23

Atheist conceptions of the idea of God often rest on a straw man fallacy that portrays a theistic view of God as Russell's teapot or as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both of these conceptions view God as an object which is easy to argue against. These analogies of God as an object floating about in a gravitational field are weak, hence logical fallacies. ...


17

Whether or not God exists is an objective question with an objective answer, however the argument beginning Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it is starting with a baseless assumption. It's kind of like assuming the strongest form of the anthropic principle....


12

So even if a person felt (subjective) what he was doing was right, that wouldn't, by societal standards(objective), be considered right. That's not what those terms — subjective and objective — mean. Subjective does not necessarily mean related to feeling; it simply means that it varies from person to person (subiectum is Latin for the agent in a sentence). ...


12

Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin? I do not accept that proposition, or at least I do not accept that the definition of "reality" it implies is equivalent to common-use definitions ...


9

Welcome to this SE, Daniel. I think the problem with the argument is what you are trying to prove: how can I disprove that there exists an inherent privilege (an entitlement) to believe whatever you want? Even Patrick Stokes agrees that people are entitled to their opinions. He writes: If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has ...


6

The distinction between formal and objective reality in Descartes is elucidated on Brown's web page. Formal reality refers to the reality of an object by virtue of the kind of thing it is (infinite, finite, modes/thoughts). Descartes view of formal reality is encapsulated in this online commentary: "When Descartes speaks of things as having more or less ...


5

For Kant mathematical objects are not pure objects of the understanding, although this view was later be adopted by Marburg neo-Kantians, who rejected his separate faculty of sensibility after non-Euclidean geometries were discovered. They are objects attached to pure intuitions synthesized by productive imagination, which is the constructive aspect of ...


5

This is the Sam Harris route to ignoring the difficulties with defining an objective morality (I assign it to him as he was, as far as I can tell, the most vocal and prominent early advocate of this position). It's really easy to define an objective morality, actually. It's just really difficult to justify it. Here's an objective morality: that which ...


5

I add to Ingos answer that you can at least kick some ethics out. Sidgwick in his third book, chapter 11.2, proposes a test for moral intuitions. Every intuition that passes the test is true. There are 4 steps: The terms of the proposition must be clear and precise. The rival originators of modern methodology, Descartes and Bacon, both stress this, ...


5

Objectivity and neutrality aren't necessarily the same. Objectivity refers to taking a view or position on the available evidence. Neutrality refers to taking a view or position that is even handed. They are effectively synonymous if and only if the subject under question has valid positions both for and against. As an extreme example, take the Ickian ...


5

You state: it seems like Bob's attitudinal state is just another feature of the outside world. I am not sure this is true, but it is going to hinge sharply on what we mean by world. There's a really helpful feature of the Japanese language that actually helps with understanding whether this is subjective or objective, namely, that there's a different ...


5

Here is one concept of objectivity, taken from SEP. Let's take objective properties to be qualities of an object that exist independently of a perception of that object; for example, the primality of the number 7, or the atomic mass of hydrogen. The intuition being that these facts would remain even if there was no one around to perceive them. In The ...


5

In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist Not so long ago, no one has experienced diving the Mariana Trench; then someone did do so. Did the Trench not exist before? Imagine there were no humans (nothing intelligent on earth). Would that mean that the planet could not exists? 100 years ago nobody could even ...


5

A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for a lack of something. By the very nature of the concept, it is not possible to "prove" (or really empirically determine, since true proof struggles to exist outside mathematics) the non-existence of a God, because God is inherently a transcendent being who exists above the rest of reality, and as such God's ...


4

You appear to be referring to self-selection bias. This is a well-known phenomenon in statistics, whereby self-selection into a category is correlated with other characteristics, and hence, inclusion in that category is not statistically independent of those other characteristics. This means that every field of expertise would be expected to attract a ...


4

I have more senses than sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. In a dark room, I can tell you whether my right elbow is straight or not, to give one example, without seeing it or touching it. Nor is it necessary that every observer be able to observe something. I've known some blind people, for example. If I put a pencil partly in a glass of water, ...


4

is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, Your definition does not state that you must be aware of having experienced it. Its plausible that there are many things you have experienced that you are unaware of. Some of those things could be objective. Airplanes objectively have an effect on ants. It's not ...


3

To give a philosophy of science perspective, in ch. 6 of Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal Douglas discusses eight different senses or kinds of objectivity. One of these (123-4) is value-neutrality, which Douglas characterizes as "taking a position that is balanced or neutral with respect to a spectrum of values." She argues that value-...


3

No, for the simple reason that "better" is itself a moral judgement. You could, however, show that one ethics is free of contradictions, but not the other. Or you could show that one ethics rests on arbitrary assumptions that are unlikely to be shared amongst men, while the other rests on assumptions that are widely accepted. The rapist, for example, could ...


3

Yes, assuming you have both agreed on a basis for comparison and a system of reasoning. That is, if you both (for example) agree that a better set of morals is one that ensures the greatest happiness for the greatness number of people, and you both agree that Western logic would be used to judge the arguments on either side, then yes, you could. It would ...


3

I've heard that conservative political columnist and intellectual Ben Shapiro is currently writing a book about how he hypothesizes that the stem of the recent political shift to tribalism and identity politics is rooted in modern philosophy -- off the backs of people like Hume and people that say that "God does not exist" and back the is-ought ...


3

Objective is verifiable against a standard/definition From Wikipedia: Objective (philosophy) Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, objective means being independent of the perceptions thus objectivity means the property of being independent from the perceptions, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state ...


3

They all seem to be trying to get an ought from an is. Who are "they all"? Anyway, I'll provide two things. Firstly, a taxonomy of theories that argue for "objective morality" (or something close enough). Secondly, I'll point to one argument that is compatible with pretty much all "Moral Realist" positions I describe beforehand. PART ONE In order to say ...


3

My childhood tutor in philosophy suggested that objectivity and subjectivity are a single spectrum. An attribute of the attributes that we assign objects. Its value on this spectrum might be estimated by how much we expect the attribute to vary from perspective to perspective. Unfortunately, the assignment of objectivity/subjectivity of an attribute is ...


3

I guess I kind of what to know what you mean by “the objective?” If you’re referring to objective knowledge, on one hand all human interaction with the world must be done through the perception of the individual. Perception is limited to the (at most) five senses of the individual. Scientific method can’t. E used to prove such things as the color one ...


3

A priori knowledge is generally accepted in academic philosophy; the vast majority of academic philosophers accept it as being true. Depending on how one values and follows academic consensus, then, a priori knowledge is indeed a logical inference and thus a respectable stance. (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP)


3

Yes, and yes. Anything subjective must be based on some objective cause that allows for that subjectivity to even exist. Whether or not subjectivity is able to know completely the objective is of no consequence. All that matters is that subjectivity is still able to deduce the existence of its own cause.


3

It may be useful to apply your definition of objective to a couple of related objects: Anubis, the jackal-headed god of Egyptian mythology, and an actual jackal. I, personally, have not experienced either one, so that path to objectivity is out. So we're left with being "aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs". If we were ...


3

While this falls short of resolving the paradox, the following references may be helpful. JJ Valberg in his Dream, Death, and the Self explores similar paradoxes -- what he calls "extraphilosophical puzzles." Particularly closely related is this one [page 20]: The first [puzzle] is the "solipsistic puzzle of death": the prospect of my death looms as the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible