Why Does God Exist?

Michael said:
Certainly your in vitro cell culture work is not going to tell you what exactly happens in vivo. Nevertheless, that can not be your initial question – which would of course relate to the in vitro model. So far no problem. The work you do in vitro will help refine the question you ask in your rodent model. From those observations may come a question about primates. Your questions on primates may not look like those you asked about your cell culture (like – Does chemical A increase the number of cells in my dish?) but it may resemble it: Does chemical A increase the number of cells in a primates nose?

The powerful thing of science is that each question has an answer that usually has a probably of >95% confidence of representing reality. Again, the question about the Petri dish will represent the reality of cells in a Petri dish and the question about the rodent will represent the reality of the affect of Chemical A on a rodent. etcetera....


Is there a better approach to understanding reality than the scientific method?


;)
Michael
Click to expand...

Sure but sometimes you have to extrapolate results from one model to another when direct observation is not possible. One should recognise that such extrapolation may not be accurate.

e.g. rabbits develop atherosclerosis very rapidly on cholesterol feeding because the spectrum of bile acids they produce are different and do not lead to processing of cholesterol in the same way as in rodents or primates. But a lot of early work in atherosclerosis was done in rabbits and the results extrapolated to humans because ethically one could not feed cholesterol to humans, wait for them to develop atheroscelrosis and then euthanise them and harvest their tissues to determine if the effects are any different.;)
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is that unless you can verify the accuracy with which your model represents your system, you should approach any interpretation of results outside the parameters of your model with caution.

And that reality is also ultimately subjective. :)
 
superluminal said:
I think you're misusing the words and applying "subjective" in the wrong sense.

If I create a vacuum in a cylinder and drop an approx. 1g weight and time its fall against the oscillations of a fountain of cesium atoms, how, exactly, does subjectivity come into play?
Click to expand...

Subjectivity comes into play when you observe that interaction. That is not to say that the interaction becomes subjective; your mere perception of it is. That is literally all I am saying, and that is the full extent of the distinction between subjective and objective in this case.

Our perceptions of things are obviously subjective, but just because a human sets up the experiment does not, if properly done, make the experiment or the results subjective.
Click to expand...

Not the experiment itself, and not the results themselves. These are objects. Our perceptions of these objects are the subjective elements.

No one can "subjectively" experience the charge on a single electron, but by measuring differences in the motion of tiny oil drops (against calibrated standards), one can "objectively" determine this charge.
Click to expand...

You are right to put "objectively" in quotes. Any determination here is performed by a subject, i.e. a person; and that means that the data upon which his conclusion is based cannot be directly experienced by him. What this practically means is that his senses are capable of deceiving him and skewing his perception of the data, and therefore his conclusion. Not only are his senses fundamentally unfaithful to objective reality, so are anyone else's senses. A case in which everyone has wrongly read the data in exactly the same way and come to a wrong conclusion by consensus is conceivable here, and that keeps the test from ever being truly and fully objective.

For an extreme everyday example of deception by the senses, look at the sky on a starry night. Unless you have excellent vision, the stars will look nothing like the spherical form that we have found to be their true shape. In the course of humanity, this was unknown to us until relatively very recently; and a scientific thinker with all the resources available to him in prehistoric times would find it necessary to conclude that stars are pointed objects in the sky. Due to the poor vision of all humans, there would be a consensus on this matter, and one would be fully justified in believing it to be true. Only when the necessary tools became available could we know that it is not actually the case. This is a prime example of subjectivity in experimentation because it shows in principle a universal effect on our experience of reality that seems otherwise negligible, especially in a scientific context where relatively high precision tools are now available to us.

The place where you draw the line between object and subject here, or anywhere else, is exactly where you would expect to: with the senses of the subject. As soon as they come into play, subjectivity is introduced.
 
That’s fair enough.

Yet, of all the means we have for determining what is real, I think the scientific method is probably the best method.

:)
 
Michael said:
That’s fair enough.

Yet, of all the means we have for determining what is real, I think the scientific method is probably the best method.

:)
Click to expand...

Granted. But absolutism is in itself detrimental to the scientific process. ;)
 
Last edited:
Godless said:
He,he, that's my problem too sam! :eek:

Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

This the reason why i keep a good supply of links ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly. The recognition of subjectivity does not reduce the validity; however it does keep in focus the fact that the observations are limited by perceptual variation and the conclusion is a consensus ( i.e. a "model" of reality) rather than an objective reality i.e. an epistemiological objectivity.
 
Wow, the biggest misunderstanding of objective and subjective I've seen in a while. What's really funny is those with subjective views of reality claiming the objective view IS also subjective.
 
Definition: The distinction between objective and subjective in philosophy normally refers to judgements and claims which people make. Objective judgements and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgements and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.
Click to expand...
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_objective.htm

I can't make it any more clearer than the obvious! Theist are so damned delusional, that even objective reality is subjective to them ;)
 
In philosophy, subjectivity refers to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. They are unique to the person experiencing them, the qualia that are only available to that person's consciousness. Though certain parts of experience are objective and available to everyone, (such as the wavelength of a specific beam of light), others are only available to the person experiencing them (the quality of the color itself).
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Obvious indeed.
 
Godless said:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_objective.htm

I can't make it any more clearer than the obvious! Theist are so damned delusional, that even objective reality is subjective to them ;)
Click to expand...

So what do you think of those who do not even read their own links?:D

From your earlier link:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html
We should distinguish two kinds of objectivity:

1. metaphysical objectivity, and
2. epistemological objectivity.

We also should distinguish two kinds of subjectivity:

1. metaphysical subjectivity, and
2. epistemological subjectivity.
Click to expand...
Metaphysics consists of arguments and counterarguments about what we should call "real" or what we should say "is" or "has being".

Something exists metaphysically subjectively, by contrast, if its existence depends on its being experienced — like a headache, or how Bourbon tastes to you. A particular headache ceases to exist if the person experiencing the headache stops feeling it. Many realities are real in this way, too — a different way.

Now, you might be thinking your headache is a metaphysically objective event, in the sense that your headache is just your brain state, and your brain state is potentially public and measurable. Or, you might say that your headache is metaphysically objective in the sense that it exists as an event in the history of the world; it is part of the stream of history just like any other event. I agree. Your headache IS a metaphysically objective event in these senses.
Click to expand...
In epistemology, a statement (claim, assertion, proposition) is epistemologically objective if its truth value can be determined intersubjectively by generally-agreed methods or procedures. To say a statement is epistemologically objective is not to say the statement is true; it's just to say we could figure out a public method for determining whether or not the statement is true.

A claim is epistemologically subjective (or a matter of opinion) if the primary relevant evidence for determining the truth value of statements about the issue is metaphysically subjective. For example, the issue of whether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream is a matter of opinion because the truth value of the statement "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream", uttered by a particular person, depends primarily on how the ice cream tastes to that person, and that taste is metaphysically subjective.
Click to expand...
So, to summarize, something is metaphysically objective if its mode of being is public. The Eiffel Tower exists in a metaphysically objective way, since its existence does not depend on its being experienced.

A claim is epistemologically objective if there are generally recognized methods for deciding whether the claim is true or false. For example, the claim "There are 45 desks in this room" is epistemologically objective. Note that "objective" now does not mean the same as "true," since the claim "There are 45 desks in this room" is objective whether or not it is true or false. "Objectivity," properly understood, presupposes the availability of a method for producing agreement among people.

Now here’s the payoff. If an event is metaphysically subjective, claims about it can still be epistemologically objective! For example, consider pain again. If you had severe and unexplained pain, you would probably go to a doctor who would treat the pain as well as the underlying physical cause. There are even doctors who specialize in relief of pain. There are well-recognized physical drugs and therapies for pain relief. In other words, there’s all kinds of epistemologically objective knowledge about what is metaphysically a subjective occurrence.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Objective reality


What does it mean to say that reality is objective ?

The three axioms of Objectivism are : existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is associated with existence because they both treat the same phenomena (i.e. that something exists). The concept of existence includes identity.
The two basic concepts are therefore existence and consciousness. The relationship that we attribute them is at the base of our view of reality. Whenever we attribute primacy to existence or consciousness shapes how we view epistemology and thus everything else.

The basic datum behind the concept of "objective reality" is the primacy of existence over consciousness. This is, that consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity.
The definition of consciousness is : "Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". Consciousness, like any other entity, exists, or it would not be able to perceive.
If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity : otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.
This is what is meant by "primacy of existence" over consciousness. Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary.

The opposing view is the primacy of consciousness : consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence.
Existence resides in the realm of consciousness, and is molded by it.
Consciousness cannot therefore exist, since it is beyond existence. This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence (like the immaterial souls or the undetermined mind).

To what kind of vision of epistemology do both these beliefs lead ?

Objective reality, which is based on the primacy of existence, leads to the search of truth and existence with the use of perception and reality. This is examining the exterior world as reality and guide to reality.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is science, where the notions of hypothesis, experimentation and rejection of hypothesis if necessary, are acknowledgment of an objective reality that must be explored with our senses.

The ethical consequence of objective reality is objective ethics, which means that ethics are derived from reality and can be understood.

Subjective reality, which is based on the primacy of consciousness, leads to the search of truth by revelation, opinion, divine guidance. It is simply examining our internal mechanisms as reality and guide to reality.

There are two major sides to subjectivism which are intrinsicism and Subjectivism. Intrinsicism basically says that our knowledge must come from authority, and duty. Subjectivism asserts that knowledge is a matter of personal preference. Basically they are both subjectivist ideas, but placing the burden of omniscient thought in either authority, or each of us.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is religion, where the notion of faith and revelation, show the need to look inside one's emotions and opinions for truth about reality.
Religion offers a temporary solution for a species whose awareness exceeds their understanding, but does not have any positive cognitive value.
The ethical consequence of subjective reality is subjective ethics, which means that ethics cannot be derived from reality. This leads either to emotionalism or religious doctrine. The most important philosopher of this position is Kant.

Since everything else is derived from epistemology, the two beliefs lead to an opposite hierarchy of knowledge and values.

To resume : Objectivism = we are aware of reality with perception. Subjectivism = we are aware of reality with internal processes.
http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/reality.html

Maibe you can grasp this one :confused:
 
Whoa whoa whoa.

Objectivism is NOT objectivity. Objectivism is some cupcake philosophy made up by sanctimonious writer and weekend philosopher Ayn Rand. At least get your terminology right.

The passage you have quoted is additionally highly misleading. There is no need in philosophical discussion to use words like divine, revelation, or guidance. Subjectivity is that which pertains to first-person qualitative phenomena. Period. That means any information which comes through the senses. The only purely objective faculty a human being has is reason, and even then we make mistakes. But barring that, using reason we make objective claims based upon subjectively acquired data. (This is the general gist of science, I repeat.) The observations that give us that data, however, must always be subjective.
 
Objectivism is NOT objectivity. Objectivism is some cupcake philosophy made up by sanctimonious writer and weekend philosopher Ayn Rand. At least get your terminology right.
Click to expand...

The cupcake philosopher is YOU!! dip shit, you haven't produced shit, compared to the likes of Ayn Rand, you haven't a clue, what the hell reality is, or what the hell is objectivism, get a godamn clue, and a fucking education!!

The last thing most people want to do these days is to recognize reality.

The attempts to justify alternate “ways of knowing,” the politicization of science research and education, the preponderance of overemotional and manipulative rhetoric, the perversion of journalistic integrity and standards, the rise of religious fundamentalism over common sense—these are all expressions of the same impulse towards denying the existence and significance of an objective reality. Escapism isn’t a phenomenon unique to the 21st century, or even to the modern era, though the advent of truly global warfare and modern weapons technologies had a profound effect on the modern consciousness. Certainly scientific inquiry has always been a thing to fear for some, especially when it reaches unpleasant conclusions, conclusions that challenge the status quo and force us to adopt new ways of thinking about the world. Likewise, people have always felt the need to deal with the realities with which they’re confronted, to find some way to make fact compatible with mythology, prejudice, and preconception. So when I mention this impulse towards denying reality, I don’t mean to suggest that it is unique to 2006—I realize it has a longer history than that.

Nevertheless, it seems to have become increasingly widespread and increasingly relevant in recent years. Even as science and technology experience exponential levels of growth and development, even as we learn more and more about the world around us, most people maintain a belief that facts are to some degree malleable. Reality, within this mindset, is secondary to belief and emotion. The core of the fallacy here is that reality (by definition) actually exists independent of belief and emotion; denying reality doesn’t make it any less real, nor does it keep reality from affecting us. There is an objective, empirically knowable world out there, and while we can certainly entertain some interesting philosophical scenarios about our senses being deceived, we all rely on our senses to give us an experience of the world, and those who retreat to faux nihilism in order to justify ignoring specific parts (the objectionable ones) of the empirical world are being intellectually dishonest.

This tendency is a result of a number of things, but mostly it’s a result of dogma. Religious dogma, political dogma, cultural dogma—the common denominator is the steadfast reliance on ideas that don’t respond or correspond to reality. Most of it, I suppose, tends to be tied to religious/theistic dogma, given that speculation about metaphysics (not to mention many religions’ teachings that the material/corporeal world is not something to worry about and is only a means to an end) is likely to lead to a disdain for the material world, and therefore a disdain for empirical fact. Intelligent Design/creationism proponents tout their beliefs as science because they don’t like the implications of the available data and of the accepted scientific theories; politicians and corporations work to distort science to their own ends, filtering out the research that doesn’t support the “conclusions” that have been pre-chosen according to self-interest; blowhard pundits spout shameless nonsense day after day for the purpose of manipulating public opinion, since the facts are either too much of a hassle to analyze rationally or else not supportive of the pundits’ views; journalists and newscasters twist stories to meet their own largely commercial ends, now that “news” has bled into “entertainment.” In nearly every significant area of life, there is a central drive toward ignoring or outright rejecting facts that happen to be inconvenient. If this isn’t chronic denial in the psychological sense, I don’t know what is.

The bottom line is this: the world doesn’t go away when we close our eyes. It is something that needs to be viewed, studied, analyzed, and dealt with, regardless of how much easier it may be to cover our eyes at the parts that challenge us. Truth seems to have fallen by the wayside as something to strive for, as a noble and important value to hold up beside beauty, freedom, and love (although I suppose at least two of those three are also disintegrating as ideals). This is not as it should be. The limitations of what we know about the world are significant enough without people deliberately ignoring the things we do know for the sake of expediency. Without a steadfast pursuit of truth, those other cherished ideals—especially freedom—start to become trivial.

We should be dealing with the world, and with the social and political and scientific realities of that world. Choosing to arbitrarily ignore these things should be unthinkable. Life doesn’t stop being complicated because we pretend it’s simple. Anyone who advocates this “facts don’t matter” attitude should be openly and publicly criticized–the facts do matter. They always have, and they always will, no matter how many people choose to indulge their ridiculous preconceptions at the cost of things like truth, honesty, and accuracy.

-Urizen

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 31st, 2006 at 8:04 pm and is filed under Science, Politics, Culture, Philosophy, Psychology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. http://intelligentparty.wordpress.com/2006/01/31/the-denial-of-objective-reality/
 
Godless said:
The cupcake philosopher is YOU!! dip shit, you haven't produced shit, compared to the likes of Ayn Rand, you haven't a clue, what the hell reality is, or what the hell is objectivism, get a godamn clue, and a fucking education!!
Click to expand...

Very objective of you.

Will you be making an actual point in your own words anytime soon, or can I ignore you?
 
You can do whatever the hell you want! But what is objective is that you've not produced shit compared to the likes of Ayn Rand. Just another dipshit talking shit about a radical philosopher of our times. As I've come to notice in these forums, most dipshit's who ill speak of Rand, haven't ever picked up one of her books, or mostly just misunderstand her and go by hearsay.
 
Godless said:
You can do whatever the hell you want! But what is objective is that you've not produced shit compared to the likes of Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

No, that's still pretty subjective. Do you not understand the difference?

Godless said:
Just another dipshit talking shit about a radical philosopher of our times. As I've come to notice in these forums, most dipshit's who ill speak of Rand, haven't ever picked up one of her books, or mostly just misunderstand her and go by hearsay.
Click to expand...

There you go assuming false things again. I've done my due diligence on Objectivism, and I've read enough of Rand to know what she's about.

On the other hand, the combination of fiery passion and lack of content with which you defend Rand suggests that you don't really understand either Rand or what I'm saying. By the way, all I'm really saying is that Objectivism is not the same thing as objectivity. I'm laughing my ass off that such a triviality has elicited this kind of explosion from you. But do continue; it's been a boring day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top