Jump to content

Objective Truth Vs Subjective Truth


Rodge

Recommended Posts

Oops. I see that I took theism as monotheism. My answer applies to both. I'd also like to address what someone, maybe you, asked about intervention. I couldn't find it, but I know I read it. I don't know if God intervenes on a grand scale, but I believe that he intervenes on a personal scale. As to whether that supernatural or natural in a way that science does not yet recognize, I do not know....yet. Regardless, I believe in the supernatural when it comes to God, but I just don't know when it occurs or in what scope. I see coincidences in my life which seem way too unlikely not to have a supernatural component which save some part of my life, a marriage for example, and I wonder if it is a supernatural intervention. It is a choice, at that point. Coincidences which are highly unlikely occur every day. I do not deny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fatherman, there was a time not too long ago when I would have challenged your testimony and tried to show that you are mistaken. Not any more. I have come to realize that spiritual truth is experiential and personal. So I can simply say that your personal conclusions are true for you, as are my different conclusions true for me. But there is no way for me to judge if either of us have a belief that is objectively true. While I will insist that there can be no objective truth regarding the existence or nature of God, I will insist that there can be a variety of subjective truths regarding such things.

 

I should also say that I have a problem with the term "supernatural," if it is used to identify something that is a violation of natural law. I am convinced that human spirituality is true, based on my own experience. But I don't think it is anti-natural. I think of it as beyond-natural, an outgrowth of natural law, and in harmony, not conflict, with natural law. That's an idea that I would defend strongly. Beyond that, I have a tentative conclusion that spirituality can affect the physical world only to the extent that our free will causes us to do or say something. I'm less certain about that, but it does not seem likely to me that a non-phyical reality like spirituality could violate the laws of nature, could force something to happen that otherwise would not have happened. That would have been easier to imagine before we learned about atoms and gravity and the interconnections between A and B. If a boulder falling toward my house were to suddenly vanish, the disruption to natural law would not be limited to a specific time and place, but would send ripples cascading through space and time. And if such miracles were common, predictable nature would disintegrate into chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge,

 

I believe that the concept of supernatural is an illusion. Scientific knowledge continues to evolve. If scientists had it all figured out, then they could go and be professors or chemists or something. There is a gap between ultimate reality and what we've observed scientifically. Of that, there can be little doubt. The word supernatural should properly be superscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge welcome ...

 

I think we have incomplete access to the truth.

 

Objectivity and subjectivity are essentially two sides of the same coin.

 

Photons hit a mirror (objective), the photons are adsorbed, refracted, reflected, whatever (subjective)

 

An outside observer of this phenomenon will see it as objective, but any explanation from that observer is subjective, especially if I disagree with the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romansh, I disagree. I think there is a clear distinction between objective (physical, universal) truth and subjective (experiential, personal) truth. Objective truths can be discussed based on literal definitions and examination of evidence. We make use of objective truths every day when we toast our bread, phone a relative in another state, turn up the thermostat, or ride an elevator. Subjective truths can be testified to using imprecise metaphors, with no means of testing or validating them. We testify to our subjective truths when we comment on whether a room feels warm or a symphony is beautiful or a transcendental experience is moving. In the context of this discussion, it is the difference between saying "God is love" and "I am convinced that God is love." The latter is a testimony to your subjective, experiential truth. But the latter is a false claim of objective truth, since there is no way to prove to a skeptic either that God exists or that God's nature is love, for starters because we cannot define "God" or "love," and we can offer no way to test the accuracy of the claim. Institutional Christianity has a sorry record of falsely claiming objective truths about God as it shamed Galileo, blamed victims for their diseases, asserted that plants were created before sunlight existed, and promised that faith in God would bring financial success. In the process, it has gradually lost influence as science, public education, and accessible communication have repeatedly discredited institutional dogma. I think institutional religion's future depends upon abandoning claims to objective truth and instead cultivating personal growth through shared testimonials to subjective truths. This involves a lot more than two sides of the same coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even IF there was such a thing as objective truth, we as humans (sentient beings), can only subjectively experience it making it by definition, subjective in nature.. Science of course, is based on the possibility of objectivity, on the possibility of different people checking out for themselves the observations made by others. Yet in my view, it always remains subjective even if many agree.

 

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JosephM, I agree that each of us decides, subjectively, what it is that we believe. But it is real and not hypothetical that some things can be explicitly defined and independently verified. Another word for such objective truth is "facts." But other things can be only approximated by metaphors and cannot be independently verified. Another word for such subjective truth is "faith" or "spirituality." This distinction can sometimes be a little fuzzy,but most people recognize the difference between arguing what the temperature of the room is (an objective fact) and how comfortable that temperature is (a subjective belief). What's important, I think, is not the fact that we make subjective decisions about the significance of objective facts. What's important is the we make a distinction between subjective truths and objective truths in our discussions with others, and especially when insisting that others accept our subjective truths as objective truths. Specifically, when we insist that we know objective truths about the existence and nature of God, when there can be no objective truths regarding God, only subjective beliefs. Can you suggest a statement regarding the existence and nature of God that can be shown to be objectively true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between "objective" and "subjective", Rodge. I'm also not convinced that there is any real distinction between them. Perception, as humans know it, depends on an object appearing (or maifesting iteself) in the field of perception. It requires both the perceived and the perceiver. One is dependent on the other, and neither appears independently.

 

If I am walking with someone, I might say to them: "There exists a red rose". My companion, in all likelihood would agree with me, and if I asked others to confirm it, they probably would. Since I have verified my observation with others, independently of my own perception, can we not say this is "objectively true"? Still, this conclusion requires others to agree, by convention, what "red" is and what "rose" is. While this may be objectively verifiable (or true), because I have confirmed it with other "objects", outside of myself, it really says nothing about the "ultimate" nature of the red rose.

 

We agree to such things by convention, then label them as part of a kind of "contract". Remembering the contract, next time we see a "red rose", we will believe it to be objectively true.

 

While this is all merely my opinion, I think it makes some sense. Ultimately, however, it does nothing to solve the "God" question.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SteveS55, Would it help to think of objective truths as facts? That the flower is a rose can be factually determined. There is a general definition of "rose" and it is possible for even a skeptic to examine the evidence and determine whether or not the flower meets that definnition. There is also a general definition of "red," based on the electromagnetic vibration of reflected light waves, and it is possible to measure that reflected light to see if it meets the necessary criteria. Much of what we do everyday is based on the assumption that there are reliable facts about what is going around us. And when someone claims to speak an objective fact and we disagree, there is a process by which we can both come to agreement about who is right. (Yeah Google!)

 

But suppose that you say, "Red roses are the most beautiful flower of all." That is a statement of subjective truth, a statement of personal opinion, a statement about your personal experience of flowers. There is no general definition of what constitutes "beauty." You can argue that you don't find it to be the most beautiful flower, but you cannot prove that I am wrong to think differently. We can benefit by sharing the reasons why we do or don't think roses are the most beautiful flower, but we cannot determine who is right and who is wrong.

 

I hope this clarifies what I was saying. When we enter into religious discussions without being aware of the essential difference between subjective and objective truth, we can end up with anger and division. If I say that your accepting Jesus as your Savior will enrich your life, I are asserting an objective truth — that what is true for me is true for you (and everybody else). I would object, and we end up verbally fighting, because there is no way to resolve the issue. But if I say that it is my experience that accepting Jesus as my Savior has enriched my life, I am asserting a subjective truth. There is no way for you to disprove my claim, so you can only say that your experience is different – that is your subjective truth. This exchange need not cause anger, and it may have the benefit of deepening our understanding of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying, Rodge, and I don't disagree. The word that makes me squirm a little is "truth". But, if we define that as agreed upon facts, or observations, I can go with it. So, it seems to me that when the judgment about some attirbute of an object, either physical or mental, comes to our mind, we enter the realm of the subjective, because there is no "fact" we can point to that would be agreeable to everyone else.

 

Unfortunately, I think that peoples' subjective beliefs and experiences are rather intractable. I think there is even some scientific research indicating beliefs are "hard-wired" into our brains. If that is the case, anyone questioning another's subjective truth, will probably be in for a real nasty experience. I think it would be very hard to avoid, but I applaud your own efforts in this regard.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romansh, I disagree. I think there is a clear distinction between objective (physical, universal) truth and subjective (experiential, personal) truth. ...

 

I get what you are saying Rodge ...

 

Look at it through a materialist's eyes; essentially all our ideas, thoughts etc come at us as photons, vibrating air molecules or perhaps even senses in our skin.

We simply reflect them back in touch or vibrating air molecules. We are complex mirrors ... or at least can be looked at that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SteveS55,

 

What if we call them "subjective claims" and "objective claims"? The reason I think the distinction is important is because I think the history of organized religion is that it is driven to make objective claims about the existence and nature of God. For example, God lives in a dome over the flat earth; disease and military defeat are caused by God's judgment; If you disagree with dogma, God wants you to be tortured into belief and, if that fails, put to death. Most of us no longer hold those beliefs, but the institutional Christian Church in its many forms, still insists that God is real, whether it be the judgmentalGod of Original Sin or the progressive God of Ground of Our Being. All this amounts to an intellectual fraud practiced by institutional religion, because these are all false objective claims. There is no detailed definition of "God" and no way to verify the church's claims, one way or the other. So long as the church continues to assert objective claims about God, it repeatedly is exposed as a false prophet and its influence wanes (just look at the rapidly vanishing church membership in Europe and the gradual eroding of the percentage of the American population who are church members).

 

In contrast, a person can make subjective claims about the existence of God in his or her life, and testify to the impact that presence has had. Such claims cannot be disproven, but neither can they be validated for the skeptic. I think the solution for the Christian Church is obvious — stop preaching dogma and start an open dialog among members about their personal experience (or lack of experience) with the divine. And Progressives, in particular, should stop saying that a fundamentalist cannot experience a relationship with a theistic God. As you say, we are deeply attached to our personal experiences. To survive in the centuries ahead, I think the church should encourage sharing of subjective claims, providing one of the few places in our society where attention is focused on the spiritual side of life. The goal is to learn from each other, to deepen our spiritual experience, without trying to convert anyone to our own subjective claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romansh,

 

I lived as a materialist for many years, but I couldn't harmonize materialism with free will. I see the physical world and its laws as the foundation for our existence. But I think the operation of physical laws have the potential for the creation of something new. A prime example would be life. Life is not a violation of physical laws, but it is something that was not present at the outset; it has since emerged. I think the development of brains and central nervous systems also created something new — the experience of self. The physical world is full of electromagnetic radiation and vibrating air and molecules given off by crushed garlic. But color, sound, and scent do not exist in the physical world; they exist only in experience. We can experience the air vibrations from a French horn, but we cannot specify what that sounds like to us. If a tree falls in the forest, there are air vibrations, but there is no sound without a brain to create the experience. Finally, self-awareness evolved to the point that a human can think abstractly about his or her experience: What was the world like a thousand years ago? What will I experience upon my death? Is there some greater force at work in the universe? So, I see free will as additive, influenced by those atoms and forces but not prescribed by them. I See free will as the means by which non-physical decisions can, in cooperations with our physical bodies, influence the physical world. Even the materialist's sight is more than mirrors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well said, Rodge. I actually agree with all of your conclusions ( in your response to my last post), and that is somewhat unusual for me! So, I think you might have a talent for this. You are respectfully convincing without being judgmental.

 

I agree that personal, subjective "spiritual" experience is valid subject matter for religious discussion. Whether you call it the "unitive state", like the Christian mystics, "peak experience" like the secular humanists, "emptiness", like the Buddhists, or whatever it is a Fundamentalist believer might call it, it is all food for thought.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, "Subject truth" is experience. It is our experience that leads us to objective truth. One cannot help but believe. I believe that morning sun will end the night. I believe that this keyboard allows me to communicate with you miles away. I believe that putting an egg in the refrigerator will not cook it. It is my belief that allows me to choose the objective. Why do you suppose that you must choose between the subjective and the objective? I think it is not a matter of which one to choose; we are constantly choosing both. I think it is a matter of recognizing which kind of truth we're talking about, and speaking accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome, Rodge. I'm not sure I can speak for Progressive Christianity as a whole, in fact, I'm sure I can't. But, I would say that you're views are decidedly progressive and Christian. To the extent that Progressive Christianity is engaged in inter-religious and inter-faith dialogue, I'm sure you could find a fit. It might be a subset of either, such as "inter-experiential dialogue", or an exploration of subjective religious/spiritual experience.

 

Anyway, it's just a thought for consideration.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SteveS55, I'm not trying to find a home to "fit in." I'm trying to start a peaceful revolution. Fundamentalists and even Progressives like Bishop Spong are God-centric. They differ in how they define God, but they both seek to advocate a "true" vision of divinity, whether it be an active theistic God or a vague Ground of Our Being. I say this is a incorrect understanding of the church's mission. I say that the role of the church is not to persuade people that one experience of "God" is more right than another. The role of the church is to encourage people to celebrate their spirituality communally, as well as individually. The role of the church is to provide a place for people to learn and grow by sharing their various testimonies regarding their beliefs and transcendental experiences. This works only if the church is explicit in denying that it has the correct spiritual "truth," and explicitly recognizing that a person's experience of "God" is valid for that person, but not necessarily for another person. For the Christian Church there also needs to be an understanding that a source of guidance and inspiration is a human being named Jesus. Not the Christ of doctrine, but the Jesus of history, who had a profound sense of what it means to be human, and how we can try to fulfill our human potential. I have no illusions about the difficulty of separating Jesus from Christ, but I think that must be a goal. In summary, I think Christianity needs to transform itself from being a church that claims to know the truth about God to being a church that welcomes testimonials about personal spiritual experiences, under the guidance of what Jesus taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, you opened this discussion with your definition of two types of truth, objective and subjective and stated in your closing:

 

My thesis is that the church (including many progressives) fails to recognize the implications of the fact that there can be no objective truths regarding the existence and nature of God. Personal, subjective truths, yes. But no universal, objective truths. You can't prove anything about God, one way or the other, not that God exists, not that God doesn't exist. To me, this suggests that we should move away from being an authoritative Proclamation Church to being a welcoming Testimonial Church. Am I wrong? Can anyone cite a truth about the existence and nature of God that can be defined and confirmed by a skeptic?

I understand your definitions but I submit that subjective truth isn't really a truth but a belief. A truth is a fact and there are two kinds of facts, a priori and a posteriori.

 

We can have knowledge of facts when the facts can be verified by one of the two methods.

 

 

I don't believe the night will be ended by the morning sun, I know it. There is a big difference in knowing something or believing something. Knowing something is objective truth and believing something is a subjective truth. So with that in mind, subjective truth is not universal and cannot be verified either with reason or empirical facts or experience.

 

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven until an agreement can be reached on a definition of God. Once that definition is agreed upon then the existence of a God can be proven or disproven logically.

 

St. Anselm's ontological argument includes this definition: God is that which nothing can be imagined greater than. finding an objective truth using that definition is likely to lead to circular logic; like can god make a universe large enough to contain him, can he create a problem so complex that he can't solve it.

Edited by Harry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. If you want to call objective truth "facts," and subjective truth "beliefs," I don't think it changes my point that they are two different concepts, and must be discussed differently. Aren't we really agreeing about that?

 

Where we disagree may be your suggestion that a spiritual concept such as "God" offers any possibility of being defined. And that an emotional experience can be proved or disproved logically. Don't definitions have to be stated in literal language? And isn't metaphorical language, not literal language, used in claims about spiritual experience? I don't think St. Anseim's statement is a definition; it is an aphorism in the sense of being a cleverly stated subjective observation. To say that God is the greatest thing that you can imagine doesn't say what it is that you are imagining, and therefore defines nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. If you want to call objective truth "facts," and subjective truth "beliefs," I don't think it changes my point that they are two different concepts, and must be discussed differently. Aren't we really agreeing about that?

 

Where we disagree may be your suggestion that a spiritual concept such as "God" offers any possibility of being defined. And that an emotional experience can be proved or disproved logically. Don't definitions have to be stated in literal language? And isn't metaphorical language, not literal language, used in claims about spiritual experience? I don't think St. Anseim's statement is a definition; it is an aphorism in the sense of being a cleverly stated subjective observation. To say that God is the greatest thing that you can imagine doesn't say what it is that you are imagining, and therefore defines nothing.

Actually Rodge, we do agree, right down the line. That is what attracts me to your first opening statement. I am not arguing with you but I think I am confirming your opening statement. I do think subjective truth is belief. St. Anselm's definition is easily overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry,

 

So my question for the group is: Does Christianity — even Progressive Christianity — explicitly or implicitly claim to know the objective truth about the existence and nature of what they call "God"? If so, isn't that intellectual dishonesty and strategic error, since there can be no objective truth about such matters? Wouldn't it be more productive to stop proclaiming and debating objective claims about God, and instead focus of building communities that celebrate the human ability to experience a variety of subjective truths about spirituality?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, I'd like to look at your question as well. The answer is yes and no. There are Christians who do claim to know the objective truth about God. However, many call it a matter of faith, and not just progressives. Christianity has always been about faith. The truth is that even if God walked down here and showed everybody he was real, some people would still not be compelled to have a relationship with him. It would still be a matter of faith. As far as what Christians should do, I not only agree, it's been my church experience 100%. Presbyterian, Methodists, and even a few experiences with non-denominational. Like I've said, it sounds like it's time for you to consider trying out some other churches if only to have a better understanding of what mainstream Christianity looks like. What could it hurt? I'm not sure where you've been. Church of Christ? Jehovah's Witnesses? Southern Baptist? Catholic? Why not Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian USA, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ? I'm not sure the non-church going public knows that there is a vast difference between those 1st four and the last 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry,

 

So my question for the group is: Does Christianity — even Progressive Christianity — explicitly or implicitly claim to know the objective truth about the existence and nature of what they call "God"? If so, isn't that intellectual dishonesty and strategic error, since there can be no objective truth about such matters? Wouldn't it be more productive to stop proclaiming and debating objective claims about God, and instead focus of building communities that celebrate the human ability to experience a variety of subjective truths about spirituality?

I would put an even finer point it and include Jesus Christ in the realm of subjective truth. There is not one shred of physical evidence that I am aware of that he ever existed. I don't doubt that a man fitting the description lived during that time or even that he was killed by crucifixion. There is no reasonable or empirical evidence that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. All the laws of physics dealing with rockets show that a human could not achieve escape velocity on his own to leave earth's atmosphere. And where would heaven be then if not up? Why are there so many religions that profess such beliefs as facts. My answer is self-delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service