This is a problem with those who claim that IF there is a God, his perspective is subjective as much as human perspective is subjective. It's not correct. It's false reasoning. When a child is born, and the child comes out of a mothers womb, she knows the child is hers but from a child's perspective it maybe completely different. That does not mean the mother's knowledge is also subjective. It's absurd, unless there is a problem in epistemology or epistemic biases.

Einstein said that no one would have been taken seriously who failed to acknowledge the quest for objective truth and knowledge as man's highest and eternal aim.

Qualia does not mean there is no objective truths which is a usual thought experiment or example taken to explain this in philosophy. An orange, when cut up and you make a juice out of it, several different people will have subjective experiences. One might think it's too sweet, the other that it's sour etc. But that does not mean the orange is round or that it's an orange, or that it's a fruit or that it's orange in colour. Though you may have subjective experiences, there is an objective truth. It's an axiom that analytical truths are true in any world or any universe. One cannot escape that fact, just because we may have some inductive truths that changed in time or because we have relative truths.

I put this in the science and religion section because science seem like something atheists value a lot. Science does not necessarily work with objective truths but will endeavour within inductive truths, though the ultimate aim is the find objective truths as an epistemic stance of the person. Like Einstein says above. Just because science is an inductive method, that does not mean there is no objective truths in this world. By observation people detected that the sun revolves around the earth, and other people detected that the earth revolves around the sun. This does not mean there is no objective fact. Either this or that is an objective truth. Or, there maybe another third option one would find one day which maybe an objective truth. The fact is, either this or that is true. Objectively.

In this discussion, I would like to hear how people think and make philosophical arguments about the topic.

Cheers.

I believe religious truth is relative.
Because teachings of religions are like medicine for spiritual problems as well as everyday worldy matters.
So, if today, a physician prescribes a medicine for a person with a specific illness, once the illness is cured, the medicine is no longer needed. If 10 years later that person have a new and different illness, the physician would prescribe another medicine. So, medicine is given "relative" to the conditions. Likewise religious teachings comes according to the conditions of a people. That same laws and ordinances may not be suitable for another people, in a different time, and location, since their conditions and problems are different. This means Religious Truth is not absolute Truth. It is relative Truth.

 

[firedragon]

I believe religious truth is relative.
Because teachings of religions are like medicine for spiritual problems as well as everyday worldy matters.
So, if today, a physician prescribes a medicine for a person with a specific illness, once the illness is cured, the medicine is no longer needed. If 10 years later that person have a new and different illness, the physician would prescribe another medicine. So, medicine is given "relative" to the conditions. Likewise religious teachings comes according to the conditions of a people. That same laws and ordinances may not be suitable for another people, in a different time, and location, since their conditions and problems are different. This means Religious Truth is not absolute Truth. It is relative Truth.

You are referring to the "hard problem". You are referring to experiential qualities, which is in the OP as the orange-thought-experiment. You are correct.

Only thing is calling it "religious truth" is a little dicy to me. It's too vague of a term to mix the word truth with. Because truth plays a big role in discussions of science, religion and even analytical philosophy. But I understand what you are saying totally and agree with you. It's actually a good experiment.