Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation

[firedragon]

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

Lets say we have no answer for something. "Why is the sky blue"? Assume we don't know the answer. That does not mean the truth of it falls into a category, like relative or absolute.

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.

I think you didn't really grasp what I said. But this is a side point about someone else so just leave it.

It is a strawman in that sense, that you try to make it sound like people who don't support objective morality, have the view that there is nothing wrong with hurting babies.

Not at all. That's absolutely wrong to understand it that way. No philosopher in history that I know of have ever made that kind of argument. Please go back to my post and read it once more. And of course you can ask me later if I have not written it clearly.

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.

They have explained it. I have said how in the post you are replying to.

I'm not saying that it is about God or theism, only that God gives a foundation for objective morality, whereas Atheism doesn't.

This is nothing about theism or atheism.

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

Let me again cut and paste an atheist philosophers quote, directly, verbatim so that you could understand the atheist perspective better.

"What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it"

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

It is the most famous subject these days. It's a recent phenomena among all of us. But philosophers have been talking about it since we could trace history of philosophy.

 

[Alien826]

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

A man has had his head in a bucket since birth. He attempts to solve the great questions that have plagued philosophers through the ages.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A greater issue with atheists than confirmation bias and debating religion is their stubborn belief that science is the holy 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.

Empiricism is the only path to truth, if by truth one means ideas that are demonstrably correct and which can be used to accurately anticipate outcomes. Faith-based systems don't generate truth as defined here. Thus, there is no such thing as religious or spiritual truth. If a problem can't be solved empirically, if a question can't be answered using evidence, it can't be answered at all. If you think about it, you'll realize that you have no knowledge about reality that doesn't come from consulting it (empiricism).

Faith is not a path to truth, and anything believed that is not demonstrably true is believed by faith. That's a world of guesses untethered to reality, untestable, and not useful for anything. Compare astrology, which is faith-based, and astronomy, which is an empirical science. The latter can generate no truths, nor any idea that can be used to accurately anticipate outcomes. Time and again, horoscopes fail to predict life arcs or an individual's character. But astronomy keeps making accurate predictions such as when the next eclipse will occur or where Pluto will be so that New Horizons could be at the same place at the same time to observe it.

That's what I mean by truth, and only empiricism can generate it. Nonoverlapping magesteria? No, there's only one magesterium, or one source of knowledge - empiricism. Man has only one teacher - reality. Faith adds no new knowledge.

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.

But you only have one tool - empiricism. The other thing, faith, isn't a tool for discerning what is true about reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Critical thinkers are inflexible when it comes to believing by faith, which is what religion brings to the marketplace of ideas. You can confidently reject "everything relating to religion." If you don't believe in a god or gods, you are an atheist to me. It is a term that the religious have tried to derogate for time immemorial, and unsurprisingly, since it had been made to mean immoral and outside of human decency, many want to avoid it now, just as the word religion has become a dirty word and many religious people call themselves spiritual but not religious when they're just as religious as those who call themselves religious.

Atheism is something to be proud of. It's a major achievement in all who accomplish it. It is transcendence from faith, skepticism for received "wisdom" being one of the greatest ideas humanity has ever conceived and the beginning of the escape from superstition that characterizes much of human history. Man's religious phase connects the time when he was first able to wonder in words until he got his answers. He began with gods and spirits, and eventually began casting them aside. This is most evident when one sees the march of science lead first to deism and then atheism. The first wave of scientists demonstrated a clockwork universe needing no deities to move the sun through the sky or electrons through a wire, and so the ruler god was retired and replaced with a builder god. Then, a second wave of scientists showed us how the universe could assemble itself without a builder god, and the notion went the way of phlogiston and the ether - an unneeded hypothesis.

I call myself atheist proudly, as you can probably tell from my posting. It's an intellectual achievement, not something to be concealed from those who have spent millennia marginalizing and demonizing atheism in defense of sterile, faith-based systems of thought.

That trend is going the other way now, now that atheists have a platform and a voice. Atheists are challenging theists as I just did, and atheism is becoming more socially acceptable. It was once social suicide. Now, it's seen not only as a tenable alternative, but also a reasonable position, especially when it means distancing oneself from these crazy religions trying to impose themselves on others and demeaning women and LGBTQ as well as atheism.

The latter is still OK. You can say whatever you want about unbelieves still, but you can't say the same things about most minorities. The book still says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" Change that to Jew or black: "They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." You can only say that about atheists today, but let's see if we can't change that. Wear your atheist badge proudly, and rebut atheophobic hate speech. It's not difficult, and it's the right thing to do.

 

[Augustus]

Could you give me an example of this mix up?

I just did. When you compared a natural kind, evolution, to the human perception of language, or when you said some atheists don't believe in objective truths by referring to subjective ideas and ignoring the large area of things they, almost universally, accept exist independently of human experience.

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.

It changes nothing of substance whatever phrase you use.

 

[firedragon]

I just did. When you compared a natural kind, evolution, to the human perception of language,

Please read the OP. This is not relevant.

It changes nothing of substance whatever phrase you use.

Err. OK.

 

[sun rise]

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

I would say that's a subjective ideal. Objectively science works both from theory to experiment and from finding experimental evidence and looking for a theory to explain them. That is notable in astrophysics and it's notable in the development of evolutionary biology from Darwin to today.

 

[Ella S.]

We can know whether things are metaphysically impossible (thus necessarily false). We can also know whether they are necessary under a certain set of axioms.

When we can agree on what's possible, we can provide statistical proofs for what is most likely. Of course, the likelihood of our claims change with new empirical data.

This is why science is more focused on demonstrating that certain hypotheses are impossible, due to contradicting the data, which we call falsification.

However, I would argue that justification (via likelihood) provides the best approximation of truth that we have at our disposal, what we call verisimilitude.

Both are objective analyses of a given dataset.

 

[sun rise]

Speaking to the OP, we have the "observer effect" where the process of observation disturbs that which is being observed. Is that subjective on the part of the observer or objective? I'm not sure.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

Science is the only reliable tool we have for discovering knowledge about reality.

You could say that fields like ethics, aesthetics, mathematics, semantics, theology, and so on can have true knowledge. I might agree with that, but with the caveat that they are only true in reference to axioms that have not been demonstrated to be in accordance with reality.

 

[firedragon]

Science is the only reliable tool we have for discovering knowledge about reality.

You could say that fields like ethics, aesthetics, mathematics, semantics, theology, and so on can have true knowledge. I might agree with that, but with the caveat that they are only true in reference to axioms that have not been demonstrated to be in accordance with reality.

Could you give me an axiom that have not been demonstrated to be in accordance with reality? I just want to see what you mean.

Thanks.

 

[PureX]

"vaccinations can markedly reduce adverse outcomes of COVID-19" is an objective truth.

No, it's not. It's a factual observation. Yourself, as well as others, here, keep confusing and conflating "objective truth" with observed facts. These are NOT the same. One is physical phenomena and the other is an ideological assessment of the observed phenomena.

 

[Ella S.]

Could you give me an axiom that have not been demonstrated to be in accordance with reality? I just want to see what you mean.

Thanks.

Negative numbers, decimals, fractions, imaginary numbers, infinity, etc. are all inventions of mathematics.

Likewise, the axiom in Reformed Epistemology that "God exists"

And the axiom in Utilitarianism that one "ought to maximize happiness"

The Renaissance beauty standards surrounding the Golden Mean

That a bachelor refers to an unmarried person, and that there are therefore no unmarried bachelors

And on and on. Axiology is very prevalent in almost every philosophical field outside of science.

 

[sayak83]

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

This confusing.
The statement " Speed of light in vacuum is constant" is either True or False. If it's true we can certainly ask if the statement is an objective truth or a subjective truth. That it is an observed fact makes it a true statement, but does not clarify what type of a true statement it is.

 

[paradox]

Science is the only reliable tool we have for discovering knowledge about reality.

Can science prove there are no other realities?

If by reality you mean "observable reality" then yes, science if effective to learn about observable reality.

 

[firedragon]

Negative numbers, decimals, fractions, imaginary numbers, infinity, etc. are all inventions of mathematics.

Likewise, the axiom in Reformed Epistemology that "God exists"

And the axiom in Utilitarianism that one "ought to maximize happiness"

The Renaissance beauty standards surrounding the Golden Mean

That a bachelor refers to an unmarried person, and that there are therefore no unmarried bachelors

And on and on. Axiology is very prevalent in almost every philosophical field outside of science.

Hmm. Thanks for giving me those examples. Now I understand what you mean.

In the world of philosophy, an axiom is something like the divided middle, truths, PSR, axioms in modal, deontic reasoning. But this kind of foundationalism came as a surprise because though a few people propagate that kind of epistemic stances, it is pretty much dead.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

 

[firedragon]

No, it's not. It's a factual observation. Yourself, as well as others, here, keep confusing and conflating "objective truth" with observed facts. These are NOT the same. One is physical phenomena and the other is an ideological assessment of the observed phenomena.

Are observable facts and objective truths opposite to each other? Are they mutually exclusive?

 

[paradox]

Empiricism is the only path to truth, if by truth one means ideas that are demonstrably correct and which can be used to accurately anticipate outcomes.

The truth you speak of is actually called "proof", but we are not talking about proofs here, rather about methods to come to objective truth.
If you reread my post you'll see that objective truth is either known or unknown, not being able to present proof doesn't make unknown objective truth false.

Faith is not a path to truth

Nobody said that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we are not talking about proofs here, rather about methods to come to objective truth.

I was talking about what truth is, and how it is determined. There is only one known method for determining what is true as I defined the word - demonstrably true (empiricism). If you think otherwise, perhaps you can describe a fact that has been determined by the only alternative to empiricism there is for coming to beliefs - faith. Either what ones believes is justified by evidence, or it is unjustified and believed by faith. All beliefs are one or the other, and none are both or neither.

Everything either of us considers to be the truth is derived from sufficient evidence or not. In my case, I don't consider the latter truth at all, and I have no faith-based beliefs of which I am aware. Furthermore, if I identified one that had crept in in the past before I learned critical thinking skills, which rejects believing such things, I would ask myself why I believe what I believe, and if I couldn't justify the belief, discard it.

So what's your method for coming to objective truth besides empiricism, and what truths have you gleaned using this other way of knowing. It might be instructive to see what you consider truth. I've given you my definition. Yours must be different.

not being able to present proof doesn't make unknown objective truth false.

I don't consider such beliefs to be truth or knowledge. They're faith-based beliefs, which are guesses, and since there are infinitely many more wrong guesses than correct ones, believing such ideas virtually guarantees a wrong belief. Your argument is like somebody claiming that his lottery picks are "truth," and criticizing those who doubt him with your comment - just because I can't give you any reason to believe I'm right doesn't make me wrong. I'd say it does, since, as I noted, there are orders of magnitude more ways to guess lottery numbers incorrectly than correctly.

Nobody said that.

I had written, "Faith is not a path to truth." I said that, and you implied it. Look at your comment immediately above this one. You don't need compelling evidence to believe, just the absence of a compelling evidence against. That's why you wrote that comment, and although I agree with it, I would never have a need to express it, since the disproven and unproven are dealt with the same way by the critical thinker - neither believed, one disbelieved.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Truth is subjective say some. I hear this from atheists mostly, in this forum. 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 "What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it". Even atheists.

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 lady A is the mother, it's an 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 comes out of the 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 not 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 have very rarely heard anyone claim that all truth is subjective, simply that moral truths are subjective. Of the tiny percentage that do take the stance that all true is subjective, I'd say they are just as likely to be theists as they are to be atheists.