balisongsong

why is objective evidence the only truth criteria for the existence of god since we dont apply this rigid standard for other areas of our lives?

SanDiegoAtheist

Enlighten me on these other areas where we DON'T use objective evidence as our primary truth criterion.

When I drive my car, I process objective evidence, delivered thru my eyes (and sometimes ears) to determine what is going on around me and make judgements on how best to navigate the roads.

I can't think of a single area of my life that is not primarily determined by my conclusions about what the objective evidence points to.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: SanDiegoAtheist ]</p>

Undercurrent

I reiterate SDA's request for an example of some other area of out lives where we fail to demand objective evidence. When I became an atheist, it was because I stopped making an epistemological exception for God, not because I started doing so.

m.

galiel

I tri-iterate the request for examples of consequential areas of our lives where we do not use objective evidence as the criteria for understanding.

I note that "objective evidence" is not used to claim "truth" nor "proof" of the nonexistence of any gods. Concepts such as "Absolute truth" or "proof of nonexistence" of something have no meaning in logical thinking. Objective evidence is simply the useful tool we use to give us consistent feedback about the state of the world and our interaction with it.

In other words, as long as your imaginary fella has no interaction with or effect on the universe, belief or non belief in his existence is irrelevant and inherently unprovable.

If you claim a god that interacts with the universe and produces measurable effects upon it, then those effects are subject to examination as objective evidence.

Objective evidence leads to the conclusion (on the order of a theory in the scientific sense, such as the theory of gravity) that there is no god.

Ruy Lopez

Yeah, you'll have to enumerate some of these other areas of our lives or else you have said nothing so far.

The poster is the third from the Philippines I know of, myself included. Please correct the spelling of Philippines. The monicker could mean, " song of a knife". It is not clear what the user means.

If I were to guess, he/she could be referring to love, likes and dislikes, loyalty; subjective things in nature. These, however, do not excuse anyone from being rational about "gods".

Ms. Siv

Interesting ... because its most often just the other way around.
People are rational and skeptical in all other walks of their life (in legal matters, when buying a car etc) but are perfectly happy to apply lousy standards in matters of theism and other superstitions.

- Sivakami.

Chip

There is no such thing as objective evidence. All information, all facts, science, observation, etc. can only be considered from within the brain or collection of organs we call the mind. This view point that everyone has is not directly in contact with any truth. The senses and the limitations of our own physical and energitic information processing renders never more than a subjective interpretation. In science, a theory or fact is claimed on the basis of a confidence factor. Drop an apple and you can predict it will fall but it is only a prediction based on observations that tells us it is highly probable that the apple will fall.

A claim that objective evidence is used to find proof for god is a claim to a logical falsehood. Now if the claim were that based on observations available to many, using sound deductive and inductive reasoning, we find that there is a god, I would say, "Please cite your sources."

Regards, Chip

Gravity

You claim that their exists no distinction between the subject and objective. I disagree and would like to demonstrate the difference.

First, the fundemental fulcrum of this difference is the observer. The method, the factor that generates the interpretable results, that the observer uses to determine his conclusion is the litmus test to distinguish between object- and subjectivity.

Both methods result in data that is interpreted by the observer and become incorporated into his or her perspective but only after the respective method has been used.

The crux of the difference lies in where the process takes place. An objective method is is independent of the observers mind. A subjective method relies on it.

For example:

The observer takes a measuring divice to measure a piece of timber. All the components of the measurement exist in reality and the result, say 4 meters is a product of components indepented of the observer(The timber, the measuring device, and the fact that 4 meters is the measurement.) No processing by the observer is needed for the data to be observed. Thus this is an example of objectivity.

The second example:

The observer tastes the newest item on a resturants menu. He or she determines that the item is undesirable. The mechanic for this determination is internal to the observer. The process for the determintaion depends upon the observer to make a value judgement before the data can actually be observed. Thus it is subjective.

Thus:

Objectivity is reality bound and data is not dependent on observer processing.

Subjectivity is observer bound and data relies on observer judgement.

Vesica

I do not know about the rest of you but I rely on subjective data all the time.

For example, everytime I interact with other humans. I infer what they are thinking/their motivations from observable actions and conclude that the like me or not. The observations could be argued as subjective but not the leap in logic I make about the thoughts in their heads.

Do I believe that somewhere deep in all these social rules and behavior norms I am using to judge/react to others that there is a shread of objectivity? Yes! But I don't see how that negates the wealth of subjective 'proof' I internalize everyday.

I think it makes more sense to deal with objectivity and subjectivity as a continum. Yes there are purely objective measures like playing with lumber (Gee let me tell you how often I do this....) but there are a lot of situations where it gets murky.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vesica ]</p>

Oxymoron

Everything that I will ever perceive in my life is processed in an internal model that my brain supports and my mind can to some extent manipulate. Let's not confuse the map with the territory: there is nothing objective in our experience of the world.

However: delete the concept of 'subjective' - it's not useful as everything is subjective anyway - and change 'objective' to 'testable', and you have a much more useful concept.