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?

[McCulloch]

We are all subjective at times. It is a good thing. Every writer, every researcher has a bias. If they didn't they probably would not have the drive or the motivation to thoroughly dig into a subject.

The trick is to recognize it. Subjectivity is only dangerous when it is mistaken for objectivity.

[Beto]

Subjectivity is only dangerous when it is mistaken for objectivity.

Or purposefully misrepresented as objectivity. I think there lies my greatest resentment towards the religious institution.

[jergarmar]

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?

Well, as a Christian I certainly have a subjective interest in what I believe. I mean, I do believe there is an objective reality to God but I can't imagine thinking about Christianity without being personally involved in the thought process.

But I don't see how that's any different for a scientist. Scientists have to take all sorts of things for granted for the simplest experiment: the reliability of nature across time, the reliability of nature across space, the reliability of the experimenter's own observation of the experiment. I mean, physics itself tells the experimenter that he inevitably changes what he sees. In quantum physics, is the Uncertainty Principle a reflection of our limitations, or a description of the uncertainty of nature itself? What would that even mean?

There are certainly an abundance and a multitude of subjective ideologies -- they must be tested against each other and much be tested for internal consistency and must be tested to see if they explain the world that we see. Nobody can claim to be acting totally objectively.

[McCulloch]

I do believe there is an objective reality to God but I can't imagine thinking about Christianity without being personally involved in the thought process.

There is a difference between being personally involved and being subjective. If there is an objective reality to God, then that means that there are some proofs for God's existence which can be presented that anyone who will evaluate them objectively. Please take an opportunity to present such evidence. It would settle quite a number of open debates.

But I don't see how that's any different for a scientist. Scientists have to take all sorts of things for granted for the simplest experiment: the reliability of nature across time, the reliability of nature across space, the reliability of the experimenter's own observation of the experiment.

These are called assumptions or axioms. Scientists usually try to be explicit about them and also try to minimize them. Is the existence of God an implied axiom in your thinking or is it an objective reality?

[jergarmar]

But I don't see how that's any different for a scientist. Scientists have to take all sorts of things for granted for the simplest experiment: the reliability of nature across time, the reliability of nature across space, the reliability of the experimenter's own observation of the experiment.

These are called assumptions or axioms. Scientists usually try to be explicit about them and also try to minimize them. Is the existence of God an implied axiom in your thinking or is it an objective reality?

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.

I suppose I would then have to clarify and say that the "implied axiom" is the existence of God as he is revealed in the Bible, because otherwise I could be accused of gross arrogance -- "Only the God that I have conceived in my own mind has any objective reality". That's certainly ridiculous.

I mean, everyone has some things that they take for granted, right? Every worldview has certain fundamental axioms that form the bedrock for everything else. Then we can argue over whether our systems of thought account for everything else we believe, and whether they are consistent internally and consistent with other systems of thought.

In other words, I don't think I can "prove" God's existence any more than the mathemetician can "prove" the fundamental axioms that he uses. Just as any mathemetician or physicist assumes the fundamental axioms for their entire structures of knowledge, so also everyone else has certain fundamental assumptions that they base their entire worldviews on. We prove/disprove our various worldviews indirectly, though finding contradictions and inconsistencies.

Once I heard this really interesting debate between a materialist and a philosopher. The materialism said that "the only things that have real meaning or existence are physical things". The philosopher replied, "Does the meaning of your statement just now have any physical manifestation?" "Well, no..." "So why are you even in a debate, trying to convince me with words that words can't contain any meaning?" "<long pause>"....

[McCulloch]

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.

In other words, I don't think I can "prove" God's existence any more than the mathemetician can "prove" the fundamental axioms that he uses.

A mathematician does not prove the axioms. If he could, they would not be axiomatic. However he does try to minimize them. Let's remove this or that axiom and see if we can arrive at the same conclusions. God is not axiomatic.

[alexiarose]

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?

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

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

[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.

[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.

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).

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.