Sunday, December 10, 2006

It's all subjective—subjectively speaking

T-stone I realize that Steve now says by 'murder' he really meant 'abortion', by 'rape' he really meant 'child pornography' and by robbery he meant 'organized crime'."

SH: T-stone is such a liar. In my original post I gave examples of what I meant.

Moreover, my examples will naturally be pegged to the counterexamples offered by the disputant.

T-stone: Never mind trying to reconcile this with the "public policy part...

SH: Another lie. I've specifically explained how this translates into public policy.

T-stone: Steve: Moral frameworks developed under different worldviews aren't as satisfying to me as the moral framework that comes with *my* worldview. Yeah. Duh...Gee, Steve Hays isn't satisfied by secular morality?

SH: Yet another lie. He imputes to me a word I didn't use, then proceeds to criticize the usage as if it were my usage.

Moreover, this isn't Der Fuersprecher's usage either. He used the word "satisfactory." T-stone substitutes the word "satisfying," which has emotional and subjective connotations not present in "satisfactory." T-stone is such a liar.

T-stone: This is a CRUCIAL POINT we Christians must face: we start with arbitrary foundations, too!...Starting from a neutral position, my morals are no more "justified" than an atheists.

SH: So why is he so judgmental of Christians who disagree with him?

T-stone: I can argue that they are better on the merits, and I do that, but let's not pretend that theism isn't predicated on subjective belief. It's just insulting to those that read this.

SH: But, according to T-stone, they have no non-arbitrary grounds to feel insulted.

T-stone: But Christians, and Buddhists, and Hindus and Bahais are all in the same boat.

SH: If true, then we're all in the same sinking boat.

But how is T-stone in a position to make such a claim? Is it *objectively* true that we are all in the same boat?

Notice how T-stone tacitly and illicitly assumes the very viewpoint which he denies to everyone else.

T-stone: To suggest otherwise is to fall in the trap that Steve and Calvindude languish in: the idea that what *they* believe is normative for everyone else.

SH: Is T-stone making a normative claim? Is his belief that Calvindude and I fall into the trap of normativity itself a normative belief? Or is it a non-normative belief?

If the latter, then we can safely dismiss his objection as self-refuting.

T-stone: Nevermind that the Christian foundation is as subjective as the atheist's, if not more.

SH; Is his claim that "the Christian foundation is as subjective as the atheist's, if not more " itself a subjective claim?

T-stone: (obligatory reminder: subjective does *not* mean false. A subjective belief can be perfectly *true*).

SH: And to what would a subjective belief need to correspond to be true? An objectively accessible fact, perchance?

T-stone: Let's just cut to the chase. Steve said previously, the *hypothetical* consideration that there is no God is just not an option for him. Maybe it is for you, too. But if so, you've closed yourself completely off from reasonable conversation and discussion with atheists; you can't hope to make a decent argument if you can't even contemplate the other side of the coin.

SH: It you take the position that everything is subjective and falsifiable, then *you* (T-stone) are the one who has closed yourself completely off from reasonable conversation and discussion with atheists or Christians or anyone else; *you* (T-stone) can't hope to make a decent argument if you can't even contemplate the other side of the coin if everything is up for grabs.

Reason and argument are only meaningful if everything is not dubious—otherwise, there would be no benchmark for truth and falsehood.

T-stone: The Apostle Paul went to Mars Hill and understood the Greeks. He didn't *endorse* or accept their theology, but his brain was big enough, and his heart was big enough to understand it well enough to explain the Gospel to them.

SH: Did St. Paul every treat the existence of God or the inspiration of Scripture as a defeasible hypothesis?

T-stone: Paul was able to connect and persuade because he was able to understand and reasonably assess the other guys' paradigm.

SH: How do you "assess" the other guy's paradigm if, according to you, everything is subjective and arbitrary?

T-stone: He simply presented a better paradigm than the one the Greeks had in place.

SH: A better subjective and arbitrary paradigm.

11 comments:

  1. Christians can't agree on their "objective truth" claims.

    How shocking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Logicians can't agree on their objective truth claims?

    How shocking.

    Atheists insert feet in mouths?

    How shocking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, that was a classic atheist rant. Please could you explain how exactly Touchstone has won? Because it looks to me more like he's been telling a lot of lies and gibbering like a ape. I went on a forum once and pretended to be an atheist. I used the most retarded arguments I could think of EVEN THOUGH THEY CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER and I was lauded for my efforts. Atheists have no integrity whatsoever. You live in a sick and deluded world where everything is true as long as it fits into your decrepit, idiot worldview.

    To summarise the argument.
    Steve said that in atheistic societies rape, murder and mayhem will be public policy. In a clearly demarcated sense.
    Touchstone changed the subject to rape, murder and mayhem, not in the sense designated by Steve.
    Touchstone kept doing this even after being repeatedly called on it.
    Touchstone loses the debate badly and continues to lie.
    Atheists claim victory.

    Well, good for you. You must feel all aglow with pride. I'm not a Calvinist but I can discern dumbness when I see it. And you are pitiable. If you were human, I would ask for your genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1) I am not an atheist

    and

    2) If you are not a calvanist, yet, you certainly should be. Wanting to kill your opponents, mis-representing others, and liberal use of the ad-hominem are arrows in your hate-quiver.

    Yep, you are a calvanist and a liar. Another Calvanistic trait is lying for Jesus. Someone give him a Tribalogue hat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    You said:
    SH: And to what would a subjective belief need to correspond to be true? An objectively accessible fact, perchance?

    I don't think facts are the only form of truth, but I understand what you are trying to say, I think. Subjective beliefs when and where the objective truth isn't knowable.

    Does God exist? I believe He does -- I have faith in that. And in the transcendant sense, God either exists or He doesn't. So there is an underlying objective truth there. But we don't have any way to know this in a way that doesn't require some subjective belief. A subjective belief is simply one whose truth or falsehood cannot be objectively established at this time.

    You said:

    SH: It you take the position that everything is subjective and falsifiable, then *you* (T-stone) are the one who has closed yourself completely off from reasonable conversation and discussion with atheists or Christians or anyone else; *you* (T-stone) can't hope to make a decent argument if you can't even contemplate the other side of the coin if everything is up for grabs.


    First off, Steve, if it's subjective, it's *not* falsifiable. So when you say "subjective and falsifiable", I think you'll have to decide which of the two you mean.

    Second, Debate and discussion work fine with both (all) sides presenting subjective arguments. In fact, outside of completely deductive frameworks (some kinds of math), *all* arguments are grounded in the subjectivity of the participants. Even when scientists have a data set in front of them that they all stipulate to (provisionally objective), there's often a good amount of debate as to the interpretation of the data, and the discussion proceeds along subjective grounds...

    Third, having "everything be up for grabs" is precisely *how* I can contemplate a different argument, and how I might identify weakness and room for improvement in my own beliefs. A very useful tool for evaluating another paradigm is to consider it. That doesn't mean that one must abandon one's own beliefs, but rather take up another argument and see how it works, what kinds of explanations it offers, what kinds of predictions and conclusions it naturally reaches.

    I offer arguments that are based in part on my subjective opinions. That doesn't mean others can't contemplate them, or assess them. I can also assess and contemplate their arguments, infused with subjective elements as they are. a big part of being reasonable is a clear-eyed understanding of what is subjective, and how that affects the conversation and the argument.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, Christians and Logicians are both having troubles? And that should bother me why?

    Do logicians point to a magic book as their objective source of knowledge?

    I didn't think so.

    Case closed moron.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TOUCHSTONE SAID:

    "First off, Steve, if it's subjective, it's *not* falsifiable. So when you say "subjective and falsifiable", I think you'll have to decide which of the two you mean."

    First off, T-stone, you need to decide what *you* mean. As usual, I have to remind you of your own argument.

    You said: "“If no god exists, then the Christians are wrong, and our morality is based on a lie. Or it could be neither of these ideas is right, and they are *both* based on a lie.”

    So *you* are treating the Christian faith as a defeasible hypothesis. It could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TOUCHSTONE SAID:

    "In fact, outside of completely deductive frameworks (some kinds of math), *all* arguments are grounded in the subjectivity of the participants."

    And is it objectively true that "*all* arguments are grounded in the subjectivity of the participants"?

    "That doesn't mean others can't contemplate them, or assess them. I can also assess and contemplate their arguments"

    *Assess* them in relation to what? Objective truth?

    You still don't get it, do you? You continue to play both sides of the subjective disclaimer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve,

    I assess subjective arguments according to my subjective understandings.

    There's nothing complicated about this.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  10. Touchstone said:
    Steve,

    I assess subjective arguments according to my subjective understandings.

    There's nothing complicated about this.

    ****************************************

    Unless objective truth is ascertainable, you're in no position to say one subjective belief is superior to another.

    There's nothing complicated about this.

    You still don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve,

    I think it would help if you explained how you distinguish between “objective” and “subjective”.

    You don’t possess, for instance, cognitive access to “transcendental universals”, do you? You believe in them because you have faith, not because you can prove them (as logically necessary) or even define them completely, right? Your access to them, like anyone’s, is limited by your finiteness. This is what, I think, T-stone is saying. This actually makes sense to me and I believe it is very mainstream among Christians.

    You wouldn’t say you KNOW “transcendental universals” are true. You’d say you BELIEVE they are true, right? If you KNOW they are true, then faith would be superfluous. To my mind, if you are absolutely certain that they are true, but you can’t prove it, then something subjective is in play.

    T-stone takes some hits from you because you consider his position a form of relativism and self-refuting to boot, but I just don’t feel that is fair.

    First, why is it a slippery slope to relativism to say we are all, Christian or not, subjective in our most basic beliefs? T-stone considers his subjective beliefs to take an objective object. Other (non Christians) believe the same. I don’t get why that is so damning. To me it is a simple statment of fact. Again, a precise definition of "objective" would clarify this, I think.

    As for being self-refuting, I would never say “ ’all beliefs are at core subjective’ is an objective universal truth”. This WOULD be self-refuting. What I can offer is a description of MY state of mind, and not KNOWING that certain things (universals) are objectively out there IS my state of mind. Faith is the only way to bridge the gap. And when faith happens, I don’t expect to be able to give a full accounting for it; hence, the appeal to subjectivity. Any presumed alternative (outside formal demonstration) will sneak subjectivity in through the back door.

    If you’re claiming that you have an objective basis for your beliefs but arguing for that position with water tight, mathematical rigor is out of the question, then in what are you grounding your claim to objectivity that can, itself, be objectively grounded? How do you avoid infinite regress?

    Thanks…Andrew

    ReplyDelete