Objectivity and Atheism

[blik]

As an Atheist there has been a nagging confusion in my mind regarding objectivity and how it is used in arguments either for or against God.  Let me preface by saying that in college I studied some continental philosophy and was particularly influenced by Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, and Heidegger.  A common theme among these philosophers is that truth always begins with a human subject.  Out of the "lived world" we grapple for truth and form our basis for knowledge rather than receive knowledge from outside us through either empirical knowledge or logical proofs.  I could go into way more detail but the point is that I'm inclined to agree with these thinkers and I guess ultimately I hold the belief that Truth/Objectivity whatever you want to call it is always in some ways subjective.  

Lately I've been watching a lot of debates between theists and atheists (particularly the so called "New Atheists") and obviously the point of these debates is to argue that one position is better than the other.  The assumption being "my truth is better than your truth".  The confusion for me is that philosophically I have a hard time reconciling my belief that truth is subjective while simultaneously agreeing that one side of the argument is better.  Does anyone besides me have a problem when these debates focus almost exclusively on the objective nature of the arguments and almost never on the subjectivity of human knowledge?   Maybe someone could help clear this confusion for me.  Thanks.

[AlP]

Welcome blik. We have an introductions forum that you are not obligated to say hello on  .

I am also influenced by Heidegger. I don't have difficulty differentiating between the objective and the subjective. I suggest that your problem might be that you are reifying "truth". There is no "the truth". It is a wholly abstract (and confusing) concept.

[Dagda]

I would disagree that truth does not exist. My definition of truth would be this: anything which exists independently of what animals’ think on the matter is true. For instance, even if I have a firm conviction that I can defy gravity, if I jump of a building it is highly improbable that I will float. As such, I conclude that gravity is an objective truth. Under my definition truth cannot be subjective (the entire point of subjectivity is that it changes from person to person therefore is not independent of the thought process) as its very subjectivity would mean that it could not be a truth.

Truth exists because there are clearly several things which exist independent of the thought process. This means several things are true, and by existing prove truth.

Blik, I think the things which you take to be subjective truths are probably not truths at all, but opinions (such as the greatest American etc) masquerading as truth. In regards to your problem with taking sides in a subjective argument; most people would say that the existence of a deity is independent of the thought process (not necessarily true). Assuming God (or the lack of one) is a truth, then it is perfectly understandable to take a side as there is a right and wrong in the argument therefore not contradictory to the principle of subjectivity-this definition of truth leaves room for subjectivity, just not universal subjectivity.

[Recusant]

Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

[2010yma]

My experience so far has convinced me that it's true: you have to see it to believe it. If you haven't seen it, or experienced it, chances are, you won't believe it. Most people who have faith in God have evidence in their head, even though an outsider can't see it. Some people were brought up to believe, but without having any true personal experiences, fall away and say there is no God. I don't think this can ever be resolved in the courtroom of human reasoning. It's a very personal thing, and it makes me sad to see how nasty all the debates have become. People are hurting and need help. We all need to be there for each other.

[Recusant]

Hello, and welcome to you too, 2010yma.

Not all of the debates have become nasty.  We try to maintain a reasonable level of civility here, and some of our discussions/debates, with both theists and atheists participating, could be described as cordial.  Sometimes members need help keeping it between the lines, and for that we have a remarkable team of moderators.  I hope you will enjoy reading and posting here.

[Jolly Sapper]

Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

Would not a "fact" be something that can be checked or verified in some way while a "truth" is what we derive from a series of facts that seem to lead to one particular conclusion as opposed to another?

[Dagda]

Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

I would disagree. Fact and truth are so similar that they could be used almost interchangeably. Truth is factual and facts are true.

Perhaps if I knew your own definition of fact and truth I would be able to clarify further?

[Jolly Sapper]

Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

I would disagree. Fact and truth are so similar that they could be used almost interchangeably. Truth is factual and facts are true.

Perhaps if I knew your own definition of fact and truth I would be able to clarify further?

A fact is an instance of something, truth is an interpretation derived from facts, no?  

"The sky is blue" is more of a truth than a fact.  A blind person has no way of knowing if the sky is really blue so the statement may not ever be true.

"The sky is blue because of the way photons bounce around in the atmosphere and eventually make their way into our eyes, which have the ability to interpret the photons into a neurological impulse shot to our brains that assigns meaning to what is seen.  Such as "The sky is blue."  This, if my example holds, is an example of a fact.

[Reginus]

I would define a fact as a proven truth.

[Zyva]

I would define a truth as a proven fact.

[Dagda]

I would define a fact as a proven truth.

Surely a truth which is unproven is an opinion? There is hardly much point in saying something is true when it could be false; the word loses all meaning if it is just used to describe fuzzy areas which no-one is sure about. Truth is an absolute; something is either true or false; fact or opinion. Anyway, we seem to be arguing over semantics, which is always a little tedious. Back to the argument in hand; are there instances when something is objective and other instances where something is subjective?

[Jolly Sapper]

Back to the argument in hand; are there instances when something is objective and other instances where something is subjective?

Absolutely probably.

[pinkocommie]

Back to the argument in hand; are there instances when something is objective and other instances where something is subjective?

Absolutely probably.

Ok, the fact/truth thing is bothering me.  It seems to me that the difference between the two are - truths are subject to perception whereas facts are true regardless of perception.  It is a FACT that I have two hands.  When I say that I'm happy, it's the TRUTH.  You might look at me and you see that it is a FACT that I have two hands.  However, I have a strange look on my face and I'm kind of jittery so you don't believe my happiness is TRUTH.

[Dagda]

I don’t see your point. If it is a fact that you have two hands, in any event could it both be false that you have two hands and fact that you have two hands? No, therefore one cannot be used to the exclusion of the other hence they are pretty much the same thing. If I believe it to be false that you are happy, it is my opinion that you are not in fact happy. You could not be truthfully happy, and factually sad. If we are talking about perceived truths, it is slightly different; for instance, it is true that I perceive you to be sad whilst you are in fact happy. In other words, it was a fact (true) that I thought you where sad, but also a fact (true) that you were happy. The first part deals with the truth of my perceptions, the second part the truth of your being; these are two different things which you seem to have confused. I can truthfully think the sky is pink, but it can be truthfully blue.