|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Stile writes:
It seems to me that many people would agree that mathematics is part of objective reality, yet is entirely non-empirical (i.e. cannot be tested by science).
All you have to do is think of one, single idea that is "collectively agreed to exist within objective reality" that cannot be tested by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Stile writes:
That all depends on what we mean by "collectively agreed".
However, neither idea is collectively agreed to exist within objective reality.
And that depends on what we actually mean by "objective". I was mainly making the point that, in trying to distinguish religion from science, we should be careful to avoid throwing out mathematics, which many scientists find of value. In terms of the thread title "Creation, Evolution, and faith", mathematics does not at all depend on faith.
Stile writes:
Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway.
I believe that the vast majority would agree that math is not "actually objective" and is more a set of objective regulations that forms from an initial set of subjective axioms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
How could two people (never mind "lots of people") have the same dream?
If lots of people have the same dream has that dream been "objectified" in your view? Straggler writes:
But what does "the same for everyone" even mean?
As a starting point I would suggest "the same for everyone"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
bluegenes writes:
Yes, I agree. That is "the same for everyone" can really only mean that people all agree, which is to say that they share their subjective judgements.
Shared subjectivity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
Well they can. However, when we talk of sharing dreams, we are saying that people discuss their dreams with one another. We are not suggesting that they have the same dream.
Why cannot people share experiences like dreams? Straggler writes:
Sure. But that only shows that we can agree on the public use of the word "red". It says nothing about whether we have the same experiences.
You and I can both commonly and independently identify the colour red (ignoring the unnecessary complication of shades and possible colour blindness for one moment). Straggler writes:
I have not suggested otherwise. However, your reasoning for this illustrates why I consider "objective" to refer to a shared subjectivity.
Thus "red" is objective despite the fact that our individual perceptions of red are wholly subjective and unavailable to each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
That isn't what "same" normally means.
But why can they not have the same dream in the same way that they can both consistently identify "red"? Straggler writes:
Actually, no, it doesn't. That it does is a commonly held hypothesis, but it is not something we can show. In particular, Berkeley's idealism suggests something very different. While most modern philosophy rejects idealism, it does not disprove it.
It tells us we are consistently talking about the same aspect of reality that exists external to our own minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
I did not think I was saying that.
Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively? Straggler writes:
Actually, ,no. I was simply pointing out that your conclusion claimed too much.
Oh Christ - Not another proof merchant. Straggler writes:
I have not been hinting at any hidden mystical meaning. I suggest you take me as saying what I actually said.
Are you saying that objective reality doesn't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
Well, excuse me. However, this particular ridiculous subthread began at Message 384 where you interjected a random (and in my opinion, inane) question.You seem to be doing your usual thing of randomly posting disagreement without actually taking a coherent position of your own. Presumably you disagreed with something that I said, but you have never clearly stated what was your objection.
Straggler writes:
What I was saying, before your interruption at Message 384, was that people were making objections to religion that would also apply to many other areas - I mentioned mathematics, but I could also have mentioned Shakespearean drama or rock music.I can only ask again - What are you saying here exactly? What exactly is your position? I was implicitly asking that people be a little more careful in their wording. I suspect that is not what you are asking about here. But since you have never clearly stated your position on whatever it is that you take to be at issue, it is not clear to me what you are asking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
We wouldn't.Any in what sense would we expect science and rock music to meet comparable criteria anyway? Similarly, we should not expect science and religion to meet comparable criteria. And that was my point. To say it differently, we should not criticize religion for not being science. It is, however, fair to criticize religion for making scientific claims based only on religious grounds. As I said, we should be careful with our criticisms.
Straggler writes:
I am wondering what the objection is. I have use the expression "shared subjectivity" before, though perhaps not at evcforum, and it did not seem to be controversial.
My objection is to what you seem to be saying here: Nwr writes: Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway. Straggler writes:
Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement.
I will ask (yet again) what exactly do you mean by this? Straggler writes:
No.
If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
Presumably, that would depend on one's concept of god.
Is the claim that god exists external to ones own mind a claim about objective reality? Straggler writes:
I see that you have not explained what ambiguity.My objection is to the ambiguity. Which you still have not rectified. Just about every word in our language is ambiguous. You might as well get used to a little ambiguity. I shall ignore your objection.
Straggler writes:
But what does that even mean?I still don't even know whether your position accepts or rejects the existence of objective reality. I disagree with Berkeley's idealism, if that is what you are asking.
Straggler writes:
No, that is not what I have been saying.In which case you once again appear to be making the inarguable and largely inane observation that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively. Incidently, you seem to be taking this way off topic for the thread.
Straggler writes:
See Message 401.
So what exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Rahvin writes:
I was not attempting to define "objective."
I think that's a poor way to define "objective." Rahvin writes:
No, it does not mean that at all. My explanation was about experience, not about opinion.
It means any claim of fact boils down to an appeal to popularity, ... Rahvin writes:
If you consider only those aspects of experience for which there is widespread agreement, then that pretty much guarantees that what is thereby considered will appear to be independent of the observer. That appearance of independence is thus an expected result of the methodology. It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions beyond that.
However, many of those experiences are the result of realities that appear to be independent of the observer. Rahvin writes:
"There is a building there" is not an experience. It is an interpretation of experience. My comment was about experience, not about interpretation.
We determine this by comparing our individual subjective experiences, but it's not simply a matter of "we all agree that there is a building here, therefore the building's existence is objective." Rahvin writes:
Taking pictures and going inside are some of the things we do that are part of our experiencing the world.
Disagreement that the building exists, for instance, does not stop us from taking pictures of it, or even going inside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
That is not the term I used, so I can't give you an example of that.Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared objectivity" or not? As for shared subjectivity, you ought to be able to come up with examples yourself. If not, then I suggest you reread Message 383.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Taq writes:
Yes, I have heard that term used, too. However, the Wikipedia entry seems to give it a more psychological connotation.
I have often seen "intersubjective" used in these cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Straggler writes:
All you would need is already there in Message 383.
You expect me to come up with examples of your position? Straggler writes:
You asked a YES/NO question. I answered "No". And then you call that "evasive and ambiguous."But in typically evasive and ambiguous fashion all you said to that was "No". I don't know what's bothering you. But you sure seem to like to conduct heresy trials against anyone who says something that disagrees with your own rigid orthodoxy. That's a great way of providing ammunition for those who say that atheism is a religion. Edited by nwr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Theodoric writes:
Thanks. Fixed in the original (bad cut and paste).
First of all I fixed your attribution for the quote. Theodoric writes:
That's Straggler's term (perhaps a typo), not mine.
Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared objectivity" or not? Theodoric writes:
The last line of Message 383 is of the form x = y. You and Straggler have zillions of examples of x. Take any one of them and use it as an example of y.
All he is asking for is for you to define your phrase. Either define it and give an example or withdraw it and STFU.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024