Reasonable Acknowledgements
by BradfordGordy Slack wrote What neo-creationists get right, an article in which he attempts to set aside his gut reactions and dispassionately assess some points made by the opposition. From the article:
First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble. While there is important work going on in the area of biogenesis, for instance, I think it's fair to say that science is still in the dark about this fundamental question. It's hard to draw conclusions about the significance of what we don't know. Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
Slack acknowledges that there is an element of faith connected with his views about life's origin. Believing in what is not empirically documented is not a phenomenon confined to one group of people.
Second, IDers also argue that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined 149 years ago when he published On the Origin of Species. There is much more explaining to do than those who came before us could have predicted. Sure, we also know a lot more about natural selection and evolution, including the horizontal transfer of portions of genomes from one species to another. But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon. Again, I have faith that science will complete that picture, but I suspect there will be some big surprises. Will one of them be that an intelligent being designed life? I doubt it. Even if someone found compelling evidence for a designer, for us materialists, it would just push the ultimate question down the road a bit. If a Smart One designed life, what is the material explanation for its existence?
This is also a helpful acknowledgement. There are philosophical differences among people sharing good intentions. Gordy Slack notes that he views issues through a materialistic lens.
The third noteworthy point IDers make has its roots, paradoxically, in a kind of psychological empiricism. Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.
Stuffing atheism down the throats of others is no more palatable than forcing religion down one's throat. As Joy has observed, dualing metaphysics does not win converts. Using neuroscience, as both a prop for materialism and a basis for denying spirituality, is a scientific non-starter.
Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they're right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn't know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They're still correct when they say evolution happens. But I'm afraid they're wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn't incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory's explanatory power.
Contrary to the Gone with the Wind meme, no side has cornered the market on ignorant zealots.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ha! An interesting read, Bradford. Especially that last one.
Not that I'm an expert on evolutionary biology, but I've really enjoyed bumping into atheists and self-proclaimed skeptics who are adamantly certain evolution (which, of course, I believe in) is correct, yet are unbelievably ignorant of the fundamentals. I still enjoy having it told to me that the cambrian explosion was a creationist myth.
Comment by nullasalus — June 22, 2008 @ 12:00 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
This is how I see it:
It's not just being reluctant to accept it, it's also that if this were to occur, the power of subjective experience would call the whole "objective" approach into serious question.
Anyway, Gordy Slack seems like a reasonable guy. Maybe someday he'll stumble across the DM.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 12:11 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 am
Gordy Slack wrote:
Gordy is right about this. I've met many people who accept evolution without understanding why it is correct, and who don't question it at all. I think this is a mistake, for all the same reasons I've been mentioning lately on this blog.
One small mitigating factor is that none of us has time to master all of science. In the areas we don't personally study, we have a choice of either remaining agnostic or of accepting the scientific consensus when it is strong, as it is for evolution. Thus it's not entirely irrational for someone to accept evolution without understanding it.
However, I would say that the basics of evolution, including the concepts that Gordy mentions (adaptive radiation, genetic drift, and natural selection) are easy enough to understand that no person who aspires to scientific literacy really has an excuse for not learning them.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 12:32 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Good topic Bradford. In particular I found the following passage from Slack's article to be quite interesting:
Personally I have a problem with people who try to introduce metaphysical faith into the natural sciences. The study of science should be approached from an objective, fair-minded empirical perspective. Skepticism and agnosticism are the kinds of things that should be welcome in science.
Faith is fine, but it belongs in theology, philosophy or religion.
Slack should be commended for at least being somewhat forth right and honest. However, he needs to take that honesty one step further and admit, starting with himself, that his "faith" is based first and foremost on a priori naturalistic assumptions. What reason do we have to believing that those assumptions are provable or true?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 22, 2008 @ 12:37 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
here is my favorite quote:
This was exactly my point on the last open thread. I'm glad to see someone on the other side understands the implications of the sensus divinitatis.
I think this could be an area of productive scientific research if we could just get past the assumption of atheism that has gripped science for the last century or so.
Here is the rest of the paragraph
Now you know why so many folks reject the interpretation of Darwinism put forth by Dawkins and co and why ID is not going away. It has nothing to do with lack of education or religious brainwashing.
In this case it's all about observed facts and which theory best explains them. ID explains the sensus divinitatis and Darwinism tries desperately to explain it away.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 7:48 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Fifth,
You're missing a couple of key points here:
1. Slack is not a believer. He's not saying you're right to trust the sensus divinitatis; he's saying he understands why you do — that denying it would feel the same to you as denying his love for his children would feel to him.
2. The difference between the sensus divinitatis and love is that the SD supposedly senses a truth about the outside world — the existence of God. To love is to experience feelings of love internally. It says nothing about the outside world.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 9:42 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Robin
I did not say he was a believer only that he understands the real power of knowledge gained by the SD.
Agreed but Love for ones children is a real thing. And when I experience my children's love for me I have new and valuable information about the outside world. I would not embrase a theory that explained this love as an illusion created by neurotransmitters either
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 10:35 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
robin:
I had to look up 'sensus divinatatis' (not big on Calvin here). Your characterization reveals a misconception, I think. Just as critics keep telling us that intelligent agency in the design of life must be exterior, here you insist that empirical experience of the divine must also be exterior. Yet of all the senses designed to give us information about the exterior world (if there is one, and that's fairly questionable), not one of them equates to this sensus divinatatis. It's not sight, sound, smell, taste or texture.
You seem to understand love as an interior emotion. Why would you assume that an innate apprehension of divinity isn't also interior?
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 10:43 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Morpheus: What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 10:50 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Mike Gene:
All claims to objectivity involve inherently subjective perceptions and interpretations of perceptions. Epistemological differences account for differing perceptions of truth.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Mike:
in this case I mean something like
Not imaginary existing as fact, rather than as a product of dreams or the imagination
Yes but we assume that the things we observe with our senses are real things. Our brains compel us to
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
JOHN_A_DESGNER:
Perhaps you're right if you have a doctrinal approach in mind but I think it is impossible for humans to function without extending beliefs beyond the point of reliable sensory data. Such data can be inconclusive and humans need to act in spite of insufficient data.
Slack does merit commendation but you are correct in identifying naturalism as the basis for his faith.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Absolutely, but why insist that a physical brain cannot experience love?
Experiencing love is different from loving. We're talking about the latter here.
Nor would I. Love is a real feeling, even if it is (to vastly oversimplify) created by neurotransmitters.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
fmm:
You've zeroed in on why views, based on empirical data, have limited capacity to sway opinions. People are guided by what they consider to be real. Love is real. Internal experiences are real. In one sense they are the most real things of all because all objective data must be filtered through subjective mental processing.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Joy asks:
Love and the sensus divinitatis are both interior, but God is not (assuming he exists). The SD, though it is an interior "sense", is presumed by folks like fmm to tell us something about the outside world (that God exists). When we feel ourselves loving, on the other hand, that feeling is only telling us about our internal state.
Perhaps this analogy will help. If I feel hungry, my feeling is a reflection of my brain state. It may also be a secondary reflection of low glycogen stores in my body, or even of a shortage of food in the village where I live, but the brain state is primary. As with other sensations, hunger can be produced by electrical stimulation of the appropriate part of the brain. So my hunger sensation itself really only tells me something about my brain state.
Now suppose that I have the sensation of being stared at (Ã la Rupert Sheldrake). The sensation is clearly interior, and presumably reflects my brain state, but (if Sheldrake is right) it is telling me that someone is staring at me — a fact about the outside world. Someone else can confirm this by looking around to see whether anyone is staring at me.
In this example hunger is analogous to love, and the sensation of being stared at is analogous to the sensus divinitatis.
The difference is that others can determine whether someone is staring at me by using their vision. In the case of the SD, it is impossible for others to confirm the correctness of my feeling via their "standard" senses.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
robin:
A feeling of loving can be manifested by observable behavior. In fact this lies at the core of Christianity. Christ said you will know my followers by their fruits and that love is the greatest commandment. Internal experiences can manifest evidence of what is exterior to the mind.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Joy
At the risk of moving from what I believe can be a purely scientific discussion here are some articles that explain why the SD can be important for forming true beliefs about the world outside us.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Bradford:
Just to clarify a little of what I was trying to say. I was thinking of "faith" in a global sense. From what I quoted from his article it appears to me that Slack is using faith in a global sense. I think empirical science is very limited in what it can tell us about the universe globally. However, it can drop us some tantalizing clues that can legitimately be the subjects of exploration for both theology and philosophy.
I have no problem with using faith in a practical everyday sense. For example, I have made some financial decisions based on my belief that I'll still have a job 3 years from now. Obviously, you don't need to be theological, philosophical or religious to practice that kind of faith.
Scientists also use a kind of practical faith in their work. They have hunches and follow clues in the belief that those hunches and clues may lead to a knew discovery or breakthrough. Some philosophers of science even talk about what they describe as tenacity in the way some scientist pursue their educated guesses and hunches. I have no problem with any of this.
What I do have a problem with is when people like Slack conflate what they believe about the world (metaphysical naturalism) with natural science. In other words, natural science does not equal metaphysical naturalism. One does not have to be a metaphysical naturalist to do good science or be a good scientist.
The irony is that Slack sees the danger of conflating certain kinds of religious beliefs, but doesn't see the danger of conflating his own personal philosophical beliefs with natural science. IMO opinion that kind of faith can be even more damaging to science than anything that religion could ever do. Of course it really is not a case of can be or will be, the sad truth is that science has already been corrupted by philosophical world views which are often as dogmatic as some of the worlds worst religions.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 22, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
robin:
Why? I've always heard that this God is a "personal God" with personal relationships, apprehended by interior means. That doesn't mean I can't perceive the presence of God in people and things 'other' than me, but that doesn't make God exterior to me. IMO.
fmm:
If we are to reduce reality – as some here wish us to do – to brain states, there is no difference between interior and exterior. In fact of the matter, that may be the objective physical truth too, big or little 't'.
But let's face it… I'm a freak of nature, a full-fledged synesthete. Nobody's ever going to convince me of the universality of their so-circumspect divisions and cubbyholes and weird filing systems. My brain states aren't much like other people's brain states, so I'm not inclined to believe that other people's brain states must in some way imprison my own. You'll have this.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Joy,
That second quote is from fifth monarchy man, not me.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Thanks, edited to attribute.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Joy wrote:
Huh? Who are the 'some' who said reality consisted of nothing but brain states?
Nothing about synesthesia suggests that it's anything but physical.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Robin
Actually all they can determine is that someone appears to be staring at me. IOW they can see them looking in my direction etc.
The fact is that the vision of others might be misleading in this regard. Perhaps the supposed "starer" is blind so that he only appears to be staring at me and in fact sees nothing. or Perhaps the "starer" can see around coners so that even though he does not appear to be staring at me he is
When it's all is said and done we are left just a probabilistic guess as to whether someone is are staring at me or not.
When my feeling is "God exists" there are tons of ways to confirm (your word) its correctness via your common senses and reason as well as your own SD.
In the end however we are left with just a probabilistic guess just like we have for any other sense.
But suppose I have detected God's existence via the SD I can then confirm (again your word) the correctness of my other senses as well as my reasoning with it.
When I look at the bacterial flagellum and it appears designed I can confirm my inference with the SD. I have sensed that there is a designer therefore I can say with more confidence that the design I see is not merely apparent design therefore the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic to prove my common sense inference wrong.
And when I'm confronted with a worldview that says there is no evidence of a designer I can rightfully be skeptical because in Slacks' words I have too much respect for my own experience.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Robin:
That's not the point the point is that just because you don't have a particular sense does not make it less real
Joy
Exactly!!! my experience trumps the skeptic's attempt to explain it away every time.
Unless I've seen convincing proof that I've been mislead by my senses I will continue to trust them. If I didn't I could not function in life
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
robin:
Metaphysical eliminative materialists. You'll find them poking around here in shadows here and there.
I didn't say it wasn't physical. What a strange leap on your part. Where does it come from, pray tell>
Oh, and while you're at it, can you explain that "exterior god" thing too, since I asked nicely? Even Taoists and Buddhists accept that separation is the primary illusion. It makes more sense to me that the external world is illusion (real enough FAPP to deal with, though) than the idea that the internal world (consciousness itself) is illusion.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
fmm:
I hear you. But I also am acutely aware of the fact that I may be receiving more and/or different information from the environment than others are. I learned that long before I started school. Fortunately, synesthesia is strong in my family, so I got good counseling. Never insist that others are "stupid" for not seeing (hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling) what you do. THEY are 'normal', you are not.
So I learned early on to be very careful both of WHAT I perceived, and how I communicate what I perceived. It's not absolute skepticism, it's sort of like standing off to the side of your own mind's representative model of the outside world, and picking its pieces-parts to examine them in more detail. You'd be surprised at how quickly that can be done in real-time, and there are times when it can be safely put aside in trust of that "Indian Night Vision" that'll get you down the mountain fast and well away from that bear or cougar's sharp claws.
Heck, you even learn how to discriminate the 'extra' information and segregate it AS 'extra' if need be. There can be issues with its mere presence (you can't make it not be there), but if it's all you know, you do get used to it. Why, you can even learn how to shield yourself from other people's excess 'extras' at will.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
How do you know that you are actually sensing a designer, and not just some vague "divinity" How do you know that the "designer" you are sensing is the designer of of the flagellum? How do you know that the "designer" you are sensing has the ability to move atoms and molecules into positions that they couldn't reach by means of natural chemistry? (Which is, after all, what "intelligent design" has to mean, if it means anything at all.)
Comment by John Wendt — June 22, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
robin: "When we feel ourselves loving, on the other hand, that feeling is only telling us about our internal state."
if love were real the feeling would tell us about the objective value of the beloved. while love is an emotion it is caused by objective realities — when properly functioning good objective realities… feelings are ways of gaining knowledge about the objective world much like reason is… i feel repulsed by some monstrously evil action because such actions are really wrong and ought not be done… or i feel love for someone because of the real or potential goodness of the person. if love is merely in the mind of the beholder, as you suggest, it is not real but rather some sort of fiction — fictions are still, of course, in my mind…
robin: "my hunger sensation itself really only tells me something about my brain state"
hunger is primarily a motivational feeling to get nutrition that animals need to survive – it's primary function is to keep us alive. humans can feel hungry for other reason too – many eating disorders stem from a psychological motivation to eat but that is not the primary (or proper) role hunger is meant to have … if a scientist monkeyed with my brain to make be feel hungry it would not be a real or genuine (but an illusory) feeling – but a feeling nonetheless for that… just as if he made me have the experience of seeing angles when there were no angels around i'd be haveing an illusory experience — but still an experience, of course…
feelings (like love or hunger) tell us about objective realities when functioning well just like reason does — if they don't then like reason (in such a case) it would be an illusion/malfunction/disorder/a-monkeying-scientist.. etc…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 22, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Where is this notion that "God is only external" come from? The Bible teaches that God is omnipresent – not "omnipresent except for inside your body". It even says that God dwells within us, those that accept Him:
Ephesians 2:22 "And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit".
1 Cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you?" (referring to misuse of our physical bodies)
among others. God does not just exist in the world outside us, He is everywhere at everytime. Conclusions that "He is exterior" are incorrect. If His Spirit dwells within us, as is written, what stops us sensing Him within us?
Comment by Avonwatches — June 22, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 am
de_nacisse wrote:
Not true. It is possible to love someone or something that is not objectively real.
For the sake of argument, let me assume that you are a typical Christian (though the argument works as well for any other kind of theism). As a Christian, you do not believe that the Hindu god Krishna is real. Yet the love and adoration felt toward Krishna by his devotees are equal to those felt by Christians toward Jesus.
As a Christian, would you argue that your love is 'real', but the Hindu's is not? That smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Comment by robin — June 23, 2008 @ 1:40 am
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 am
John Wendt
First of all I want to say you ask some excellent questions.
I guess it would depend on the particular observation.
I for one have had two kinds of experiences one in which I've sensed a being of great power and majesty and one in which I am awestruck by the wisdom of said being as creator.
In the first case I would have no knowledge that said deity is a designer but I would assume he had the power to design if he chose. In the second case that God is a designer is explicit in the observation.
I don't know for sure that is unless my SD observes him while I'm looking at the BF. I just know that there is a prospective designer that is available to accomplish this inferred design
In my first type of experience the assumed abilities of God is what I sensed these abilities would include all kinds of things above the pay grade of natural chemistry
I would not say that ID would have meaning if it could prove that design is simply more likely than natural chemistry.
It does not have to prove that natural chemistry is unable even in principle to accomplish the design we see.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:32 am
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
The word "real" is subject to equivocation. I don't doubt you have the experience, but that doesn't make it objective. Consider de_nacisse's direct (and apparently unconscious) equivocation.
De_nacisse is drawing an equivalence between "real" and "objective". Having done so, the statement is false. Loving your wife, finding her the most beautiful and 'lovable' person in the world is *not* an objective statement. Saying everyone else is blind to her beauty may be true"”but that does not make it objective. Quite the contrary.
As Frank Michael Murphy could show (instead of just saying so), there is a relationship between his sense and other aspects of the phenomenal world that his family can experience. For instance, he could communicate to his family that he hears the cat in the next room, and then open the door so that they could see the cat. By this, and many such empirical predictions, he could show his family that his sense of hearing reveals information about objects and phenomena *independent of his individual thought*.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 8:19 am
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
robin,
the objective realities would be the value or the goodness of the thing or person – irrespective of the persons or things reality… you can love some fictional character… assuming there is some objective value such a character portrays… I'm not committed to the view that fictional characters can't exemplify goodness or value… in fact, I think Mickey Mouse is an example of many good things so a kind of love seem appropriate and real enough….
Zachriel,
"Loving your wife, finding her the most beautiful and 'lovable' person in the world is *not* an objective statement."
saying such a thing would be false so obviously not objective. while will does play an important role in love it doesn't make anyone more or less lovable in an objective sense (I never claimed it did)…. but saying your wife is loveable is a true and objective statement about the worth and value of persons – if someone disagrees they are mistaken…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It's a statement about the husband's opinion. It can't be false if that is what he feels.
An objective claim has to concern properties that are independent of the individual mind.
Saying everyone else is blind to her beauty may be true"”but that does not make it objective.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Zachriel,
if it is a statement about the objective worth of his wife (which is what love is about), it can be false even if that is what he feels. opinions and feelings can be mistaken… unless you mean that he is of a certain opinion (his wife is the greatest) then that he holds that opinion can't be false… but i don't see the relevance of that. if he is of the opinion that the earth is flat it also can't be wrong that that is what he believes…. so?
yes, like value and worth…
I don't really know what you mean to say here… if everyone is blinded to seeing a chair in the middle of the room it is still an objective fact that there is a chair in the middle of the room… if everyone else is blind to her being lovable – it is still an objective fact that she is lovable — whether she is beautiful i don't know…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Value and worth are subjective evaluations. They are not independent of the individual mind, but vary widely between observers.
It may be true that there is a ghost in the middle of the room, but to constitute an objective fact requires being able to detect the phenomena in a manner independent of the observer.
objective, of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
subjective, characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
You changed the claim. The one he finds *most* lovable. While another man may find her completely unlovable. And another who thinks his mistress is the *most* lovable. These are clearly matters of subjective opinion.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
like you love charitable actions and i love vicious actions… you love your wife cause she is beautiful and i love mine cause she is a serial killer… subjective indeed…
Zachriel,
so the roundness of the earth was not an objective fact until we were able to know/detect it? and it is not an objective fact that i have some illness (cancer, say) if i live at a time and place that lacks the means of detecting it? well, fine, i guess, but value and worth are still objective facts … everyone detects and lives by them.
no, i claim that one (being most lovable) is subjective (and false, too) but being lovable is objective (and true)
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
So you're saying there are no differences in lovability. That one can't love something more than another, or more than anything else. And a man who feels he loves one woman more than any other woman is holding a false belief. That seems contrary to ordinary human experience, even the ordinary use of language.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
well, there are subjective elements in love. my choices determine who I actually do love and my personality may determine who I love. and things like place and time determine who I will love etc… but being lovable and who I love or how much i love them are different things; the first, i claim, is objective truth about persons or good things the second is subjective and determined by things like choice, place, birth etc…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hey Zach:
I thought you said my argument needed no more refutation
There are two related issues here hearing's values to young frank and it's value to his deaf kin. What his deaf family thinks has no bearing on whether hearing is objective and valuable to FFM
If FFM wants to show the reality and value of hearing to others there are lots of ways he can do that but he will never be able to prove he can hear. The same goes with Joy's synesthesia or the SD
That's one way he could go about it but it would not prove he is hearing the cat. Perhaps he is allergic to cats and can sense them by the discomfort he feels when they are around.
In the end nothing empirical could prove to his family that he has a sense they know nothing of. Every single empirical observation could be explained away in the same way the cat observation could. That is if his kin had sufficient motivation to deny the reality of hearing or its value.
When all is said and done the only way to verify beyond all question someone "hears" a cat through the door is to hear it yourself.
The same goes with the SD and synesthesia
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
It doesn't. I had hoped you would have thought about it since last we spoke.
Yes, you already explained Young Frank's self-centered attitude.
Odd, then, that most deaf people (excluding Frank's family whom he apparently keeps locked away) are fully aware that others have a sense of hearing. According to your reasoning, the deaf should reject the objective existence of sound and a sense of hearing. Likewise, everyone else should reject the objective existence of ultraviolet light.
Your concept of objectivity is vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I thought, perhaps, we were using somewhat different meanings of the word "to love" and "lovable". We can presumably define "love" in such a manner (e.g. behaviorally) that we can then objectively say that people love, and that there are particular traits that tend to invoke love in others. From the original post:
But this is definitely being used to mean a subjective response. Slack loves his children. He would certainly call them lovable. But other people may think they are brats. That's the nature of subjective evaluations. You may want to clarify your claims to avoid any unintentional equivocation.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Zach
Yet here we are. Why is that?
And your point is? Most folks that haven't directly experienced God are fully aware that some of us have. It's only the hard cases like yourself that dispute the testimony of friends and neighbors in matters like this.
Not at all the existence of sound and ultraviolet light can be inferred (not sensed) by other means. Just like the existence of God.
The existences of sound and of hearing are two very different things. As are the existence of God and the SD. I think a lot of your confusion is the result of you confounding the two categories
Hearing's objective existence depends primarily on the existence of a reality outside of the mind of the hearer (Sound). Likewise the SD's objective existence depends primarily on the objective existence of a reality out side the mind of the person making the observation (God)
If I wanted to demonstrate to a doubting deaf man that hearing is real the best way is to demonstrate that sound is real. Once you accept the reality of sound hearing is a no brainer. A hearing man on the other hand needs no such demonstration he knows that sound is real.
Demonstrations of God's existence are valuable to those who haven't experienced him but not necessary for someone who has. In that case his mind compels him to accept the objective reality of his experience.
That is unless or until his brain and or his senses have been proven to be defective.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Zach:
Slack is not arguing with those who think his children are unlovable he is arguing with those who say his love for them is an illusion. This is not a subjective evaluation it is a question of objective fact.
I think the equivocation in this case is in your mind.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I'm curious. These are the exact sort of experiences commonly described by people taking drugs like LSD and DMT. Do you think these drugs are actually increasing the real sensus divinitatis or do you think these drugs merely create a fake perception of SD?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 23, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Todd:
If I was a blind man hell bent on denying the existence of sight I would say the same sorts of things about those who claimed to see things. To those with no experience of a particular sense it's descriptions can sound like hallucinations.
If I wanted to I could say Joy's synesthesia sounds like a bad trip. That would just illustrate my own ignorance and draw laughter or pity from those who have experienced it
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
So in other words despite both experiences having the exact same description you "just know" that your SD is real while the drug trip is merely a hallucination?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 23, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Zachriel,
Slack himself may think his children are brats – that wouldn't make them unlovable, of course. so i don't get the point… if others thought his children were unlovable that would be to call Slacks love of them an illusion – if they are unlovable he can't love them… or if someone thought his emotions of love were just caused by some sort of reaction in his brain and not some value or worth of his children that would also make love of them unreal — just as if my perception of my children were caused just by a reaction in my brain and not by my children themselves it would be an illusory perception…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I answered that directly. I do try to give the benefit of the doubt, so I can only assume you don't read very well.
Again, you don't read well. I did not dispute the testimony. I only disputed whether it can be considered objective.
Then, he is not arguing with me.
I pointed to two different uses of the terms, the typical way that Slack was using it to refer to a subjective experience, the other as a clearly defined objective phenomena.
A blind man can determine that what others call sight reveals knowledge about the objective world. You repeatedly claim the same for sensus divinitatis, but never provide any justification for your claim. You just repeat it over and over again.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
If you cut your finger, you may very well know the pain is caused by damaged nerves and tissue. That doesn't mean the pain is an illusion.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Todd:
Yes, the same way you know your vision is real unless or until your brain and or your senses have been proven to be defective.
You can't help it your mind compels you to do so.
Zach:
Actually Slack was refering to an objective phenomena and you mistook him to be refering to a subjective experience.
I don't justify my claim that my vision provides knowledge about the objective world either. I don't need to I've experienced it. The burden of proof is on you in this regard.
It's my sense we are talking about after all and you are in the position of a the blind man claiming that my vision is not real.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Slack said it was not an illusion. He never used the word "objective".
Perhaps it doesn't.
In any case, I will note your refusal to support your assertions.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
fifth, have you ever seen a real flagellum in an actual cell? I strongly suspect that all you've really seen is idealized, schematic representations of a flagellum (not "the" flagellum, there's a lot of variation). Biologists refer to these as "cartoons", to emphasize that they are simplified for pedagogic purposes. This article has some actual electron micrographs, and more-realistic cartoons.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I get religious feelings when I look at a simplified abstraction of a flagellum, therefore the God of the Hebrew scriptures has all the abilities that are necessary to create the universe simply by speaking."
So why should this mean anything to me?
Comment by John Wendt — June 23, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
ZAch:
Spoken like a true Cartesian. Perhaps I'm a brain in a vat.
Funny how it always comes to the denial of all sense derived knowledge from folks on your side.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
John
No, at least not in close detail. That's one reason I said I don't know for sure it was designed I can only infer.
That's not my argument at all I've said next to nothing about the flagellum only that the SD can support a design inference.
I'm not saying it should
I'm saying that your puny attempts to explain how there is no designer can never hope to convince me and the millions of folks like me who know otherwise because we have experienced him. That's why ID is not going away
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
That is not my position"”as I have repeatedly stated.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Zach
from the encarta dictionary
Objective………… based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
illusion……. a false idea, conception, or belief about somebody or something
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
As has been pointed out multiple times, this simply isn't true. Our external senses can be independently verified by other people, even those who lack a particular sense. Yet people experience SD and describe it exactly the way one would describe a drug trip but you simply assert these two seemingly identical brain states are simply different without explaining why or how.
But as has been mentioned, it is possible to objectively support that our vision is telling multiple people the same thing. For example, while it might be impossible to describe color to someone who has never seen you can explain it as being analogous to texture which they can feel. Metaphors can also be used, "red" looks like heat feels, "blue" looks like cold feels, etc. Through the common application of language shared understanding is achieved which provides the blind man evidence that sight really exists. And yet somehow we apparently cannot use language to describe SD because when we do the descriptions are identical to drug trips which are, according to you, apparently just hallucinations.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 23, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
June 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Equivocation. We've been using a specific definition of objective, one appropriate to the discussion. In your own words,
So we can add equivocation to strawman, ignoring counterarguments, and refusal to support your claims. Anything else?
"”
By the way, your dictionary defines fact as "something that can shown to be true".
Comment by Zachriel — June 24, 2008 @ 7:25 am
June 24th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Todd:
The exact same thing happens with the SD. My tradition calls it testing the spirits. We verify whether information that a person receives through the SD matches what we know about God from other means. For example suppose I claim to sense that God is a bungling inept imbecile. Other folks even folks who have never experienced God at all can compare my testimony with the evidence of the designer's wisdom all around us for example in the carbon cycle.
Or I could claim that I senses that God could never become a man other people even people who never experienced God directly could test this claim against the evidence of the incarnation. This kind of thing happens all the time.
What I can't do is prove that I have a particular sense any sense (vision or the SD) to someone who is hell-bent on denying it.
Once again If Joy described her unique sense to us it would sound like a hallucination this is evidence of our ignorance and not her problem. For a good exercise pretend you have synesthesia. How would you explain it to some one who knows nothing of the sense?
Ok the SD in analogous to the feeling you get when you intuitively know that your answer is right in math. Do you know more than you did before?
Ok
God feels like love and power and grace and justice do you know more than you did before?
If you want more descriptions of the SD why not stop by your local prayer meeting we share this kind of information all the time
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 24, 2008 @ 7:34 am
June 24th, 2008 at 9:26 am
FMM responds above to a question:
fMRI and QEEG studies indicate that this is not the case. Those having spiritual experiences in which they sense the divine are not in the same brain state as those who are having hallucinations, delusions, or dreams. Their brain states resemble those of people encountering an objective presence.
Comment by Pez — June 24, 2008 @ 9:26 am
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hi Zachriel. I have not read every comment in the thread but would add this:
We must allow as a logical possibility that sensus divinitatus is linked to physical evidence allowing for an objective interpretation of at least aspects of it. For example, if a large group of people is so affected they can display behavioral evidence of it. Pez brought up a good point. Hallucinations, delusions, and dreams can be marked by specific neural evidence associated with such phenomenon. If a sensus divinitatus experience is not marked by such evidence then one would be able to fashion an argument that the experience is traced to an exterior influence and not the product of one's imagination. All the more so if the physical evidence is consistent with that shown by interactions between individuals and their exterior environment.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2008 @ 11:26 am
June 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Here is a little something that "ditto's" what Pez mentioned above:
In their book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul, Mario Beuregard and Denyse O'Leary argue that materialist and reductionistic explanations for the existence of the mind and spiritual experiences are presently at a standstill.
For example, they refute the hypothesis put forward by some materialistically biased neuroscientists that Religious, Spiritual and Mystical Experiences or, RSME's (what we have been referring to in this thread as SD"˜s) are associated with the temporal lobe of the brain–the so called God switch.
In particular, Beuregards study of Carmelite Nuns using fMRI and QEEG technology demonstrated that neural correlates for these experiences were not isolated to the temporal lobes. "Our"¦data," writes Beuregard, "suggest that RSME's are complex and multidimensional and mediated by a number of brain regions implicated in perception, cognition, emotion, body representation, and self-consciousness." (p 272)
Other studies have reached similar conclusions.
For example, Andrew Newberg, a university of Pennsylvania radiologist writes in his book, Why God Won't Go Away:
I find it curious that those that have been representing the naturalistic or materialistic side in this thread have quoted no studies. They have only given us speculation and interpretations based on those speculations. In other words they have faithfully followed the "party line." It would be nice someday to meet a so called skeptic who actually thinks for himself. That would be both interesting and challenging.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 25, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Hey all,
Although I assume that the Carmelite Nuns are experiencing the same phenomena I have. I have been reluctant to bring up Beuregard's study because I'm afraid that skeptics could claim that the altered brain states are only the result of the intense meditation involved.
The fact is that for me and I would assume most folks who have experienced God it happens in a much more spontaneous manner. God just shows up. Though this does not change the reality of the experience at all it does make it harder to duplicate in the lab.
I wonder has any one compared the nuns' experience to someone skilled at deep meditation but who does not report experiencing the divine?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 26, 2008 @ 7:26 am
June 26th, 2008 at 8:09 am
That would (which you should certainly know, of course) be completely immaterial to my point. We can presume that people who have similar experiences have similar brain states. What we know objectively is that the Carmelite Nuns say they have had particular sensations that they attribute to communion with God.
Even if you accept that the Carmelite Nuns could be having a true experience of the Divine, it does not represent objective evidence. Unless you can demonstrate predictable empirical implications of these sensations"”independent from the individual mind"”then it is still subjective, by definition.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2008 @ 8:09 am
June 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Zach:
Predictable empirical implication number one
Every time God wishes to comminute his presence similar brain states will be present
Predictable empirical implication number two:
As Bradford points out when God is experienced through the SD predictable behavioral patterns will result in the observer.
let the science begin
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 26, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
fmm:
And evidence can be objective in nature without being experimentally derived. Consider this comment from O'Leary's blog:
Personally, I think that if a person genuinely becomes more loving and caring toward others and maintains that change over a number of years, that is powerful testimony that they encountered a spiritual reality.
This is why people trust their own thoughts and observations in spite of what materialists would like them to believe. A subjective experience can manifest behavior that is objectively perceived. When one's personal behavior is changed and positvely impacts those around them, powerful evidence for a subjective motivating cause is present.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
That's not evidence. That's what you're trying to demonstrate. Restating your desired conclusion doesn't make it evidence.
Your claim is that this particular experience is objective evidence of the spiritual realm. You have only pointed to evidence that the brain is involved in the experience. You haven't shown that this sense provides any information that can be confirmed by objective means.
That's not the issue. Fifth monarchy man insists that the spiritual sense is objective evidence. I have no argument that people have religious experiences.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
bradford
I think it's important to remember that even though all experience is subjective a sense like the SD (or vision) can be objective because they reference an objective truth and produce objective effects.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 26, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man wrote:
The skeptics are going to come to that conclusion regardless whether or not you cited Beuregard's study. Indeed they came to that conclusion before you even brought up the subject of SD's or RSME's (Beuregard's term.)
BTW Beuregard made very modest claims in regards to his study. He only claimed that he refuted the idea that profound religious experiences were associated with the brains frontal lobes and therefore somehow associated with epileptic seizures etc. In other words, Beuregard refuted ( quite successfully in my opinion) the so called pathological model of religion popularized by Freud and others. It is apparent that many of the critics in this thread have been throwing out similar ideas with absolutely no scientific evidence to back up their claims. Obviously they have been motivated more by a very anti-religious ideology than science, claims to the contrary.
That is why I find it very ironic when Zachriel challenges you by arguing that you, me or other theists lack any evidence. Where is the evidence for his world view? What is his world view, anyway that unconscious matter somehow gave rise consciousness and mind? Somehow we are all here as a result of some lucky accident? How exactly did that happen? Does he know? Does anyone know? It so strange these guy's are never able to back up these kinds of claims with any kind of real evidence. It seems to me that to believe what they believe requires something of a leap of faith. Frankly, too much faith for a rational thinking person like me.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 26, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Again, after dozens of posts, across multiple threads, and repeated corrections; that is not my position. Fifth monarchy man claims that sensus divinitatis provides *objective* evidence. My position is that sensus divinitatis is subjective, not objective.
And rightly so.
We are not trying to relate brain states to mind states. It is presumed (based on previous studies) that similar reported mind states have similar brain states. This relates the brain and mind, much like the experience of beauty, anger, sorrow, or other subjective or personal experiences. This does not demonstrate that these subjective experiences are objective evidence of the spiritual world, anger waves or the existence of the aesthetic as an objective phenomena.
To show that sensus divinitatis provides objective evidence, you would have to be able to make empirical predictions independent of the individual mind. This does not mean that subjective experience can't be persuasive. Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus was sufficient to change his perspective in a fundamental way.
"”
Beauty is truth.
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2008 @ 8:17 am
June 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Just thought I'd put in a note here: I am Mario Beauregard's co-author on The Spiritual Brain (Harper One 2007).
What mario found about the nuns was
1. Spiritual experiences are complex, not simple. That rules out many materialist hypotheses around the "God glitch."
2. There really is an altered state of consciousness in which the person is conscious but generates brain waves characteristic of unconsciousness. So people who say that they entered an altered state of consciousness are not lying or confabulating (at least there is no reason to assume so, absent evidence).
3. We look at research around people whose lives change dramatically after spiritual experiences. Life change is not easy, and it is reasonable to think that something accounts for it.
Mario's research does not prove that there is a God or that people definitely contact a reality outside themseves during a spiritual experience.
Some people would not believe that even if they experienced it.
His research does, however, show that that is a reasonable thing to believe.
I keep up with all these subjects and many other relevant ones at The Mindful Hack.
Comment by Denyse — June 27, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Cool! Denyse posting on TT.
Hope to see you here more often, Denyse.
Comment by Doug — June 27, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Denyse said…
Yeah. One of the participating profs in the UA Consciousness Studies course was Alwin Scott [R.I.P.], a rather smart and quite personable physicist who didn't believe a word of any of it. In one session he was asked about the accident that confined him to a wheel chair for the rest of his life, since he admitted readily that he experienced a dramatic OOB when the accident happened, and witnessed the whole thing from outside of his mangled body.
Yet he didn't believe for a moment that his experience might indicate human consciousness is separable from the brain (subject of the Q&A session), even though his actual brain was at the time of his witnessing NOT conscious, very close to dying. That never made any sense to me at all, since the evidence of his own empirical experience implies that very thing quite strongly.
What I learned was that a priori ideological commitments can and do override actual experience in people whose experiences don't confirm their a priori ideological commitments.
Comment by Joy — June 27, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I am so going to steal this quote and use it when debating with friends.
Comment by Doug — June 27, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
LOL! No need to steal it, Doug. You can have it! §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 27, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Agreed.
Or more specific to the conversation, Unio Mystica does not provide, in and of itself, *objective* evidence of the existence of this 'reality outside', but it certainly can be convincing to those who have had the experience.
"”
This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience, and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God. "” Mario Beauregard
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Denyse:
At some time I intended to make that point in response to a comment raising the issue. You stated it well and are doing a good job at the Mindful Hack and the other new blog you have. Thanks for posting the comment.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Hey Zach:
Zach once again my claim is and has always has been that the SD is just as objective as other senses like vision.
So a good question to ask at this point is,
Do you consider an observation that is experienced through vision alone to be objective evidence of the existence of a reality outside'?
Remember you called vision an "objective sense" in contrast to the SD which you compared to a subjective mental state like anger. Do you stand by that characterization?
Seeing an object does not confirm or disconfirm the existence of said object either but it is evidence
and according to the dictionary definition it's objective evidence
Same goes for the SD and God
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 27, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Senses are subjective, by definition. Objectivity requires showing that a claim is independent of the individual mind or perception. We can, however, show that vision often provides objective and verifiable information"”but not always. Modern science approaches the problem of objectivity through peer review, cross-checking with multiple observers and multiple methodologies, and the extensive use of instruments.
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Zachriel wrote:
But did Paul see his own experience as subjective? Or, did he see it grounded in a greater transcendent truth? Some skeptics have suggested that Paul's Damascus road conversion was nothing more than an epileptic seizure. Do epileptic seizures have the power to so radically change a persons mind and heart? Remember Paul changed from being Christianities number one persecutor to it's number one advocate. Not only that he himself was willing endure hardship and persecution, including threats on his life, on behalf of his new found faith.
Whatever it was that changed Paul it was beyond a doubt very compelling and very convincing. Indeed in one of his letters he writes: "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21, NIV)
It is very evident from Paul's writings that he himself considered whatever happened to him on that dusty Damascus road (okay, maybe it was raining that day) he himself considered it to be an objective reality that transcended the world he knew. He changed from being a hostile sceptic of Jesus to a believer in his objective historical resurrection.
Consider what he says in another one of his letters. He writes: "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that we are found to be false witnesses about God, for we testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead"¦ And, if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins"¦ If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (I Cor. 15: 14-19, NIV)
Later in the chapter he punctuates
what he has been saying with: "If the the dead are not raised, "˜Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die'" (I Cor. 15:32) In other words, if what we have been preaching is only a subjective belief then why bother?
Paul certainly thought what he believed was grounded in not only in a greater transcendent reality but also objective historical events that occurred only a couple of decades earlier.
However, I will agree that I cannot empirically prove this kind of objective transcendent truth to a hardened sceptic. Transcendent truth is not something that can be proven empirically. Try for example to prove what happened before the Big Bang, or even proving there was a before the Big Bang. However that does not mean that it isn't objectively, independently out there apart from me, real. It only means that the sceptic doesn't believe it.
Denyse:
Thanks for stopping by and the comments. I loved your and Mario's book! Keep up the good work.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 27, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 12:27 am
True enough.
I've been following this thread with mild interest. When I encounter, either in person or in print, people talking about this subject I like to know their personal experiences. FMM has made it pretty clear that he's had some powerful "spiritual experiences." I'm wondering what kind of experiences, if any, you've had, Zachriel.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 28, 2008 @ 12:27 am
June 28th, 2008 at 8:48 am
It has nothing to do with being a skeptic, or one's beliefs, but whether or not Unio Mystica can meet the meaning of objectivity.
That is actually a much broader position than I have taken in this thread, but you seem to be arguing with me, but disagreeing with fifth monarchy man.
A claim of independent existence is quite different from saying that Unio Mystica is *objective* evidence of that independent existence.
And I would never minimize the importance or relevance of those experiences. However, they do not constitute objective evidence.
As we can't even resolve the particular and rather obvious issue of what constitutes objectivity, there is little point in trying to delve into more subtle issues. Suffice it to say that all experience is personal and spiritual. Objectivity is a complex social construct that seeks to minimize the role of subjectivity through such means as communication, record-keeping, instrumentation, multiple observers, multiple methodologies, et cetera.
"”
objective, of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
subjective, characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2008 @ 8:48 am
June 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I agree up to a point. But people who have had such spiritual experience can discuss the matter in a different way than people who have no such shared experience.
So, I'm interested in an answer to the second part of the paragraph I wrote, which you didn't address:
Well?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 28, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Your second sentence does not explain your first sentence. People can philosophically discuss shared experiences, of beauty, of moral reactions, of religious experiences. (Formally, we take these agreed principles and assign them as axioms, then reason from there.)
I answered your question, but it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Zach
What specifically is it about the information accessed through the SD that disqualifies it from being labeled objective according to this definition?
This is exactly how I would describe such information as long as we add the caveat that it like vision is only perceptible in observers in which the sense is functioning.
Some folks are blind and some don't have a working SD. That does not change the objective quality of the information.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
It's amazing that you can choose such an example without any apparent recognition of the fundamental difference. Reexamine your position critically. See if it withstands scrutiny.
A sighted person can demonstrate facts about the world that a blind person can confirm through other senses, other observers and other methodologies *independent of the individual mind*. For instance, a friend might say they can see their neighbor approaching. The blind person calls out and hears the distant reply of a familiar voice. Then footsteps, followed by intimate conversation. By this, and many such tests, it is possible to reach an objective understanding. There is nothing magical about this, and nothing odd about the distinction between subjective and objective.
Now, compare to sensus divinitatus. A blind person can readily accept that others have sight, and that sight can provide confirmable information about the world. Why doesn't this apply to sensus divinitatus? Follow it through.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Zach
It does as I've demonstrated multiple times to the point that I'm getting a sense of déja vu
So can an observer gifted with a functioning SD
In my case it would go like this
I experience a profound sense of God's existence and presence. The SD challenged person relies on his reason to come to the same conclusion I have.
He gives deep thought to the myriad philosophical arguments for God's existence or he investigates the evidence for Christ's resurrection or the evidence from design By these and many such tests it is possible to reach an objective understanding.
By the way that is exactly what has happened in the lives of millions of believers through out history and at present.
I agree the issue is not magic or it's lack. It's your trying to manipulate definitions when you don't like their implications
The same goes for millions of folks who accept the evidence of the SD. It's only the hard cases that disagree. Somtimes hard cases refuse to believe what they see with their eyes as well
Because some folks refuse to accept any evidence that there might be a Creator no matter how objective and convincing it is.
This is I believe because of the implications of that fact and not for any thing that is lacking in the SD
Think it through. this is not hard
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
So, there is nothing you can predict or point to based on your sense, but each individual has to rely upon independent discovery from within. That's the very definition of subjectivity.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
fmm:
My SD appears to be malfunctioning, so I'm curious: which God is it that you experience? After all, there are hundreds if not thousands of Gods that are worshiped by other presumed possessors of SD. Did he make it known to you that he is Christ?
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
What are you talking about?
I've been predicting and pointing for a week or so now. Where have you been? As far as independant discovery goes I've also pointed to examples of many folks coming to sense God as a group at the same time and place.
This is evidence that you are either not paying attention or you are somehow deaf to anything that will challenge your argument.
I'd bet on the latter
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Raevmo
The SD is only one sense you can't know all the characteristics of any thing from just one sense. I can't tell if you are strong on intelligent just by looking at you. To determine that I'd need to do some research.
Yea but through other means than the SD
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Oh?
You "experience profound sense of God's existence and presence". You predict that this is because "God wishes to communicate his presence". Your claim is strictly circular. You have pointed to nothing independently confirmable. That you insist this is a objective prediction indicates you still don't know what objectivity means.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
fmm,
Let me get this straight. You can feel at times via your SD that there's some unidentified God around. Then you research all the known Gods, decide on their relative plausibilities, and that's how you end up deciding it must have been the Christian God that you felt with your SD. Is that roughly how you determined that Christ was "talking" (via your SD) to you?
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Zach:
Is it circular to claim that when I hear sound, sound is present? This is exactly the claim I make with the SD?
You have pointed to nothing independently confirmable.
I’ve predicted changes in outlook and behavior in anyone who has experienced God.
I’ve predicted similar brain states in any one with a legitimate experience of God i.e. one that results in afore mentioned changes in outlook and behavior.
I’ve pointed to many independent evidences of God’s existence and to shared observations of this existence through the SD.
Yet you for some reason have heard none of it. I wonder why that is
That you insist this is a objective prediction indicates you still don’t know what objectivity means.
Again I never said it was a objective prediction (what ever that means)
I said that the SD is just as objective as other sense like vision. It’s you who does not appear to know what objective means I suggest you look at the definition you posted.
That’s what I mean when I say objective.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Zach:
Is it circular to claim that when I hear sound, sound is present? This is exactly the claim I make with the SD?
I’ve predicted changes in outlook and behavior in anyone who has experienced God.
I’ve predicted similar brain states in any one with a legitimate experience of God i.e. one that results in afore mentioned changes in outlook and behavior.
I’ve pointed to many independent evidences of God’s existence and to shared observations of this existence through the SD.
Yet you for some reason have heard none of it. I wonder why that is
Again I never said it was a objective prediction (what ever that means)
I said that the SD is just as objective as other sense like vision. It’s you who does not appear to know what objective means
I suggest you look at the definition you posted.
That’s what I mean when I say objective.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Raevmo,
I sense God not some god. I’m sure that if I was a Viking I’d call him Odin not Thor.
Not exactly I just fill in information about the being I sensed from other sources. The way you would fill in information about a king after you met him. Information like
Is he kind? Is he cruel? Does he care about me? Has he been in these parts before? etc etc
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Raevmo,
I sense God not some god. I’m sure that if I was a Viking I’d call him Odin not Thor.
Not exactly I just fill in information about the being I sensed from other sources. The way you would fill in information about a king after you meet him. Information like
Is he kind? Is he cruel? Does he care about me? Has he been in these parts before? etc etc
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
fmm:
So you feel it's the alpha God. How do you account for the fact that polytheists can sense more than one God? Their observations via their SD are objective after all, by your own admission.
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
You report a sensation of sound, and we can check for sound waves by other means. You report the presence of God, but can we verify His presence by objective means? And if He is ever-present, then reporting your sensation adds nothing.
That shows the relationship between the reported sensation of sound and the brain, not between the sensation of sound and sound waves. That requires independent tests.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 1:03 am
FMM,
Do you really believe that SD is on the same objective level as the other five senses? The five senses relate to the physical world, SD on the other hand relates to the spiritual world.
2000 years ago the true God you are talking about revealed himself in our space-time continum. We have written record of historical people who objectively experienced God in the form of Jesus Christ. I believe it is more important to base our beliefs on the objective experiences of others than on our own spiritual experiences. There are many experiences that people would consider spiritual (drugs, TM, sex, etc.). I'm concerned that if we base our reality too heavily on our own "spiritual" experiences we could be led down dangerous paths. I believe it is better to base our spiritual beliefs on the writings of those people who objectively experienced Christ.
Comment by 0112358 — June 29, 2008 @ 1:03 am
June 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Raevmo
Two points
one
I know of no one who has reported the sort of experience I’m talking about with more than one god. If you have evidence of such a thing please let me know. Remember I’m not talking about visions or dreams I’m talking about a powerful sense of the existence and presence of the divine like was reported by the nuns in Mario Beauregard’s study
And two
Just because people happen to see things incorrectly at times, optical illusions, hallucinations, and the like is no reason to doubt my sense of vision. It only means I have to check my sense with other senses other observers and other means to make sure I sense what I think I sense.
Zach:
You report a sensation of sound, and we can check for sound waves by other means. You report the presence of God, but can we verify His presence by objective means?
Yes by means like other observers and or other senses or by reason
I know he is ever present by other means like Scripture or Reason. I know he is present here and now in a special way by the SD.
I know atoms are everywhere but a punch in the face brings the point home and reveals the presence of atoms in a special way.
Is there a test that does not involve hearing that shows the relationship between sound waves and sound? I’m all ears
0112358
I completely agree. I’m not suggesting anyone base their reality solely or even primarily on spiritual experience even when that experience is as profound as what we are talking about here.
I’m only saying that evidence gained from the SD is evidence just like any other evidence
I completely agree
I’m what you might call a hyper biblicalist I’m probably the only one on this forum that believes in the absolute inerrancy of those writings. It’s those writings that tell me things like
I cor 2:9
But as it is written,
"Things which an eye didn't see, and an ear didn't hear,
Which didn't enter into the heart of man,
These God has prepared for those who love him."
2:10But to us, God revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 2:11For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God's Spirit. 2:12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God.
And
John 16:13a
However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth
and
Eph 1:13in whom you also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,–in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 1:14who is a pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of his glory.
I’m not suggesting we base our beliefs on the SD only that observations obtained through the SD are evidence just like observations obtained through other senses like our eyes
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 9:38 am
June 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
0112358:
Point taken. Christianity encompasses both types of experiences. Behavior is a gauge. The behavior of those, claiming to be guided by the Spirit of God, must be consistent with scriptural behavioral norms. Behavior is observable and an indicator of of one's moral and spiritual condition. The appealing behavior of others is a most powerful and influential sensory experience; trumping many other forms of sensory experience.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2008 @ 9:43 am
June 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Do you honestly believe that polytheists do not enter trance-like states of spirituality?
Then please provide that objective verification. (Please try not to repeat your previous fallacious arguments.)
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2008 @ 11:56 am
June 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Do you honestly believe that polytheists do not enter trance-like states of spirituality?
First of all the SD is not a trance like state of spirituality so I’m not sure why it matters if polytheists experience such a thing.
Next I'm not saying that polytheists don't sense God’s existence and presence with the SD I'm saying they don't experience multiple gods with this sense as far as I know. Do you have information that they do? If so please present it so we can have an informed discussion. As it is I don’t know what you are talking about.
Please explain how my examples are different than the way verify what we sense with vision so I can understand what you are asking for.
Calling my arguments fallacious accomplishes nothing unless you explain why they are so while similar arguments are valid when verifying observations from our vision.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Hey everyone
I apologize for the quality of my recent posts. For some reason the edit feature is not working
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Zach:
I once shared an observation of God’s existence with many others. We all sensed his existence and presence at the same time and place.
This is just like what I do when I am verifying what I see with my vision (for example a bear in my back yard) with others present at the time.
Once when I experienced God’s presence I also heard him speak with my ears.
This is just like what I do when I confirm that I see a bear in the distance because I also smell him.
I know God exists and is present because of the evidence of design and the evidence of the resurrection of Christ.
This is just like what I do when I confirm that I saw a bear in my back yard by researching the native fauna and its range and habits.
Now why are my arguments fallacious again?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
The Carmelite Nuns experienced what they call Unio Mystica, a mystical union with God, a total absorption of ecstatic consciousness.
So, a polytheist can't pray to and sense the presence of the god of rain, then the god of fertility, perhaps even in the same prayer? I have no idea why you would think that. You might read Homer or Sophocles.
To his blind friend, someone might say they can see their neighbor approaching. The blind person calls out and hears the distant reply of a familiar voice. Then footsteps, followed by intimate conversation. By this, and many such tests, a blind person can verify the reported observations of the sighted person, and assure himself that vision can provide objective information. Indeed, I know of no blind person who claims that vision doesn't exist or doesn't provide verifiable information.
There is no information you've been able to point to provided by sensus divinitatis that can be objectively verified in such a manner. That doesn't mean sensus divinitatis is without meaning, it just means it is not objective.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
People at a concert may find the music beautiful. Does that make beauty an objective phenomena?
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I very seldom agree with Zachriel but here I do. Evidence gained from SD is evidence to you, so it is subjective. I have my own subjective evidence that what the Bible talks about is true. Neither your evidence or my evidence is evidence to Zachriel or to anyone else. God works in each of our live individually and often in different ways. It may be that one day Zachriel will have his own subjective evidence that allows him to put his faith in God. In the mean time what is left is the objective experiences of others (i.e. the apostles) and reason.
Comment by 0112358 — June 29, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
0112358,
I've never had a direct experience of God like FMM seems to be talking about here, or at least I don't think I have (I'm one of those God-by-reason types). But I think what he may be trying to establish is that an SD experience is like any other sensory experience. Yes, not everyone may have one – but not everyone can see or hear or such either. Yes, the experience on the surface seems more inward, but that doesn't preclude shared experiences of SD either.
So FMM may be actually going in to opposite direction to what people are thinking here. Instead of establishing the SD to be every bit as objective of sight, pointing out that normal sensory experiences we'd contrast the SD too all have heavily subjective elements that don't make them as objective as we think (thus diminishing any gap between SD and sight, or hearing, etc.)
I'm not sure I completely buy the argument (In fact, I may have just butchered it – my apologies, FMM, if so), but again, due to how I approach the question it's somewhat secondary for me.
Comment by nullasalus — June 29, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
0112358:
There is a side issue you allude to with your mention of what is true. Moral relativism holds that there is no such thing as transcendent truth. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me. Unless the truth we are dealing with is objectively measurable it is a subjectively personal matter around which no public policies can be fashioned. This would exclude one from linking one's view of public issues (usually expressed through governmental policies) in moral values explicitly based on one's religious morals.
However, it does not preclude grounding a moral code on evolutionary precepts since the data justifying the theory is said to be objective. Hence an emphasis on evolving morals. When you can peg values to something objective you can make an end run around moral relativism.
Value systems are endemic to the human species. It's not a question of if there will be value systems but rather what values will hold sway. Bear this in mind when the words objective and subjective are bandied about.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
nullasalus:
I think I know what you're driving at. Objective experiences amount to multiple individuals receiving the same sensory experience. As long as observations are necessarily sensory based, and they are, then even objective observations amount to collective subjective experiences from which we draw consensus based on the numbers of individuals so undergoing the sensory experiences.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Zach:
As I feared you are confusing what they observed a “mystical union with God” with what they doing at the time entering into a “trance like state of spirituality”. Most folks experience God’s presence in a totally spontaneous way. God just shows up for me there was no trance at all I was just minding my own business.
I’m saying that as far as I know the experience would be somthing like this
First Pete the polytheist senses the existence of a God who controls the rain. Then later perhaps moments later he senses a being that is responsible for the fertility of his crops. Or perhaps he senses an entity that is responsible for both things at the same time and he assumes its two gods and not one.
Like I’ve said the SD is only one sense you don’t know all the characteristics of something from one sense. I might see a black animal running past me and a few minutes later see an animal swimming in the muddy river a little while off.
Depending on my background knowledge of animals I will decide if I’ve observed two species or one that can run and swim
I’ll take your example one phrase at a time and show how it applies to the SD as well as vision
2.
To a unbeliever I might say Ive experienced God’s existance
The unbeliever examines the evidence for the resurrection or the evidence from design and concludes that God does in fact exist
Then answered payer
followed by a changed inclination in his heart
15.
Ditto with the SD
That is only because there is no downside that I know of for the blind person to acknowledge this fact. On the other hand I know of folks that would deny that Joy is a synesthete for example.
My wife can sense it when a food has pork in it even a minute amount. For the longest time I was sure she was imagining it because she had an aversion to eating the foods I like.
My desire for pork caused me to deny what my wife objectively observed.
No when I evaluate something as to it’s qualities this is the very definition of subjective.
However if I can objectively conclude a concert exists because I hear the sound it makes
Do you see the difference?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
0112358
2.
Keep in mind by this standard vision is subjective as well remember my point all along is that the SD is as objective as vision so I would have no problem with this point of yours
7.
I agree but the same goes for all of our senses vision included Zach somehow thinks that the SD is inferior to these so called objective senses I’m not sure why
12.
Yes and this evidence might come as the result of his vision or his SD. I’m only saying that he should not automatically trust the one and discount the other
I agree I don’t expect to convince a blind man to trust my vision if he is not inclined to do so with out verifing evidence. The SD is just one piece of evidence but it is evidence. Feel free to take it or leave it but don’t say it is inferior to your senses if you haven’t experienced it.
nullasalus:
Give that man a gold star!!!!
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
You said:
I certainly agree that there is such a thing as transcendent truth. However, if we go about arriving at that truth using our own SD there is still much confusion. As Zachriel points out, there are many contradicting religions that have a sense of the divine. If there is such a thing as transcendent truth, only one (or none) of the contadicting religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Naturalism etc.) can be true. Because each of these religions have a sense of the divine we should rely more strongly on objective experiences and reason than on SD. Christianity is the one religion that has the recorded experiences of 4 individuals who objectively experienced someone who claimed he was God. To me this is better support for the transcendent truth of Christianity than my own personal experience of God.
Comment by 0112358 — June 29, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
OK . . . . I think I'm with you now!
Comment by 0112358 — June 29, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
0112358, I agree there is more to truth than SD and would point out the biblical standard for assessing another- judged by their fruits. Fruits are visible and accessible to senses.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
nullasalus
When confronted with the millions of folks who know that God exists because we have experienced him the atheist bent on denying God has only three options
1) He can embrace postmodernism and all that implies about the relative nature of all truth including the truths of science.
The materialists on this forum as a rule don’t want to do that because it would mean that ID is as legitimate a truth as Darwinism.
2) He can try and discredit the information gleaned from the SD by proving it is imaginary.
This is a tall order especially given the recent studies from folks like Beauregard.
This leaves folks like Zach with only number three
3) Try to downgrade our experience into something trivial like personal opinions of music or styles of clothing that can be ignored by sober folks who are interested in “facts”
And what we know can then be contrasted to observations using the “real” objective senses like vision.
I am only trying to show that option three is not really an option and to perhaps leave open the possibility that maybe there is more to life than what you can see or taste or smell.
This whole discussion began when Allen Macneill said
Quote:
Personally, I believe that the only way to understanding is through empirical investigation, which depends on sensory input and logical inference based on that input.
End quote
It’s just this kind of materialistic arrogance that a little dose of SD could cure
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Comparatively vague.
You've already veered from the parallel. The 'unbeliever' gains *nothing* from your perception.
In the former example, the sighted person makes a specific assertion, that the neighbor is coming, and the unsighted person tests, by other means, the claim. Even if we accept that there exists objective evidence of God's existence, that doesn't mean that your sensus divinitatis is providing you with any independently verifiable information. Atoms exist, but that doesn't mean Timothy Leary can objectively peer into them while on LSD. To demonstrate that, he would have to provide information otherwise unavailable to him.
You really need to stop misrepresenting my position. For the record, please restate my position.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Senses are subjective, by definition. Objectivity requires showing that a claim is independent of the individual mind or perception. We can, however, show that vision often provides objective and verifiable information—but not always. Modern science approaches the problem of objectivity through peer review, cross-checking with multiple observers and multiple methodologies, and the extensive use of instruments.
Objectivity requires more than just saying so.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
My last post disappeared into the ozone. Perhaps it's in moderation.
Comment by Zachriel — June 29, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
June 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I just restored your post. I've improved the way comment spam is detected so hopefully no more comments will be caught in moderation, but it'll take some time for the system to "learn".
I've also restored preview.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Zach:
For the record, please restate my position.
You believe that evidence from the SD is subjective and evidence from vision is objective
from the archives
fifth monarchy man:By sensory input do you mean just the five senses? Or could this this include senses like the "sixth sense" or the sensus divinatis?
Zachriel:That would not be objective or scientific evidence. (Nor has spectral evidence been allowed in most courts since Salem.)
fifth monarchy man: Why is evidence from sight considered objective and evidence from the sensus divinatis considered subjective?
Zachriel:Um, because that's what the words mean.
Zachriel: An objective observation is a phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
fifth monarchy man: so you agree that sight is just as subjective as the sensus divinatis because some folks are blind.
Zachriel:What makes an observation objective is that it can be replicated by independent observers. Nowadays, we use scientific instruments to increase the reliability, accuracy and objectivity of our observations.
I think that sums up your position
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 30, 2008 @ 7:27 am
June 30th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Zach:
You believe that evidence from the SD is subjective and evidence from vision is objective
from the archives
I think that sums up your position
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 30, 2008 @ 7:28 am
June 30th, 2008 at 8:07 am
All sense impressions are fundamentally subjective. Objectivity is a social construct and it takes work to show that any particular observation is objective, that is, independent of the individual mind. However, it can be shown that sight can provide objective information (but not always), and you have yet to show that sensus divinitatis ever does.
Music is objectively beautiful. We know this from our sensus musicalis. As far as independant discovery goes, there are many examples of many folks coming to sense musical beauty as a group at the same time and place. (We can even measure their brainwaves!) And if you were to use your reason, and not close your heart, you would realize that beauty exists. Beauty is truth.
Did I mention angry waves? And before you wave it away, remember that there is an entire subset of humanity who sense good vibes and bad vibes as real properties of a kharmic universe.
Grass has the quality of being longer than it is wide, of having roots, of using and storing energy from the Sun. So photosynthesis is subjective.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 8:07 am
June 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Editing results in a new comment …
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 8:09 am
June 30th, 2008 at 8:10 am
… if you press "post comment", but
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 8:10 am
June 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
… works if you edit,
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 8:15 am
June 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am
… then press "preview".
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 8:20 am
June 30th, 2008 at 9:25 am
You squirmed, but didn't really answer my question. Let me ask it a different way: Have you ever perceived an "undeniable presence of God?"
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 30, 2008 @ 9:25 am
June 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am
As I said, it's irrelevant to the point. (Zachriel is not the topic.)
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 9:36 am
June 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Oh, I know it's irrelevant to an academic reductionist approach to the subject. But what is deliciously more interesting to me is that if you have no such experience, FMM knows something about the subject you don't. There's a certain level of discussion you're simply not qualified for. I think that's relevant to the subject.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 30, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Fifth monarchy man considers the supposed objectivity of sensus divinitatis to be an important consideration. I am willing to take fifth monarchy man's claim at face value, and then argue its merits. Apparently, you are not.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Yes, that would emphasize the subjectivity of the experience. You might try to explain that to fifth monarchy man.
I'm sure fifth monarchy man knows many things I do not.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Zach:
so objectivity is subjective
:lol:
that's the best one yet
Is the determinination subjective or objective.
Is this an objective fact or your subjective opinion?
Ive got to go my side hurts
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 30, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
No. We're attempting to establish whether something in the realm of sensible experience is *independent of the individual mind*. Modern science approaches the problem of objectivity through peer review, cross-checking with multiple observers and multiple methodologies, and the extensive use of instruments.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
From Wikipedia
Social construction
A social construction or social construct is any phenomenon "invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular culture or society, existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follow certain conventional rules. One example of a social construct is social status.
and
Within constructionist thought, a social construction (social construct) is a concept or practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society
Sounds like radical postmoderism to me. Zach give it up. This is too easy.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 30, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Yes, just like the scientific method is a social construct. The aim is to establish whether something in the realm of sensible experience is *independent of the individual mind*. One important aspect of this is cross-checking with multiple observers and multiple methodologies, and involves various forms of communication and recording of observations.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Wow
So you accept the standard definition of social construct?
I want to make sure I understand you.
Are you are agreeing that vision is objective only because your “culture” (the science culture) has determined that it is objective.
While In reality it (objectivity) is nothing but an invention or artifact of your particular culture or society existing because your friends agree to behave as if it exists
Are you really saying that you believe SD is subjective only because you and your practical materialist friends say it is?
I don't know what to say
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 30, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
This may be the source of your confusion. Science, and objective determination are *methodologies* that include essential social elements that have been developed over generations. The methodologies are social constructs.
People aren't born objective. They learn it from the culture.
We reasonably determine an observation or phenomena is independent of the individual mind, and therefore of the individual culture. That's what we mean by objective. That's the whole point.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Keep in mind that just because we may construct a model, it doesn't mean it doesn't reflect some underlying reality. Newton's Theory is 'just' a model, but is highly successful at both predicting and explaining a wide variety of phenomena. Calling something a social construct doesn't mean that it is 'only' a social construct or arbitrary.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Consider another world, virtually an identical twin to our world, but where a genetic disease has left 99% of the people with severe color blindness, so only 1% of the people have any concept of color. So even though color is an independent, really out there property for some people, and people who have the ability to perceive colors can have very informed and precise conversations about colors with each other, according to Zachriel, what they perceive is not really objective because the color perceivers are in the minority. Is that your position, Zachriel?
So what do we do with Galileo and the Copernicans? At one time those holding to the Copernican theory were the minority, weren’t they? But why did Copernican theory eventually succeed and the theories that were based on the “majority social construct” of the time fail. It is because Copernican theory measured up more accurately what was really objectively out there. Science would have never advanced if we had followed Zachriel’s "objective truth is nothing more than a social construct” idea.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 30, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am
fmm is using the Lewis Carrol argument, "I've said it thrice: what I tell you three times is true." If he just repeats "SD is objective" enough times surely that will eventually make it true. fmm seems to think he has a magically 6th sense that atheists simply don't have. Well, I believe I have personally experienced exactly the same sensations he has experienced. At least the descriptions of these experiences are extremely similar. I have had deeply spiritual experiences and powerfully emotional experiences in which I seemed connected to a powerful loving force. And yet you can simply ignore my experiences because you "just know" your version is truth, after all you "tested the spirits" and some ditto-heads agreed with you thus proving your SD is objective and my experiences must have just been something else and not true SD. Why, you can even define your SD to where one MUST by definition accept God after experiencing it or else they didn't really experience it. I'm not even allowed in your club until I become a ditto-head who will agrees with you. And still you assert this is an objective sense. I'm sorry, but if you can look at something and see God and I can look at the same thing and see a Spaghetti Monster then we are definitely not talking about an objective sense.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 1, 2008 @ 1:51 am
July 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
No. It has nothing to do with majority rule, but with being able to independently verify something. Turns out color is an objective property, something we can determine through the use of various simple tests. Humans don't see in ultraviolet or infrared, but it's an objective property also.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 7:22 am
July 1st, 2008 at 7:37 am
Zach:
A social construct is arbitrary by definition your group decides it’s true so its true. Perhaps a social construct can be more than a social construct but it will never be objectively true.
Todd
Actually all I’ve said is the SD is just as objective as vision. It’s a simple process to see if I’m correct define objective and see if the SD fits as well as vision.
you can prove me wrong by simple pointing out something that is true of vision that is not true of the SD.
Zach has placed his money on the fact that his group accepts vision and not the SD he’s the one with the exclusive truth defining club not me
It's not me who says your experience is not evidence it's Zach and his club he thinks that what you observed was the a product of your own mind like anger and is of no value what so ever for determining reality
Actually I've known lots of folks that reject the evidence of their SD you seem to be in this category. Evidence is evidence and the SD must be weighed like everything else.
If you mean the Christian club your right if you mean the SD club your not.
Ever heard of optical illusions? Different folks look at things all the time with their eyes and see different things it’s why like to have multiple witnesses to a crime before we convict.
Yet Zach’s club considers observations with vision to be objective but does not give the same status towhat we see with the SD. Why is that?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 1, 2008 @ 7:37 am
July 1st, 2008 at 7:56 am
Modern society has developed a methodology called "science". However, we can easily avoid another semantic argument. Just call science a well-defined social activity.
Yes, you said it (at least) three times.
Senses are subjective by definition. Objectivity is derived. It takes work to show that a particular phenomenum is independent of the individual mind.
Please desist from misstating my position. However, vision can be shown to often provide objective information. You have yet to show that this is possible for sensus divinitatis.
Please desist from misstating my position.
Please desist from misstating my position.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 7:56 am
July 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Zach:
Objectivity can’t be derived and be a social construct. A social construct is invented by a group not derived by definition.
Not really for most things we sense we merely assume they are independent of the individual mind until it is proven otherwise. Our minds compel us to do so. I don’t try to prove that my computer is independent of my mind for example.
I merely assume this is true because that’s what we do with observations from our senses. That is unless we are Descartes.
I'm sorry if I've misread you. Here is your chance to state your position clearly and concisely. Please answer with yes or no. No commentary to cloud the issue.
Is information obtained through the SD as objective as information obtained through vision?
Is information obtained through the SD evidence in the same way information obtained through vision is?
Is your criteria for deciding what is considered objective a social construction?
We (your materialist culture) determines a certain phenomena (vision as apposed to observations from the SD) is independent of the individual mind, and therefore of the individual culture.
how very white of you.
Why don’t I and the millions of folks who know that what they sense is real and not a matter of subjective opinion get a vote in the “We” ?
Why can’t something be objectively true even if it is unpopular in your “We”
Why can’t we have one objective standard that all things must meet to be called objective so that “We” don’t have to determine who gets in and who doesn’t ?
I’ll let you have the last word unless you can give me a good reason to accept the constructs of your little minority materialist click. Instead of the observations from my own senses.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 1, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The reason we trust vision to highly correlate with an objective reality is because we can measure and quantify the experience to provide confirmation. Through these means we can reach an independently verifiable conclusion about the external world and how well our vision correlates to it. You cannot do the same with SD. Note the key concept here, vision highly correlates with an objective reality that can be independently verified through multiple means.
Because they understand the meaning of objective? Because it is impossible to translate the SD from its subjective perception to any objective description that can be confirmed by another mind? Because they can test and measure vision and prove that it highly correlates to an objective reality so they can easily justify claiming vision is objective?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 1, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Even though objectivity means independent of the individual mind, you rely on your individual mind and call it objective.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Todd:
Was vision objective before we could measure and quantify it? If in the future we learn to measure the effects of the SD perhaps by recording brain waves would it then become objective?
Remember we have already started on this path with the test on the Nuns
What tests can you perform on vision that do not rely on vision itself for calibration?
Zach says that vision is subjective but the information gained from it is objective. Do you disagree?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 1, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Your claim is that sensus divinitatis provides objective information about God. Showing that it causes a particular brain state does nothing to confirm this claim. You have to provide specific information about God, and a way to independently verify this information.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Zach:
Says who? Your minority materialist click? Why should I care what you guys think?
For the record I’ve already provided specific information about God
He exists
And a way to and a way to independently verify this information.
Through reason our other senses and other observers.
Apparently your little group does not bother to listen to anything contrary to their particular social construct.
That is why I offered to let you have the last word.
Please take that opportunity so I won’t feel rude not responding in the future
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 1, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
From a dictionary:
objective
ADJECTIVE:
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Gordy Slack had written:
Having an actual existence or reality would be applicable to Slack's observation. Noone having the type of psychological empiricism mentioned is going to surrender his views to materialist dogma disguised as science.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
July 1st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
You.
You claim that sensus divinitatis provides objective information about God. That means you claim that it provides information about God that can be shown to be independent of the individual mind. You haven't been able to do so.
Hopelessly vague. Having a personal experience does not constitute objective evidence. Sharing a subjective experience does not constitute objective evidence.
Even though objectivity means independent of the individual mind, you rely on your individual mind and call it objective.
Comment by Zachriel — July 1, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
fmm,
Wow, "He exists," that's some really specific information, you're amazing, I can really see why you are so convinced about this whole SD thing. And to top it all off, other people actually agree with you! Spectacular! Thanks for teaching me that anything enough people instinctively agree with is objectively true. Why, we don't need silly tools like science, we can simply sit around in a big circle and agree with one another until we know everything!
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 2, 2008 @ 12:19 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:23 am
Todd:
“God exists” is much more specific than most information obtained from vision. From vision we usually get vague things like “that apple is red” or “it’s partly cloudy out side”. In fact God exists is exactly as specific as Zach’s earlier example “A neighbor who is coming exists”
For some reason his little group declares my observation to be vague but declares his to be specific enough to prove that information from vision is objective
For the life of me I can’t see an objective reason for doing so.
Actually It's Zach who argues that objectivty is a socal construct. The dictionary and I I take somthing to be objective if it Has actual existence or reality.
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 2, 2008 @ 7:23 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 am
Once again sorry about the quality of my posts I am really missing the edit function
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 2, 2008 @ 7:27 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
"God exists" is not specific at all. You mention no properties that can be independently verified. You can't just keep equivocating and expect to make a convincing argument.
"There's an apple on the table" can be verified by multiple observers using sight, touch, smell, taste. We can measure the apple's weight. We can measure its shape. We can identify its parts. We can talk about these properties and devise additional observations. We can even plant its seeds to make more apples.
"That apple is red" can be verified by a number of techniques. Not only can we test for consistency with other observers, color-blind people can use simple reflection tests, and we can also perform instrument testing to verify that the color of an apple is a real property.
“A neighbor is coming” can be verified by a blind person by calling out to the neighbor, listening to the reply, hearing footsteps and then engaging in conversation, even touching the person. So, the blind person, and all other observers can verify that the sighted person gave verifiable information. This sort of test can be repeated in many different ways, such that the blind person can come to the objective realization that sight can provide objective information.
You equivocate. You had agreed and even restated this definition.
objective, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 7:52 am
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Everytime I Try to Get Out, They Keep Pulling Me Back In.
We can do similar things with statement “God exists” it can be verified by multiple observers using various senses and reason. We can measure the effects of experiencing God. We can measure the extent of his physical creation. We can identify his attributes We can talk about these prosperities and devise additional observations. We can even share the news of his existence with others so as to increase his influence.
Color is probably the most subjective thing in nature. One man’s red is another man’s crimson or scarlet or ruby the fact you think that color can be objective but God’s existence not is very telling.
So can “God exists” but we’ve covered that many many times.
I agree inventing a social construct is a well defined social activity.
Anthropologists spend a lot of time studying it. But it only is valid to the little group that agrees and apparently me and the millions of folks like me are not in that group.
I was addressing Todd I wasn’t restating the definition I’m perfectly fine with the definition.
I like definitions they are objective by definition.
Observations from the SD fit this definition just as well as observations from vision as I’ve demonstrated over and over and over
For some reason your little group does not agree but why should I care about your social construct. You are after all in the minority.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 2, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
You're not paying attention. All sense impressions are subjective. But we can independently verify color, both by its relative consistency between observers, by simple tests and through instrumentation.
There is very little consistency between observers, and what consistency there is can be strongly correlated to the prevailing culture.
We can measure the effects of any subjective experience.
Assuming your conclusion.
Now we're getting somewhere. Name the attributes that you determine from sensus divinitatis, and how we can independently verify the claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
So you agree the impression from the SA are just as objective as vision
I rest my flipping case
We are not verifying color. We are verifying an objects adherence to a number on a scale This has nothing to do with color. Color is subjective.
My statement “was that apple is red” instead of the apple is a 4 on the color scale
Yea like the experience of seeing a red apple
What Claim? I made no claim about the attributes my claim was “God exists” not “God is loving”. Your claim was “an apple exists”on the table not a “juicy apple exists” on the table.
Although people do sense some of God’s attributes through the SD I am not claiming anything about the attributes here. You can't decide if the Apple is juicy or God is loving until you decide they exist.
My mentioning of attributes was in response to your claim that observing the properties of an apple proves that observations from vision are objective.
An atrubute is a property so acourding to your test the observations of the SD are objective
Now who’s not paying attention?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 2, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The difference is that we can show that vision can provide objective information, but everything you've said about sensus divinitatis confirms that it can't.
Yes, and we can objectively confirm that what people sense as the color red is a particular range of electromagnetic frequencies.
An apple is an object with objective properties, including taste. Your argument comes down to refusing to accept the objective properties of apples.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Try to reason it through. Why do we say that an apple has objective properties? How do we determine this?
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
No need
You have already said that WE (your Group) determine this by creating a social construct. Your group has decided what objectivity means based only on your social conventions and you then pretend that your social construct is objective for the rest of us
With such reason I can not argue you have said it is so at least according to WE and with your group we is all that matters.
You don't care about the definition of objective you don't care that the SD has all the objective properties that vision has. We have determined and that's that.
What I want to know is why I and the folks like me should care what WE (your group) thinks
Until you give me a better reason than “We determine it to be so” I am are done here
this time I mean it.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 2, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
You can't even establish that an apple has objective properties. Try to reason it through.
Comment by Zachriel — July 2, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Don't worry I promise to abide by my decision not to beat this dead horse any more. I'm just concerned that in my discussion here perhaps I’ve left the impression that objective knowledge is impossible.
So just in case anyone is still checking in to this dead thread and has come to believe that if you reject Zach's group's socal construt you are left with out a way to establish any objective facts.
I thought I’d link to a concise explanation of the only objective way to establish objectivity.
Quote:
The objective probability of a belief being true, being that it is produced under the described conditions is high
end quote
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 3, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Needless to say I disagree with Plantinga's philosophy concerning warrant, but that quote you provide seems like a good one for separating objective from subjective. To be objective a sense must have a high objective probability. Above I used the term "highly correlate to an objective reality" to express this exact same notion. This probabilistic notion is exactly why Vision is objective (because it highly correlates to objective reality, i.e. has a high objective probability) and SD is merely subjective (it only correlates to your cultural indoctrination). Both sensory experiences are subjective, but one sense has been shown to highly correlate to an objective reality giving us both justification and warrant to form knowledge using that sense.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Todd:
The "only correlates to your cultural indoctrination" comment well illustrates Gordy Slack's point that you are squandering any science argument you wish to advance through a futile attempt to depict fmm's experience as illusory- the effect of the word indoctrination. It won't fly and worse yet conveys the impression that you are more interested in debunking religion than in advancing science.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
just some more on defining objectivity…
Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison in Objectivity define objectivity thus:
objectivity then doesn't mean trained judgement or true-to-nature… and so subjectivity is not opposed to either trained judgment or true-to-nature…
Comment by de_nacisse — July 4, 2008 @ 12:33 am
July 4th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Was the word "objective" in the video? (Please provide a transcript.)
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 8:26 am
July 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The question is what do we mean when we say something is "objective".
Thank you, de_nacisse. The question raised is what does it means to say something is "objective". You have provided a stronger argument and point of departure than fifth monarchy man's constant repetition of the same fallacies. (By the way, you seem to disagree with fifth monarchy man. Is this disagreement something you will just ignore?)
Probably true, though early philosophers (e.g. Plato) grappled with issues akin to objectivity.
That is correct. Objectivity is a vantage point.
Quite so. The concept of objectivity has evolved, and has only taken its modern form in the scientific age.
Independence from the individual mind. That is the definition we have been using (though we can leave out the phrase "name of truth" as extraneous).
That is the goal of objectification. (Of course, methodologies are never perfect and there are always artifacts of the observer.)
That I disagree with. Objectivity is certainly something garnered by training and acculturation. Part of becoming a scientist is learning the tools and methods of objectivity, including peer review, cross-checking with multiple observers and multiple methodologies, and the extensive use of instruments.
An aethete might say that this training can numb the spiritual sense.
This is correct. This delves into the problem of induction, but *given induction*, then objectivity can be shown to provide *consistent* information within *limited domains*. We can say that a particular phenomenum is (within reason) objectively verified. You can reject whether this determination is meaningful in a larger sense, but not that it is called objective per the definition.
And per this definition of objectivity, sensus divinitatis is strictly subjective.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 8:50 am
July 4th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I provide a written quote and then a video that can be seen and heard over and over if need be then Todd posts the same quote yet again and people still miss it with their” primary” senses, the ones that they claim provide objective information about the world.
Can there be any more proof of the point I’ve been making in this thread? Sorry but the Irony was just to thick to pass up
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 4, 2008 @ 9:56 am
July 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
You're advancing another strawman. No one has ever said that vision was infallible.
If this is written down somewhere, I'll take a look. Meanwhile, constantly rehashing the same argument and ignoring counterarguments doesn't advance your case.
Are you going to bother to respond to de_nacisse and my response?
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 11:55 am
July 4th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Zachriel,
I think you'll need a distinction between the objective and the inter-subjective. peer-review and cross-checking rely on multiple subjects/knowers/observers it is not objective per the definition. part of becoming a scientist is, as you say, learning the tools and methods of the objective – instrumentation the tool and loss of the subject the method. people are initiated into the rites and practices of the objective (as they are into any priesthood) and that requires training and acculturation; but there is a distinction between training/learning to be objective and being objective. the first (the learning/training) requires acculturation and such, but being objective is opposed to the knowers trained-judgments (that would be to mix the knower with the thing to be known, which is not objective).
Comment by de_nacisse — July 4, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
We establish independence of the individual mind by cross-checking by other means, such as by instrumentation. How did you think it was done?
It's like any other learning. Nor does it require holding any particular metaphysical view.
Yes, just like there's a difference between learning medicine and being a doctor.
No one is mixing the knower with the thing to be known. You'll have to describe how you think we can establish something as objective.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 1:48 pm