Okay... here we go.
The root of all friction caused by different "beliefs" is EVERYBODY'S BELIEFS ARE OBJECTIVE WITHIN THEIR OWN HEADS EVEN IF THEY SAY THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE because beliefs interpret experiences just as much -if not more- than experiences combine to produce inferential beliefs. Therefore beliefs limit the objectivity of experiences and vice-versa. Yes, this is QUITE a bit self-delusional because common sense tells us we could all be wrong, but we cannot all be right, but in case you haven't noticed, humanity tends to regard "reason" at times as being purely optional, along with putting a little flag saying "irrational step here" at such places.
Okay, first of all, as I said before, "Objective within their own heads" isn't objective at all... that's subjectivity. I'm sorry if you think I was disrespecting you by not responding to the rest of that but that's kind of an extremely obvious distinction that you don't seem to be getting. That doesn't really touch the very next thing you said about beliefs and experience, except for the fact that you seem to be closer to proving that there's no such thing as objectivity
at all than saying 'everything is objective.'
I agree with Wolf that your statement here is subject to its own rules. You say beliefs interpret experiences just as much as experiences produce beliefs and that's why beliefs limit objectivity. I agree with that, somewhat. Aside from the fact that some beliefs are neither falsifiable, disprovable, scientific, absolute, or objective by any standard at all. (I know you like to take that as an insult, but I personally feel that that's the best argument in favor of Christianity. If there is an omniscient god that grants free will to the degree that Christians claim, he would make damn sure that it has to be taken on faith alone. It's kind of cheating otherwise. But I digress.)
So yes. Self-delusion is the key term, here. But unfortunately there IS such thing as objectivity... well, I take that back. It's probably not
really objectivity in the sense of absolutism, but it's objective enough for us humans and what we do in our little, insignificant corner of the universe (Occam's Razor applies, so I must necessarily assume atheism for the sake of objectivity). (Watch. I'll come back with this later. It'll be fun. Grab some popcorn.)
I don't see how the last two bits correlate, though. We
could all be wrong, and we
can't all be right. (As for the next sentence, you'd have to be omniscient to be able to say for certain what the entirety of humanity is guilty of, and this is why your statement on beliefs is subject to itself--Christianity does make statements of humanity as a whole, whether it has the room to or not, so naturally, you assume you do.)
Whether some disregard reason as being optional isn't relevant. Neither is claiming the key to logic and rationality. It's actually quite consistent with the 'common sense' bit, and doesn't really mean anything for your argument.
But then again, I'm pretty sure that that post was just bait.
Learn about self-deception and the TRUE dark side of humanity.
This from the man who said, "Some people live in hell long before they actually go there." (Oh, and by the way... similar to how claiming victory in a debate on grounds of 'forfeit by default' doesn't make your position correct or even relevant, capitalizing the word 'true' in a sentence does not make your statement any more true.)
Reflectionist, if it's any incentive, as long as the only response you can congeal that will not summon the moderators is an inane and vulgar blathering, I can legitimately claim victory on all those threads by forfeit. I don't like seeing people whom I know can do better lowering themselves like this and I figured you could use a kick in the pants.
Incentive? Incentive to what? Give a shit? No, my friend. This is what I call fun. I've never actually taken a philosophy, critical thinking, or debate course in my life, and I still manage to keep up with you, who can barely make it through a thread without referencing your educational resumé (so to speak), with ease.
It's actually quite amusing to me, man. Though, I'm sure your educational pursuits are well worth the time you've spent slaving over them.
That's the worst response you could ever make, Reflectionist.
Why didn't you point out that what Egann said is subject to its own rules. Therefore, everything in the spoiler box is also biased by his subjective beliefs and is therefore not really a statement of objective reality. If he can back up his statement with references from scientific journals that show otherwise, then perhaps he might have a point.
Wow. I doubt you know what kind of a monster I can make from those three sentences. I'm sorry. I can't resist the temptation.
You make a few pretty BIG assumptions here without even blinking an eye. 1. There is such a thing as objective reality apart from subjective experiences. 2. Logic is objective. 3. Logic is common to all human beings (so you can apply logic to what I say and still wind up with valid conclusions.)
Even though these are all valid (and probably correct) assumptions, I doubt that you are aware that 2 and 3 REQUIRE logic to exist a priori apart from any human observations or experiences to operate.
And that is where your bias is most clear. You assume that logic has to be absolute a priori apart from any human observations or experiences. The truth is that it doesn't. In all honesty, do you really think that whatever logic we can come up with has any bearing on what goes on outside of this planet (save for Space exploration, of course)? If there were no humans, there would be no logic to be had. It doesn't have to be true absolutely, it has to work in the (for lack of a better term) cognitive frequency that mankind exists in.
In other words, logic only matters to people. People created logic out of observation. What exists isn't a product of logic. This is why I rag on you so much about how you're not really a Christian because you worship logic at the expense of Jesus. (By the way, I'm really sorry about that last PM I sent you. I was totally on mushrooms that night and just didn't give a fuck about logic or your argument about humanism or any of that pretentious shit you and I were talking about and I let you know how much of it just doesn't fucking matter to the way people go about their daily lives. And I know that it's important to you, so I'm sorry. Tangent end.)
I would say your assumptions are deeper, though, Egann.
The standard (materialistic) explanation of logic is that it is based on observations. The observation that Mom cannot be in two places at once eventually becomes "If Mom is at the store, she cannot be in the kitchen." Hence logic is an inference based on millions of repeated observations. HOWEVER, repeated observations do not an objective belief make. You've drilled this point in since day one.
Ergo EITHER logic is NEITHER universal NOR objective (because it is created from a culmination of subjective experiences which may or may not be shared universally) OR logic is not acquired through experiences, genetics, or any other fallible (subjective) method of learning. As that every method of learning we are aware of in this universe is subjective, it follows that it must be..."given" so to speak, from an outside source. What's worse, to disagree with this, you either have to say that subjective experiences can eventually become objective beliefs OR that humans have a means to attain objective knowledge.
Hmm.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm RATHER sure that's not a conclusion you wanted your assumptions to create.
Or, he could just say that objective is something that doesn't exist to the degree to which you think he's talking about. When someone says objective, you naturally assume 'absolute' which is consistent with your theistic views and this is where you get your arguments on objectivity. Because you think that when we say 'objective' we have to mean 'absolute' too, which DOES necessitate a god to give it absolute value.
Yay for a difference in perspective. I've been holding out on that for a long time, and that's why I haven't posted as much. At least 90% of the disagreements in this redundant discussion is due to that sort of misunderstanding. Ever heard of Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box analogy? Let me quote some pretentious shit that ultimately means nothing to the course of cosmic history below for you:
In Philosophical Investigations (1.293) Wittgenstein introduces a famous and memorable analogy: the beetle in the box. Suppose everyone has a box that only they can see into. No one can see into anyone else's box. Each describes what he or she sees in the box as a 'beetle'. I know what a beetle is from my own examination of what is in my box, you from yours. Wittgenstein points out that in this situation while we all talk about our beetles, there might be different things in everyone's boxes, or perhaps nothing at all in some of them. The thing in the box, could be changing all the time.
That's where Wittgenstein comes in, says some shit about the language-game, and basically says that it doesn't fucking matter.
Am I allowed to believe in something different to science? Or do I have to back everything I believe in with evidence?
If you believe nothing else from me, Andrew, believe this:
There is always room for a difference between what a man believes in his heart and what a man debates with a smirk on the interwebs.
Edited by Reflectionist, 29 July 2009 - 02:17 AM.
