1. Objective does not mean mind independent, it means “human” mind independent.
2. If you make your argument it defeats itself because you, a subjective mind, wouldn’t not be able to make an objective true argument, so your argument defeats itself
10 comments
For context, it's in relation to a post the OP has about objective morality, and how morality is only objective because because God makes the morals, and that makes them objective.
This is someone rightly pointing out that that doesn't make the morals objective, it makes them subjective to the particular God's whims.
This Daniel person is an idiot. No, objective doesn't mean any sort of "mind independent" it means as close to facts without personal feelings, emotions, or opinions. And no, a being with opinions, emotions, and feelings can make points that don't include any if them.
People take exception to tying some more vague god to objective morality because they try to immediately shift the goal posts and sneak in the god of the Bible. A particular diety who is very wishy washy, petty, changes his mind, takes part on and encourages his followers to commit atrocities. Someone who no one can successfully claim would be an objective arbiter of morality.
“1. Objective does not mean mind independent, it means “human” mind independent.”
No. It means free from opinion.
An objective moral would have to be one that still existed if every mind ceased to exist. This would include God.
But then, where wuold one store an objective idea?
Who hardened the object that was pharaoh’s heart? Not the pharaoh.
Objectively, so much for the concept of ‘Free Will’ when in Soviet Scripture your ‘God’ defeats itself.
If you're talking about science, no, objective means following where the actual evidence leads, from actual observation. Fixing the models to fit reality when they're found to be erroneous, rather than trying to forge an ideological pseudo-reality to deny reality and replace it with. And using means to detect and correct the normal subjective human fallacies of scientists.https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_s/d_05_s_her/d_05_s_her.html image
Edit/Adding: Thanks to Tilver for more context. If "objective morality" means reality denial, that's also evidence that it's non-objective. The concept of sin was always subjective, so were the moralistic writings of humans, especially those of ancient elite writings (like the Bible).
This is equivocation of two concepts of objectivity. From what I understand, there is philosophical “objectivity”, aka, something not obstructed by human (or anyone’s) perception, opinions and overall condition, basically how reality actually is. With this definition, no, human beings are unable to make purely objective statements about the world. Scientific theories are still subjective to the human consciousness and ability to perceive reality (though they do model reality to an increasing degree thanks to consistent reiteration of the scientific method). An alien species with, let’s say, a non-linear mode of experience of time would probably not get the same scientific theories about it that we do at first (which doesn’t change anything about the worth of scientific theories by the way. It is in my opinion still the best way to find out more about our underlying reality, obviously, and I think even the alien science would converge with ours at some point).
@ChrisBP747 #181572
Thanks for the excellent post. This also reminds me of claims like that some believers throughout history is evidence for the divine, or that because a powerful empire was of a particular religious position it was necessarily superior. Then there always were skeptics (including ancient philosophers) as well as conflicts, hence the various major religions and innumerable splinters and offsprings. There also are much better evidence-based explanations to understand those movements in history and how elites manipulate and justify their power (knowledge that is inconvenient to some, who'll try to censor it and label it as "Marxism" for studying anthropology, psychology and politics, "Evolutionist" because they don't stick to mythology, "Woke" because it exposes abuses, bigotry or inequality, or whatever)...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
