-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objective Belief
- Thread starter Impartial
- Start date
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
Unfortunately, objective belief does exist. You can see this in the form of Creationism v Evolution (a debate which shouldn't ever be had in the first place) in where party A believes in the un-provable and one party believes (according to party A) in the un-provable. This is an example of calling subject belief (even though we know it is not).
But I do agree with your post:
You may call it being subjective. I call it being ignorant.
But I do agree with your post:
You may call it being subjective. I call it being ignorant.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, belief is not knowledge.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Basically I agree.
What I'm trying to get at here is that people are not entitled to their own facts. People who think they are, go on to justify, to themselves, the most awful acts (suicide bombing, indoctrination and mutilation of children, war etc).
I therefore think a mindset like that is incredibly dangerous and must stop. A belief is an opinion and should be treated as such.
I therefore think a mindset like that is incredibly dangerous and must stop. A belief is an opinion and should be treated as such.
DayRaven
Beyond the wall
You've sort of stolen my thread idea.
What I want to know is can subjectivism/relativism be defended? Rational thinking would have to be discounted by the subjectivist/relativist as a means to justifying any form of belief as objective truth. This seems to me to reduce any statement made to a local (individual or cultural) expression. If this is so then there can be no knowledge....
kepha31
Active Member
Suppose you receive a letter from a friend whose word you trust implicitly. A glance at the handwriting and signature assures you that the letter is actually from this friend. You thereby establish its genuineness and authenticity, and even before you read the letter or know its contents you are assured that your friend has sent you a message, and that you have his message in your hands. This corresponds to the preparatory stages (the praeambula fidei, as theologians call them), described above. Then you read the letter and learn certain facts, which you accept as true on the authority of your friend. This corresponds to the formal act of faith.
My apologies.
You make an interesting point. The answer is, I don't know. I don't think a lack of knowledge is necessarily a bad thing. You could say that we managed to land a probe on a comet 300 million miles away using nothing more than theories. Because science relies on repeatable and accurate experimentation, we can improve our best guess so as to get as close to truth as possible. At least science is helping us to be better at knowing what we don't know.
@kepha31. That letter might be a fake. Or is that impossible? Even if it is genuine, I have no way of knowing this. I just trust/think/hope that it is from my friend, based on my observations and experiences. I do not know, I have faith/confidence. And that's absolutely fine.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I wholly agree. The only reality we can experience is the illusory one clouded by subjectivity.
DayRaven
Beyond the wall
Knowledge isn't dependent on utility, though.
I think we can objectively decide what is the most reasonable hypothesis through logic, evidence and argumentation. That forms my belief and it is not something subjective (though of course you must watch that subjectivity does not cloud objectivity). I don't really agree with the statement 'belief is subjective' in my case.
As my favorite spiritual teacher says, until you have experienced the truth it is a hypothesis to you.
As my favorite spiritual teacher says, until you have experienced the truth it is a hypothesis to you.
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, all experience is subjective.
May I ask what you mean by 'objectively decide'?
Having dispassion for any position and studying the evidence and argumentation for the different views. For example, I have studied various so-called paranormal subjects and researchers of those subjects and objectively became convinced the materialistic model is not a satisfactory model. I then looked for models that most reasonably address the facts I learned.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Isn't "objective belief" an oxymoron?
An objective belief is one that is informed by truth. Subjective describes beliefs that are personal.
Objective means of or about the object. A belief of or about a tree, for instance, that is true, is an objective belief. Subjective means of or about the subject. Most of our beliefs are about objects.
Dispassion and impartiality do not automatically warrant objectivity or indeed objective outcomes (truth). You are still expressing opinions until what you are claiming has been proven with evidence that is gathered using repeatable and accurate experimentation. Could you provide an example of one of your facts in relation to you paranormal subjects?
It must be. To accept something as being true, without any proof whatsoever, is insanity.
To believe something is literally true is impossible because evidence and truth go hand in hand. Proof is unavoidable if you want to make factual claims. It doesn't work like that. Ask any scientist.
Wrong definitions. This thread is about truth and opinions and the gap between them. A gap that only evidence can fill.