It depends what you mean. If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective. Then that data has to be interpreted. The interpretation is always going to have some degree of subjectivity (except in hard sciences I really don't know much about them).
Scientists with the same pool of data can (and do) create entirely different models to explain it.
as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc
every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center
those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering
There has never been a war between two countries that have a McDonalds in their borders. Does that mean McDonalds is responsible for peace? Correlation does not mean causation. If successful societies have had religion, that does not mean religion caused it. Especially considering that most of the shitty societies also had religion.
Cambodia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Syria, Bangledesh, Niger, The Congo, and the Phillipines are states that have religion and are awful in terms of human rights and quality of life. 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. So, it's quite possible for a society to thrive without religious morality.
So, there's a lot more work to be done if you want to claim religion is responsible for the success of those states.
um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value
A message only has value if it can be communicated.
Going back to your example, lets say you say it to me a mile away. As I head back to you, you are mauled by a bear. Your toungue is ripped out, your eyes are plucked out, and your body is completely and totally paralyzed. You have absolutely no way to communicate the message.
What is the value of your message now to anyone who is not you? How can anyone even claim the message exists? Likewise, if nobody can demonstrate or communicate objective morality, how can we claim it exists?
i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least
if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?
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.
