*Official Atheist/Agnostic Thread*

[Rune]

You fail to define the #1, yet you still hold mathematics is objective?

The idea of one is simply our mental representation of a single object, like JAGERBOY said, the actual word or symbol or whatever may change but what it represents does not. A single anything represents this idea, an apple, a person, atom, electon as long as it's single. If your talking about the concept one your talking about a single thing, if your not, your not talking about "one".

[Merakon]

The idea of one is simply our mental representation of a single object, like JAGERBOY said, the actual word or symbol or whatever may change but what it represents does not. A single anything represents this idea, an apple, a person, atom, electon as long as it's single. If your talking about the concept one your talking about a single thing, if your not, your not talking about "one".

All you have done is replace the word one with single.
It's like saying Existence means to exist.

One or single is a subjective generalization, abstraction and metaphor to comprehend the incomprehensible.

If one is objective please show me where it exists, either point to it or give me some empirical data showing its existence.
Show me that objects have an inherent oneness to them. A thing in itself.

[Rune]

All you have done is replace the word one with single.
It's like saying Existence means to exist.

One or single is a subjective generalization, abstraction and metaphor to comprehend the incomprehensible.

If one is objective please show me where it exists, either point to it or give me some empirical data showing its existence.
Show me that objects have an inherent oneness to them. A thing in itself.

Look at it this way. A person can see the world in two ways. Either as differentiated objects, in this case "one" is an individual perceived object at any arbitrary level of perception (galaxy, planet, human, cell, atom, etc). The other way is without any differentiation, in which case everything all together would be the concept of one.

[Merakon]

Look at it this way. A person can see the world in two ways. Either as differentiated objects, in this case "one" is an individual perceived object at any arbitrary level of perception (galaxy, planet, human, cell, atom, etc). The other way is without any differentiation, in which case everything all together would be the concept of one.

Both ways are subjective perceptions.

I don't really understand your argument for mathematics being objective, when you admit it is based on subjective perceptions and interpretations.

[TheJosh]

Haha I saw this, and had to post it here.

[MisterChase]

Hi.

We have subjective preferences, but there are no objectively preferential actions.

In relation to a purpose at hand, there will most certainly be objective requirements (metaphysically objective), by which certain ethical propositions will be objectively correct (epistemologically objective).

For instance, survival has objective requirements e.g. consuming water. If I've chosen a purpose that entails survival, then the consumption of water will be "right" in relation to that purpose. This "rightness" is based on the objective framework of nature (the Law of Identity and Law of Causality), and my identification and integration of the facts at hand (logic and reason).

You may argue that the value of survival is not objective, simply because it is not intrinsic. But to claim that a value must be intrinsic in order to be objective is rather incorrect. A value implies "To whom, and for what purpose". Accordingly, there is no such thing as an "intrinsic" value, i.e. as in reality apart from consciousness, nor are values in consciousness apart from reality. Values (like all valid concepts) are a relationship between consciousness (an identification of reality in a capacity) and reality. Why is this relationship objective? Because of the framework through which the process takes place (Law of Identity and Law of Causality) is objective. And therefore any pursuit of the value or purpose at hand will naturally require an objective apprehension of reality.

I have no issue with the definition of "subjective" as "specific to the individual". This definition is harmless, and has no bearing on my arguments. An individual may have a unique disorder for which he must medicate himself. His disorder is "subjective", as is his implied goal to bypass it via medication. And yet the metaphysical objectivity is still present in the occurence of his disorder, and the epistemological objectivity is still present in his conceptual grasp of the situation, as well as his identification and integration of relevant facts to form a long-range course of actions that serve a certain purpose: To avoid the disorder. In relation to all these factors (i.e. context) it is indeed objectively moral for him to take his medication.

[Merakon]

In relation to a purpose at hand, there will most certainly be objective requirements (metaphysically objective), by which certain ethical propositions will be objectively correct (epistemologically objective).

The purpose is subjective, and the objective requirements are relative.

For instance, survival has objective requirements e.g. consuming water. If I've chosen a purpose that entails survival, then the consumption of water will be "right" in relation to that purpose.

For instance, survival has objective necessity's e.g. consuming water. If I've chosen a subjective purpose that entails survival, then the consumption of water will be "right" relative to that purpose.

Relativity and subjectivity all the way.

This "rightness" is based on the objective framework of nature (the Law of Identity and Law of Causality), and my identification and integration of the facts at hand (logic and reason).

Those 'laws' are subjective interpretations of objective phenomenon.
Your 'rightness' is relative, not objective.

You may argue that the value of survival is not objective, simply because it is not intrinsic. But to claim that a value must be intrinsic in order to be objective is rather incorrect.

For a value to be objective it must exist outside the subject, the observer, and therefore must be intrinsic.

A value implies "To whom, and for what purpose". Accordingly, there is no such thing as an "intrinsic" value, i.e. as in reality apart from consciousness, nor are values in consciousness apart from reality.

Agreed, and anything requiring consciousness is subjective.
I think you are trying to argue that there is no subjective/objective dualism, correct?

Values (like all valid concepts) are a relationship between consciousness (an identification of reality in a capacity) and reality. Why is this relationship objective? Because of the framework through which the process takes place (Law of Identity and Law of Causality) is objective. And therefore any pursuit of the value or purpose at hand will naturally require an objective apprehension of reality.

It will require a subjective perception and interpretation of objective reality.
And your laws are anything but objective.

I have no issue with the definition of "subjective" as "specific to the individual". This definition is harmless, and has no bearing on my arguments. An individual may have a unique disorder for which he must medicate himself. His disorder is "subjective", as is his implied goal to bypass it via medication.

His disorder is objective. If I chop my arm off is my disorder of having one arm subjective or objective? Is it all in my mind, or is it a reality?

And yet the metaphysical objectivity is still present in the occurence of his disorder, and the epistemological objectivity is still present in his conceptual grasp of the situation, as well as his identification and integration of relevant facts to form a long-range course of actions that serve a certain purpose: To avoid the disorder. In relation to all these factors (i.e. context) it is indeed objectively moral for him to take his medication.

It is subjectively preferable to take his medication if he subjectively values reduction in pain.
I have no idea why you brought morals into this when its clearly a case of preference.

[MisterChase]

The purpose is subjective, and the objective requirements are relative.

Relativity and objectivity do not conflict. It seems like you are equating "objective" with "absolute". Relativity is not what I am debating against, and in fact I have stressed that it is in relation to certain factors (i.e. context) that certain oughts are indeed objective.

Your claim that the purpose is subjective will require clarifying. What definition of "subjective" are you operating on?

Relativity and subjectivity all the way.

Relativity? Yes. Subjectivity? Depends on how you define subjective. At any rate, I disagree with your dismissal of objectivity.

Those 'laws' are subjective interpretations of objective phenomenon.
Your 'rightness' is relative, not objective.

Simply incorrect. It is because of an inherent objectivity in our conceptualizations (what you call interpretation) that we can have any collaboration at all between one another regarding objective phenomena. If our "interpretations" had no objective basis nor any objective guidelines, then there is no point in debating the truth of anything, because as far as anyone is concerned, drinking liquid nitrogen and eating stones is on equal footing with drinking water and eating energy bars for the purpose of futhering my existence.

For a value to be objective it must exist outside the subject, the observer, and therefore must be intrinsic.

Incorrect. This completely violates the definition of values, which presumes "To whom, and for what purpose". Values do not exist outside consciousness, and nor are they formed without reference to reality.

Agreed, and anything requiring consciousness is subjective.
I think you are trying to argue that there is no subjective/objective dualism, correct?

To the contrary. There are plenty of matters involving consciousness that do require objectivity. Given the definition of subjective I provided above, I have no problem recognizing that there is a valid subjective/objective dichotomy. But the definition of subjective that is on par with "arbitrary" or "whimsical", is one that I simply cannot possibly agree with regarding matters of real-life choices.

It will require a subjective perception and interpretation of objective reality.

To the contrary. In order to be successful in navigating through objective reality, one will be required to identify the facts, and integrate them in a noncontradictory fashion.

His disorder is objective. If I chop my arm off is my disorder of having one arm subjective or objective? Is it all in my mind, or is it a reality?

The concept "disorder" will have a referential basis -- in this case, your self-mutilated arm. It is not in your mind alone, nor in reality apart from your mind, the concept is the relationship between your observation and reality.

It is subjectively preferable to take his medication if he subjectively values reduction in pain.

Simply incorrect. It is a fact that taking pain pills is indeed preferable if he values reduction in pain. And not only is it a fact that he values painlessness, but he must identify facts and integrate them for the purpose of establishing how to avoid the pain.

I have no idea why you brought morals into this when its clearly a case of preference.

Morals regard the determination of "Right" or "Wrong". In any case where there is a purpose involved, morals will be necessary. Hence, my mention of morals.

[MisterChase]

I see you've edited in a comment:

And your laws are anything but objective.

You claim that values must be "independent" of consciousness in order to be objective (i.e. you fail to distinguish between metaphysical objectivity and epistemological objectivity), but cannot accept that the Laws of Identity and Causality are independent of our minds? If they were entirely dependent on our own arbitrary whims (i.e. subjective), then I should be able to crap $100 bills, and magically levitate merely by "willing" it. But indeed, I cannot. My mind has no control over the laws of reality, I cannot "rewrite" reality, and I cannot crap Benjamin Franklins.

Although, like any other human, I am capable of great feats only by obeying the laws of nature.

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." -- Sir Francis Bacon

[Merakon]

Ok I quickly read over your responses and I now see why you fail to understand subjectivity/objectivity. I'll give you a full response tomorrow.

So, saved for tomorrow.

[Galt]

Hey I was wondering, are any of you guys nihilists? I was reading on Wiki that generally a nihilist:
While I agree with the last 3, I don't necessarily agree with the first one. Logically, there are certainly actions that more preferable to others. From an evolutionary stand point, preservation of ones species is the biggie. Actions that allow the agent to obtain the most pleasure would also be preferable. Maybe thats murdering someone, but its still preferred over another action.

I've skimmed the other responses to this, and here is my two cents on the subject, which I typed up with the points already made in the conversation in mind:

Arithmetic is completely a priori, objective, eternal computational truth about our universe. It is true anywhere in the universe, and we discovered it; it was not invented by us. Any rational being who understands the concepts of 'two' and 'addition' can come to no other conclusion than that 2+2=4.
We see many different ways to represent numbers as numerals, such as the tally system, Eastern Arabic Numerals (٠.١.٢.٣.٤.٥.٦.٧.٨.٩) and the Roman numerals (I..II..III..IV), and the Hindu-Arabic numerals we use(1..2..3..4..) in many different isolated cultures, all converging on the same truth. The same thing happens in evolution all the time, hence convergent evolution(marsupial dogs etc).
Saying that numbers don't exist because we can't refer to them without using words that refer to numbers is a silly word game. We can't have a conversation about Steve without using his name, or another word to refer to steve, but steve is not a word- he is a man, and numbers aren't symobls-- numerals are.
In the same way that we might find extra-terrestrial life using the same arithmetic or numbers as us(not the same numerals) it wouldn't be too surprising to find them converging on some of the other attractive solutions to problems in evolutionary design. Perhaps bodily symmetry, or eyes to see in a transparent atmosphere. I suspect that we may also find a convergence on some of the same ethical ideas as us, simply because there are certain economically wise ways for rational agents to interact with each other.

[Galt]

lol saw this on pharyngula

[FIVE OAKES]

Just a reminder to keep all sidebar debates out of this thread. If you want to debate something, start another thread.

ie - I don't think the "nihilism and objectivity of math" debate belongs in an Athiest/Agnostic sticky.

Am I right?

[JAGERBOY]

Just a reminder to keep all sidebar debates out of this thread. If you want to debate something, start another thread.

ie - I don't think the "nihilism and objectivity of math" debate belongs in an Athiest/Agnostic sticky.

Am I right?

Why, what are we supposed to type about in this thread? Nihilism and atheism are closely related I'd say. Subjective/objective morality is often a topic that comes up in theism vs atheism debates as well. Trying to find out if ANYTHING is objective can help further understand it.

[JAGERBOY]

I've skimmed the other responses to this, and here is my two cents on the subject, which I typed up with the points already made in the conversation in mind:

Arithmetic is completely a priori, objective, eternal computational truth about our universe. It is true anywhere in the universe, and we discovered it; it was not invented by us. Any rational being who understands the concepts of 'two' and 'addition' can come to no other conclusion than that 2+2=4.
We see many different ways to represent numbers as numerals, such as the tally system, Eastern Arabic Numerals (٠.١.٢.٣.٤.٥.٦.٧.٨.٩) and the Roman numerals (I..II..III..IV), and the Hindu-Arabic numerals we use(1..2..3..4..) in many different isolated cultures, all converging on the same truth. The same thing happens in evolution all the time, hence convergent evolution(marsupial dogs etc).
Saying that numbers don't exist because we can't refer to them without using words that refer to numbers is a silly word game. We can't have a conversation about Steve without using his name, or another word to refer to steve, but steve is not a word- he is a man, and numbers aren't symobls-- numerals are.
In the same way that we might find extra-terrestrial life using the same arithmetic or numbers as us(not the same numerals) it wouldn't be too surprising to find them converging on some of the other attractive solutions to problems in evolutionary design. Perhaps bodily symmetry, or eyes to see in a transparent atmosphere. I suspect that we may also find a convergence on some of the same ethical ideas as us, simply because there are certain economically wise ways for rational agents to interact with each other.

I agree, saying that math is subjective is basically saying numbers don't exist. And for any useful conversation to take place we must all acknowledge that they do. I don't know of any corner of the world where people are coming up with different answers to 2+2.

[user1245464]

[user1245464]

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way...


...So I stole one and asked him to forgive me."

--Emo Philips

[FIVE OAKES]

Why, what are we supposed to type about in this thread? Nihilism and atheism are closely related I'd say. Subjective/objective morality is often a topic that comes up in theism vs atheism debates as well. Trying to find out if ANYTHING is objective can help further understand it.

Oh...ok, well go ahead then.

But this section would be a lot more interesting if we had threads outside of this sticky - plus you'd get more people involved in the discussions instead of just the people who check this sticky every day.

As far as I'm concerned, morality and theology are two completely separate topics.

You can be an atheist and believe in objective morality (doesn't make much sense, but it's possible).

[Rune]

Both ways are subjective perceptions.

I don't really understand your argument for mathematics being objective, when you admit it is based on subjective perceptions and interpretations.

Perceptions of that kind are based on an objective reality which we can all observe. I would agree with you if we're talking about internal concepts like morals, feelings, etc. But we're talking about the physical universe, not a mental contruct.

What I tried to get at in my previous post is this. Either the universe is divisible into discrete units or it is not, if it's divisable an individual unit is how you define the concept of "one", if it's not then the whole system is the concept of one, so no matter the subject, the concept is still there. Basically the concept is based on external observation, not individual interpretation.

Subjective interpretations of an objective reality must reflect that objective nature - the universe doesn't function any differently for you than it does for me, nore does it for any other person.

[Rune]

lol saw this on pharyngula

I counted them all up.. I got about 10 of those covered, I must be really really wanted.

[Super Man]

Sports fans? haha.

[pengwin]

Sports fans? haha.

Pot smokers only? Hear that? All the other drugs are fine!

[Rune]

Pot smokers only? Hear that? All the other drugs are fine!

Jesus says don't smoke pot. Smoke crack instead!

[Merakon]

I agree, saying that math is subjective is basically saying numbers don't exist. And for any useful conversation to take place we must all acknowledge that they do. I don't know of any corner of the world where people are coming up with different answers to 2+2.

Numbers don't exist outside our self.
Numbers are a generalization of reality that we use to comprehend the universe, not some real objective property of it. Take away the observer, the subject, and where a numbers now? There is no one left to generalize reality until another consciousness emerges somewhere.

2+2=4 is a definition, it is not an absolute or objective truth.
It may be true within mathematics, but math and numbers themselves are subjective. Take away the subject and they disappear.

[JAGERBOY]

Numbers don't exist outside our self.
Numbers are a generalization of reality that we use to comprehend the universe, not some real objective property of it. Take away the observer, the subject, and where a numbers now? There is no one left to generalize reality until another consciousness emerges somewhere.

2+2=4 is a definition, it is not an absolute or objective truth.
It may be true within mathematics, but math and numbers themselves are subjective. Take away the subject and they disappear.

Right, and when referring to objective and subjective, we are talking about ourselves...humans. There is no one else, just us (for the sake of this argument). Reality and cousciousness are a given seeing as how they are based on us existing. You are basically arguing that numbers and math does not exist. Using your logic, one could not objectively say you are 5'8".

[Merakon]

Perceptions of that kind are based on an objective reality which we can all observe. I would agree with you if we're talking about internal concepts like morals, feelings, etc. But we're talking about the physical universe, not a mental contruct.

Subjective based on the objective is still subjective.

What I tried to get at in my previous post is this. Either the universe is divisible into discrete units or it is not, if it's divisable an individual unit is how you define the concept of "one", if it's not then the whole system is the concept of one, so no matter the subject, the concept is still there. Basically the concept is based on external observation, not individual interpretation.

An external observation by a subject is subjective

Subjective interpretations of an objective reality must reflect that objective nature - the universe doesn't function any differently for you than it does for me, nore does it for any other person.

I agree, subjective interpretations are not equal, some are more objective than others. But man can never escape subjectivity, ever. He can only ever make his subjective interpretation more objective.

[Merakon]

You are basically arguing that numbers and math does not exist.

They exist within ourselves. The reason I ask you to define the #1 was so that you realize that you cannot define it without resorting to subjectivity.

Using your logic, one could not objectively say you are 5'8".

Now your getting it, objectively we could not say that. There are no inches or numbers objectively speaking.

[JAGERBOY]

They exist within ourselves. The reason I ask you to define the #1 was so that you realize that you cannot define it without resorting to subjectivity.

And since all of "ourselves" agree one what # 1 represents, its objective. Please post links to people arguing for a different meaning to the # 1.

Now your getting it, objectively we could not say that. There are no inches or numbers objectively speaking.

Then you have a very poor understanding of subjective/objective. You are also still not contemplating that "inches" and "numbers" are just a way for us to communicate a universal concept, it does not matter what we call the concept, because the concept still objectively exists and always means the same thing.

[Rune]

And since all of "ourselves" agree one what # 1 represents, its objective. Please post links to people arguing for a different meaning to the # 1.


Then you have a very poor understanding of subjective/objective. You are also still not contemplating that "inches" and "numbers" are just a way for us to communicate a universal concept, it does not matter what we call the concept, because the concept still objectively exists and always means the same thing.

He appears to have more a metaphysical view of objectivity(that properties of objects depend on our perceptions), opposed to an epistemic version of objectivity that would say that only our judgements, beliefs, etc of objects are subjective.

Ironically enough the debate kind of comes down to what one thinks the definition of "objective" is.

[JAGERBOY]

He appears to have more a metaphysical view of objectivity(that properties of objects depend on our perceptions), opposed to an epistemic version of objectivity that would say that only our judgements, beliefs, etc of objects are subjective.

Ironically enough the debate kind of comes down to what one thinks the definition of "objective" is.

I picked up on that, and unfortunately if he's using this viewpoint, it is not conducive to any useful conversation taking place. Its along the same lines as the "Matrix" argument that people try to use sometimes.