Is subjectivity dangerous?

[Beto]

When some people claim that the subjectivity inherent to religious thinking does no harm, are they correct? I can immediately see the danger of less educated people looking on scientists that rely on objectification to govern their lives, opening an exception when it comes to "God" and say objectifying isn't necessary in this particular case (whether or not they're being honest or just conforming to avoid potential hassle). They will then have a myriad of subjective perspectives from which to choose, and it seems to me, that proportionately to their education (or ability to think rationally) they will choose more or less fundamental ideologies.

Any thoughts?

[Beto]

When some people claim that the subjectivity inherent to religious thinking does no harm, are they correct? I can immediately see the danger of less educated people looking on scientists that rely on objectification to govern their lives, opening an exception when it comes to "God" and say objectifying isn't necessary in this particular case (whether or not they're being honest or just conforming to avoid potential hassle). They will then have a myriad of subjective perspectives from which to choose, and it seems to me, that proportionately to their education (or ability to think rationally) they will choose more or less fundamental ideologies.

Any thoughts?

Since all philosophies are subjective,then subjectivity in religion is only relatively dangerous. The other factors are as important as religious belief.

Let's elaborate on this. Relative to what, and what other factors?

[Goat]

When some people claim that the subjectivity inherent to religious thinking does no harm, are they correct? I can immediately see the danger of less educated people looking on scientists that rely on objectification to govern their lives, opening an exception when it comes to "God" and say objectifying isn't necessary in this particular case (whether or not they're being honest or just conforming to avoid potential hassle). They will then have a myriad of subjective perspectives from which to choose, and it seems to me, that proportionately to their education (or ability to think rationally) they will choose more or less fundamental ideologies.

Any thoughts?

Since all philosophies are subjective,then subjectivity in religion is only relatively dangerous. The other factors are as important as religious belief.

Let's elaborate on this. Relative to what, and what other factors?

Relative to the rest of society.. and other factors include political ideology and education.

[Beto]

Since all philosophies are subjective,then subjectivity in religion is only relatively dangerous. The other factors are as important as religious belief.

Let's elaborate on this. Relative to what, and what other factors?

Relative to the rest of society...

Let's take self-mutilation, for example. It's still practiced today as a result of the adherence to a particular religious subjective perspective. It's irrelevant to the rest of society, but harms the self. One can also talk of "intellectual mutilation".

and other factors include political ideology and education.

Are you saying that certain political ideologies and poor education policies are also dangerous? If that's the case, I agree. But we can isolate the harmful points in each (by removing the concepts' subjectivity), and "education" and "politics" aren't purely subjective.

[jergarmar]

That's a really interesting question. I hope my thinking is correct on this, but it seems that the existence of God is an implied axiom and an objective reality -- it forms the basis for everything else, just like fundamental axioms in math are believed as a matter of necessity but still believed to be true objectively.

The existence of God is not an axiom. Axioms are those things we must assume without proof in order to progress. We need not assume God's (especially the Christian God's) existence in order to understand things.

My point is that for the Christian the existence of God is exactly what needs to be assumed first in order to progress -- what needs to be assumed in order to understand things. Everyone has fundamental assumptions that they make about the world. What else would the Christian have as his or her fundamental assumption? I'm NOT saying that this settles the matter of God's existence for everyone.

It's like this: let's say that you are an empiricist. So you believe in the fundamental reliability and authority of sensory and physical experience. "What is that belief based on?", I might ask. "Well, it's only logical", you say. "Well, what's your logic based on?", I ask. If you say "human experience" you are revealing that for you the reliability of sensory information is axiomatic. If you say, "There's nothing more fundamental than logic" you are revealing that some absolute standard of logic is axiomatic. I can ALWAYS ask, "Well, what's THAT based on?" until you say, "There's nothing more fundamental" when we get to your basic assumptions. For the Christian the basic assumption is the existence of God as he is revealed in the Bible.

Most of the discussion and debate on this forums take this into account. Usually the "proof of God's existence/non-existence" doesn't really go anywhere. The interesting questions are, for example, "Okay, if you believe in a loving God, why is there evil?" or "Okay, if you believe in materialism, where does thought come from?" -- that is, we question the consistency and cogency of each other's worldview. Or also, "Hey, if your basic assumptions are so-and-so, how can you explain science / language / thought / logic / etc from your initial assumptions?"

[Goat]

Since all philosophies are subjective,then subjectivity in religion is only relatively dangerous. The other factors are as important as religious belief.

Let's elaborate on this. Relative to what, and what other factors?

Relative to the rest of society...

Let's take self-mutilation, for example. It's still practiced today as a result of the adherence to a particular religious subjective perspective. It's irrelevant to the rest of society, but harms the self. One can also talk of "intellectual mutilation".

and other factors include political ideology and education.

Are you saying that certain political ideologies and poor education policies are also dangerous? If that's the case, I agree. But we can isolate the harmful points in each (by removing the concepts' subjectivity), and "education" and "politics" aren't purely subjective.

Yes, indeed , certain political ideologies and ignorance is certainly dangerous. For example, the concept of 'preemptive strike' against a sovereign nation is a terribly dangerous political ideology... and it is subjective..

Ignorance and the adherence to certain political ideologies are often combined with the adherence to certain religious ideologies.

[alexiarose]

In some cases, subjectivity can be dangerous in religious belief. But to consider it generally dangerous is a gross overstatement.

Let's put it this way... I consider it dangerous, when any attempt to objectify it is considered irrelevant or unnecessary, a priori.

Sorry, you lost me here.

I can't say I know more than a few Christians who share the same views on doctrine, actually, I know of none. But I also know of few who are "fundamentalists" or that I would consider dangerous in their beliefs. Granted, I have much to learn and we are all a lot younger than some here so things can change in an instant. But for the time being, I have to listen to the individual belief and base its merit on that.

Remember that individual belief has no merit per se. You have to decide for yourself (from your experience, or sum of individual perspectives you've gathered) whether or not a particular perspective (or feeling, or individual belief) has enough merit to be considered possibly real (as opposed to purely fictional).

Isn't the individual beleif what makes it subjective? You've lost me again.

Did that make sense. I think to many grown up words in one post is mind boggling.

You can drop the act young lady, you're not fooling anyone.

Obviously you have proven my case here. I honestly understand very little of what you have written here.

[Beto]

In some cases, subjectivity can be dangerous in religious belief. But to consider it generally dangerous is a gross overstatement.

Let's put it this way... I consider it dangerous, when any attempt to objectify it is considered irrelevant or unnecessary, a priori.

Sorry, you lost me here.

We have someone that thinks "God's" pure subjectivity is "real" (as opposed to fictional) because it "feels" like it. Admitting he can't objectify "God", he relies on his personal perspective, deciding it's enough, and no objectifying is necessary. Now, what are the implications of accepting his view as valid, or harmless? I think we cease to have a moral ground on which to accept or reject all other perspectives (be it a Heaven, virgins waiting, or whatever). To be intellectually honest we would have to "allow" only 100% subjectivity. No use for praying, or rituals of any sort. Is it just a matter of when people start getting hurt? Setting a lion loose is ok until someone gets eaten?

I can't say I know more than a few Christians who share the same views on doctrine, actually, I know of none. But I also know of few who are "fundamentalists" or that I would consider dangerous in their beliefs. Granted, I have much to learn and we are all a lot younger than some here so things can change in an instant. But for the time being, I have to listen to the individual belief and base its merit on that.

Remember that individual belief has no merit per se. You have to decide for yourself (from your experience, or sum of individual perspectives you've gathered) whether or not a particular perspective (or feeling, or individual belief) has enough merit to be considered possibly real (as opposed to purely fictional).

Isn't the individual beleif what makes it subjective? You've lost me again.

Never mind, I think you were on the right track.

[Beto]

Yes, indeed , certain political ideologies and ignorance is certainly dangerous. For example, the concept of 'preemptive strike' against a sovereign nation is a terribly dangerous political ideology... and it is subjective..

Not as subjective as we would like. History tells us what is usually behind "preemptive strikes".

[dreveryday]

I find this subject interesting. I stumbled upon a blog that talks about subjectivity in an objective light. If nothing else, I think the author of the post does a good job at being fair to many. Take a look:

http://thinkersaccord.blogspot.com/2008 ... heism.html

If nothing else, the author isn't trying to impose upon anyone his/her beliefs. I think it makes the case for both subjectivity and objectivity.