Author of Confusion

Apologies to all for my long-ish absence. Replies might be slower than they used to be but for the moment I am slightly past the insane work loads I have had lately

This post is a continuation of the discussion that has ensued on my “On the origins of religion” post some time back. The focal point of this discussion ended up being between subjectivity and objectivity and I believe the subject deserves a post of its own, particularly in light of the other thread losing momentum (mostly thanks to me lol).

I want to try and make my views on objectivity and subjectivity as clear as I possibly can so I can explain where I think religion fits into it. Some of this might be recapping material in the other thread but I don’t think that will hurt

Firstly what is meant by objectivity and subjectivity? In my mind they are polar opposites on a continuum indicating the nature of a particular fact or piece of information. A purely objective piece of information is one which can be shown to be universally true. In other words it does not depend in any way on who or what considers it, the information is fact. In my view it is impossible to get 100% objective information but it is possible to get close. On the other hand a purely subjective piece of information is one which is entirely dependent on who or what observes it. I suspect 100% subjectivity is not possible either (well it is solipsism so it takes us nowhere).

It is well known that human senses are not infallible, nor is our interpretation of sensory inputs. In fact far far from it. Actually I suspect we misinterpret a great deal we experience, but most if it doesn’t matter and we’d never notice. Because this is the case however we frequently seek validation of our observations to check their accuracy. This is the process of converting largely subjective data into more objective data. This can apply in several ways – for example asking a mate “did it just get cold in here or is it just me?” or “is that Bill I see off in the distance?”. It is taking an initially subjective observation and applying external evidence to it in order to confirm it. In doing so one shifts along the continuum towards a more objective fact. If several other people agree that it has got cold you have slightly improved the chances of that observation being correct. If several people observe the door was just opened, a causative chain is added based on accumulated experience that suggests even further it did actually get colder. One could add even further if a thermometer was in the room that stored temperatures. And so forth. The continual struggle is to confirm personal observations (subjective data) with external data hence making it more objective.

Now there was quite a bit of discussion about the material versus immaterial distinction in the old thread. I stated (perhaps misleadingly) that the material to immaterial continuum may closely match the objective to subjective one. I think I was wrong to say so for one reason – I don’t think that distinction actually means anything. Humans sense things and interpret those senses. It is possible we have senses other than the five we know well but this has never been established objectively – i.e. that fact is closer to the subjective end of the continuum. What is far more significant is that regardless of how or what we sense, it all requires validation. It is all subjective initially and is made more objective with evidence. So if a god does talk to people in their minds (as a simple example), that is just as subjective an observation as the room getting colder. It is just as capable of being made objective as the cold room, and it is just as necessary to do so. It may be significantly more difficult to do so but that is merely a limit of our abilities to do so. If we are not able to make it more objective then we should treat it cautiously. In other words it is a genuine observation, but we cannot objectively analyse it just yet so we won’t treat is as “validated” relative to say the cold room where the door opened. Because just like we could mistakenly think the room got colder, we could mistakenly think god talked to us. We need to seek external validation precisely because we cannot 100% trust our senses or our interpretation equipment.

Now in some cases the more objective information gathers and whole bodies of knowledge grow around it, and the result is ultimately a science. I see absolutely no reason why religious claims should not be subject to exactly the same criteria. The tools for finding external validation will be different to that for say thermodynamics because the questions/issues are different, but the process is the same – validating subjective observations. The problem we find however (and the source of my comment about immaterial = subjective) is that we have limited evidence of religious beliefs, and almost all of it is towards the subjective end of the scale. That does NOT mean it is false, but it also does not give us any free ride either – in fact religion has had much more time on earth than most sciences yet has progressed the least in validating the collection of subjective observations they have. The same applies to any paranormal or supernatural claims incidentally – and often what we see (such as in the case of ESP) is that once a more objective framework is applied the subjective observations are shown to be mistaken.

I hope that makes my position clearer, and I look forward to a lively discussion, I will try and keep up!

Cheers
Ian