Creation, Evolution, and faith

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).

That all depends on what we mean by "collectively agreed". 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. Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway.

How could two people (never mind "lots of people") have the same dream? But what does "the same for everyone" even mean?

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.

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. 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. I have not suggested otherwise. However, your reasoning for this illustrates why I consider "objective" to refer to a shared subjectivity.

That isn't what "same" normally means. 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.

I did not think I was saying that. Actually, ,no. I was simply pointing out that your conclusion claimed too much. I have not been hinting at any hidden mystical meaning. I suggest you take me as saying what I actually said.

Well, excuse me. However, this particular ridiculous subthread began at Message 384 where you interjected a random (and in my opinion, inane) question.Presumably you disagreed with something that I said, but you have never clearly stated what was your objection. 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 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.

We wouldn't.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. 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. 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. No.

Presumably, that would depend on one's concept of god. I see that you have not explained what ambiguity.Just about every word in our language is ambiguous. You might as well get used to a little ambiguity. I shall ignore your objection. But what does that even mean?I disagree with Berkeley's idealism, if that is what you are asking. No, that is not what I have been saying.Incidently, you seem to be taking this way off topic for the thread. See Message 401.

I was not attempting to define "objective." No, it does not mean that at all. My explanation was about experience, not about opinion. 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. "There is a building there" is not an experience. It is an interpretation of experience. My comment was about experience, not about interpretation. Taking pictures and going inside are some of the things we do that are part of our experiencing the world.

That is not the term I used, so I can't give you an example of that.As for shared subjectivity, you ought to be able to come up with examples yourself. If not, then I suggest you reread Message 383.

Yes, I have heard that term used, too. However, the Wikipedia entry seems to give it a more psychological connotation.

All you would need is already there in Message 383. You asked a YES/NO question. I answered "No". And then you call that "evasive and ambiguous."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.

Thanks. Fixed in the original (bad cut and paste). That's Straggler's term (perhaps a typo), not mine. 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.