Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

[o_O.Q]

JWeinCom said:

o_O.Q said:

" If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective."

 

you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations

since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity?

you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem

 

"Correlation does not mean causation."

 

true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on

"  Sweeden, Denmark, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan are mostly secular countries that are doing very well in terms of human rights and quality of life."

 

well i'd disagree Canada and Japan in particular seem to be descending into a particular kind of chaos that's ironically related to this same topic but i digress

 

"What value does a message have if you can't communicate it?"

 

does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel?

 

"By subjective criteria. We look at the data and come to the best supported ideas about the best way for a president to act.  And we judge based on that.  And since it's subjective, we wind up with people having differing opinions. "

 

why bother at all since its all subjective anyway? meaning nothing ( or in his case no particular behavior ) is objectively better than another so why bother? and yes there are different opinions with no weight to them because there's no objectivity... but of course no one really believes that, everyone does believe that some ways of being are better than others

you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations

since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity?

you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem

I'm not claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective.  The observations of human behavior are objective, assuming you have good ways to record them.  Claiming one pattern is best is the subjective part.  You can point out certain situations where the evidence is so overwhelming that we can say it's objective (like we shouldn't paint houses with lead paint), but in most cases it won't be that clear.

For example, the Roman Empire fell.  That is an objective observation.  It happened, no denying it.  Immigration led to the fall of the Roman Empire is a subjective opinion.  I may be able to support that with evidence, but I have no way to prove it.

true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on

We don't just see two things happening together and conclude it's highly likely that one is causing the other.  If you do that, you wind up with things like this.

What you do in the scientific method is devise an experiment that isolates one of the variables.  Then you run statistical tests.  And even then, you would still only have correlation.  

does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel?

No, because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that cars work as a method of transportation.  If we had an overwhelming body of evidence that religion led to objective moral judgments (for example if we had tons of societies reading the bible and independently reaching the same moral systems) then the comparison would be apt.  But we don't have that.

why bother at all since its all subjective anyway? meaning nothing ( or in his case no particular behavior ) is objectively better than another so why bother? and yes there are different opinions with no weight to them because there's no objectivity... but of course no one really believes that, everyone does believe that some ways of being are better than others

Because subjective does not mean that all options are equal.  

Just to use a simple example, I have enough money to buy one game for my nephew's birthday. Let's say I'm choosing between Zelda and Horizon.  Which one I think he'll like better is a subjective opinion.  I have no way of knowing for sure.  So, I try to find out what kinds of games he likes.  I go to his room and see it's decorated completely in Zelda merchandise and posters.  So, naturally I buy Zelda.

I won't know if my decision was objectively right until he plays the game.  And even then, I can't be sure. Maybe he'll hate the new game.  Or maybe he'll like it, but if I got him Horizon, he would have liked it even more.  I have no way of knowing what the best decision is, but I can make a more educated subjective decision based on research and evidence.

 

" The observations of human behavior are objective, assuming you have good ways to record them.  Claiming one pattern is best is the subjective part."

 

my comment to the last comment you made in this post addresses this

 

"We don't just see two things happening together and conclude it's highly likely that one is causing the other."

true i didn't word that well

"What you do in the scientific method is devise an experiment that isolates one of the variables.  Then you run statistical tests.  And even then, you would still only have correlation.  "

so you are pretty much admitting to what i said previously that you are dismissing objective reality... if you are saying that the method we use to evaluate our environment simply reduces down to correlation

 

"No, because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that cars work as a method of transportation."

yes when they are not broken down, correct... but they do break down and suffer from various issues that have to be maintained, the same way that forms of communication have to be maintained and if that maintainance is neglected like with a car the process breaks down

 

" If we had an overwhelming body of evidence that religion led to objective moral judgments (for example if we had tons of societies reading the bible and independently reaching the same moral systems"

 

i'd say that for many core christian values such as the golden rule, abstainance, charity that is actually the case

 

this doesn't mean that there is no variance between sects, but to try to claim that there is a massive disconnect between what the different denominations are teaching is not true

 

"Because subjective does not mean that all options are equal... "

 

your example is conflating personal preference with shared judgements between people which is what i was reffering to

the personal choice of an individual for one thing over another is inherently objective (edit: subjective typed objective by mistake)(since the person is making a choice based on some type of individual criteria)

that's completely different from individuals giving their opinion on behavior.... the point i was making is if there is no objective standard for behavior then the all opinions provided are pretty much equal since there is no standard for one to be better than another

 

and as i said just now that idea is rubbish since obviously everyone does believe that some behaviors are better then others