h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Jane Austin, welcome to the FFFF.

I'd say those questions you listed are pretty constantly 'on the table' around here. Basically, this is a place where people can discuss religion and philosophy without fear of being shouted down by any dogmatic, scripture-thumping absolutist who doesn't know how to listen. The appeal of such a place has attracted an ever-evolving membership of free-thinkers, pantheists, pagans, atheists, humanists, weirdos, and othes.

You're welcome to jump in and reply to anyone, or to toss out a new topic (assuming there's anything new under the sun). If you'd like to join (no tangible advantage or disadvantage there), just go to A665101 and fill out the form.

Having decided that subjective 'truth' is not truth at all but belief, or indeed delusion , we have come round in a circle. We are now in the position where we have (almost) agreed that, while the scientists search for objective truth, or at least knowledge, the believers prefer their subjective truth. Further, there are those who would argue that, such is the nature of subjective truth, not only can two people who hold mutually contradictory views both be right but that an individual can believe in two mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously.

Clearly this is going to get us nowhere in any kind of sensible discussion. As a starting point, perhaps we can decide on one basic belief which can be regarded as objective and which might yield to logical debate?

I would suggest (begging your indulgence m'lud) that we could start with the concept of Creation. Either the universe was Created by an outside intelligence or it came into being some other way. This leaves plenty or scope for Big Bang, continuous creation, what went before, evolution, quantum theory, who created the Creator etc as topics for discussion.

Pantheists may hold different views to Monotheists, Jedis may feel that there was no Creator but that 'god' is some emergent property of life or of the universe itself. Agnostics can test their beliefs against the big questions perhaps. This should allow people to analyse and express their own beliefs while contributing to the debate. Also it should not fall prey to the usual issues of definition or semantics as long as we start by agreeing one thing:

The universe exists.

F

I'm sorry, Fathom, but this is offensive claptrap. You may not believe it, but that's no excuse for rubbishing it.

Objective truth and subjective truth are complementary. It would be remarkably stupid to 'prefer' one over the other, IMO. Scientists, who "search for objective truth, or at least knowledge", also have and express personal preferences: "The pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood painted the most expressive pictures ever." "Manchester United are the best!" Would a 'scientist' be corrupted by expressing such subjective truths? No, of course not.

I don't recall anyone proposing or defending the idea that "an individual can believe in two mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously." I suggested once, by way of a joke, that potent drugs would be required to successfully achieve this feat!

Finally, in the case of two individuals expressing different subjective truths, their views are not, nor can they be, "contradictory". The concept of subjective truth contains a personal element from which it cannot be meaningfully separated. A subjective truth is an assertion which is inherently 'true' (unless perhaps the individual concerned is deliberately mis-stating their own beliefs... ). Contradiction is not a useful concept in this context.



Who wants to limit themselves to 'objectivity' and 'logical debate'? Discussions in the FFFF tend to cover a wider scope than that, IME.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Fathom,

Ah, but *does* the universe exist? If so, in what way? What if this is all Vishnu's dream?

az

P-c, You might find it offensive but it wasn't meant to be since it was merely a restatement of what had been discussed before.

Subjective truth is a matter of opinion, belief, faith or delusion. It is often associated with value judgements.

Objective truth is supported by evidence.

Religion is not supported by evidence. Religion is therefore subjective truth. A few days ago it became clear from a number of posts that, whilst the atheists would like to see evidence for God, the believers preferred to go on faith.

Two individuals can hold mutually contradictory beliefs (Christian and atheist, say) and because these are subjective truths - a matter of opinion - they can both be right. Assuming that these beliefs can not be tested by experiment or can be seen to contradict the available evidence.

You introduced the substance induced issue of one individual holding simultaneously contradictory beliefs apparently as a response to Noggin - although I can't actually see the connection.

"Objective truth and subjective truth are complementary. It would be remarkably stupid to 'prefer' one over the other, IMO. Scientists, who "search for objective truth, or at least knowledge", also have and express personal preferences"

It is reasonable for a scientist, or a judge or a bank manager to prefer Guns & Roses to Whitesnake if they wish as these are value judgements. If they preferred water over adenosine triphosphate because it's easier to spell, the defendant over the plaintiff because his voice was deeper or to lend money to people from Scunthorpe because they are more trustworthy we might be amused. BUT although they can privately hold these views if they wish, when they allow them to cross over into their professional affairs we would rightly be disturbed.

"Finally, in the case of two individuals expressing different subjective truths, their views are not, nor can they be, "contradictory". The concept of subjective truth contains a personal element from which it cannot be meaningfully separated. A subjective truth is an assertion which is inherently 'true' (unless perhaps the individual concerned is deliberately mis-stating their own beliefs... ). Contradiction is not a useful concept in this context."

I accept that it is meaningless to contradict them in the sense of "no you don't ..." because it is not possible to contradict what someone believes. Nevertheless I can, and sometimes should, say "you are wrong". For example if someone believes that God told them to kill all the prostitutes it might be sensible to correct that belief.


"Who wants to limit themselves to 'objectivity' and 'logical debate'? Discussions in the FFFF tend to cover a wider scope than that, IME."

I do. Otherwise we just get reams of offensive claptrap.

F

F:

I'm if I didn't make my attempt at humour clearer; I thought it was quite obvious:

Noggin:

PC:

You "can't actually see the connection"? Then read my following paragraph:

PC:

On reflection, I should've omitted the joke.

F:

*Because* they are subjective truths, contradiction is impossible. Neither the term nor the concept apply. But that's just semantics.

PC:

F:

Well, starting a new digression , what's the point in a discussion that has no connection with the real world? Objectivity is meaningless to a human (who has no objective perception with which to verify an objective claim), and logic, powerful tool though it is, is not applicable to all possible discussion topics. Some things are beyond the sphere of relevance of logic.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"I would suggest (begging your indulgence m'lud) that we could start with the concept of Creation. Either the universe was Created by an outside intelligence or it came into being some other way. This leaves plenty or scope for Big Bang, continuous creation, what went before, evolution, quantum theory, who created the Creator etc as topics for discussion."

And so by applying Occam's razor, you conclude that given the choice you propose, the universe was in fact created, simply because it is the simplest explanation.

Bye-bye

But seriously, Occam's razor cannot be employed in such an arbitrary fashion. There are a multitude of possible explanations from which to choose, that at their core are *all* relatively simple.

Thus, we are left with a remarkable disparity of views, with no means of establishing the *truth* of any, except through our own personal values and judgements.

Instead of making such an arbitrary choice, it might be helpful if I repeat an earlier segment of this thread, when we had (IMHO) a productive discussion regarding a *possible* definition of god. This was sparked at the time by a discussion about the role of money in people's lives (a question posed by BtM), the project on Belief A853751 and a related entry A827381 that ties the two concepts together.

From posting F80629?thread=155651&skip=2764&show=20 (the ... indicate a missing comment from the original posting that is meaningless in this context but feel free to read the BL )


1 - God is an emergent property of a complex system containing life.

2 - God is beyond the capacity of the life in the system to either fully comprehend or control but is interdependent on the life in the system and of the emergent properties of that system.

...

3 - The existence of god is dependent on the Weltanschauung of any participant in the system. (A participant in a system may believe that god is an emergent property of the system and this is *true*. However someone else who is also part of that system may hold that the concept is just properties of the system and this is also *true*. Both viewpoints are equally valid from the perspectives of those who hold them.)

...

4 - An individual's Weltanschauung will depend on their participation in one or more systems and sub-systems, from a universal level to a tribal, pack or family group level. (So they may have one or more gods, which may form part of a hierarchy.)



For reference Weltanschauung basically means "world view" but from an all embracing personal perspective.

The concepts embodied in the above definition seem to have achieved a degree of acceptance within FFFF, or rather no-one has refuted the basic proposition or pointed out any serious flaws (yet). I would hate to be accused of spreading *Dogma*!

However, the basic proposition is still open to debate and it might be possible to refine it further. It's usefulness is also open to question.


PS Sorry, Fathom, I was joking

"Objective truth is supported by evidence."

No.

Objective truth (if such a thing exists at all) is. It requires no evidence.

Evidence and its weighing, is a means by which we develop abstract models of what we perceive to be reality. These models are, by definition, subjective.

However, the evidence is ALWAYS open to question. If it were not, then Galileo would never have looked at the stars and Einstein would never have developed the theory of relativity.

It is subjective truth that requires "evidence".

hi Jane! (waves!) nice to see you here.

Yes, do jump in and say whatever you want. But don't worry if you are totally ignored. I don't.

az

And yet, if we had on hand a being with objective perception (handy! ), this objective truth could be verified, yes? [I concede this is an academic point. ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Madent:

" "Objective truth is supported by evidence."
No.
Objective truth (if such a thing exists at all) is. It requires no evidence."

But objective truth IS supported by evidence. Whether or not it requires to be is another matter.

With your claim that "Evidence and its weighing, is a means by which we develop abstract models of what we perceive to be reality. These models are, by definition, subjective." all knowledge becomes subjective and there is no such concept as objective truth. If you want to tread this path none of us have any common ground; my universe is not the same as yours and there is no point in any further discussion. Bye

On that score: Azahar: "Ah, but *does* the universe exist? If so, in what way? What if this is all Vishnu's dream?"
Azahar, my universe exists. If yours does not you are not here and I can't help you. Again, bye

Also Madent, Occam's razor asks for the simplest explanation. The spontaneous generation of a universe out of nothing is much simpler, even if we don't understand the mechanism for it, than the postulated existence of an omnipotent intelligence who's own existence begs the question "where did you come from?". Thinking that 'God' is the simplest explanation is anthropomorphism and harks back to the victorian belief in flower fairies. Indeed most superstitions operate this way; assuming ghosts, demons and even aliens as explanations for purely natural phenomena.

Relativity, incidently, was not the product of a series of experiments. Verification came much later with gravitational lensing. Einstein performed a thought experiment and the only reason Aristotle could not have done the same thing was that he lacked the knowledge that light travelled at a fixed speed irrespective of the speed of the observer. Admittedly this was suggested by the Michelson-Morley experiment but at the time the results of that experiment were pretty controversial.

When Galileo looked at the stars he did so through a telescope. Accepted Christian dogma at the time was that the stars were out there to illuminate the night sky for the benefit of humanity. When Galileo was able to show that there were additional stars not visible to God's number one creation it effectively debunked this idea. If there are stars there which we cannot see, what are THEY there FOR? Of course Galileo paid the price for this bit of subjective truth, or at least for mentioning it in the wrong company.

"It is subjective truth that requires "evidence"."

Exactly - I would like to see some evidence that supports the definitive subjective truth: religion.

" we had (IMHO) a productive discussion regarding a *possible* definition of god. This was sparked at the time by a discussion about the role of money in people's lives (a question posed by BtM), the project on Belief A853751 and a related entry A827381 that ties the two concepts together. "

Thanks, I'll read up on these, however in my experience a definition of 'God' is a slippery concept. The more concrete the definition the more likely it is to be demonstrably false (or indeed true). A twelfth century definition of the Christian God would be based on scripture now shown to be full of contradictions and fallacy. Modern definitions tend to be much more ethereal and I might (cynically, I admit ) suggest this is to evade reasoned investigation. I'll come back when I've looked at the links.

F

P-C

"... if we had on hand a being with objective perception ... this objective truth could be verified ..."

But only by the being with objective perception. And of course, since none here possess this fantastical faculty, we could not verify that this fictional being was indeed possessed of such a superhuman ability. Hence we come full circle.


Fathom

Before we further confuse objectivity and subjectivity, can I also refer you to A685055.

Fundamentally, at its core all knowledge is subjective.

I strongly "believe" in the principles of the scientific method and use the theories of science on a daily basis. Personally, I strongly support an evidence based scientific model of reality in preference to other models of reality (e.g. Creation), although I don't discard the notion of god (see the above 4 point definition).

But to suggest that scientific fact is in anyway "objective" is erroneous and misleading in the extreme.

Although science purports to deal in facts, most practitioners realise that they deal in abstract models. That these models tend to have extremely good predictive capabilities is one thing, to pretend that the consensus of "subjective" opinion is fact is another.

For example, within the limits of our measurement and observational capabilties, science has yet to agree on an age for the universe to within several billion years and while the age of the Earth is only slighty less controversial the margin of error is still considerable.

Madent:

Nicely reasoned! I withdraw my academic point.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Fathom (to Madent):

But that's *exactly* the situation we humans find ourselves in in the Real World. Actually, there is such a *concept* as objective truth. It is fairly easily defined and understood. But without objective perception, we humans couldn't verify an objective truth if it slapped us in the face with its fins. Objectivity is useless to humans.

So, if you can't live with us in the Real World of uncertainty, you continue in your dream world. It's not for me/us to stop you! You might want to hang around, though. We're not a bad bunch, and we're fun to talk to!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Fathom,

<>

fine.

goodbye

Madent: "Objective truth (if such a thing exists at all) is. It requires no evidence."

I agree. Objective truth simply is, and doesn't need any evidence to make it be. However... we lowly humans will require evidence to be able to figure it out. And if it is indeed an objective truth, the supporting evidence exists.

Whether we can find it or not is another matter entirely.

Fathom:

Fathom, d'you think you could be a little more friendly in the way you express yourself? It looks like Az has 'left the building', feeling unwelcome.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I must concur with P-c's request. The first (and I believe only) rule of this forum is "Be excellent to each other." There's no need to discuss these topics with overweening arrogance, as if you are the sole possessor and purveyor of truth. We all have an equal share of truth in these subjects... diddly squat.

If it's all Vishnu's dream, then *that's* the way the universe exists.

It's the properties of the dream that counts. Berkeley thought that the universe was "God's dream/thought" and listed it's necessary properties as dynamism, and existing in it's own right. The same properties as the physicist ascribes to energy. Kant called it the noumenon, the unknowable "thing in itself", and a similar thought seems to underlie much Eastern religion. In this case we have a group of "subjective truths" that seem to converge on some idea that lies at the back of all of them.

Noggin

Name: Jane Austin

Chair title: Christian who cannot resist a little sinning

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them:
do unto others as you would be done unto
seek and ye shall find
my cats a reincarnation of one of my Great Aunts
Don,t do today what can be done tomorrow
smoking is a pleasure, anti smokers are a bore
3 beers a day will grant you longer life
men with beards are very sexy and attractive
chocolate is a great anti-depressive and comfortor
try to find the humour in dissapointments