true or false?

[mute]

this is from a handout my Basic Logic teacher gave the class :

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF TRUTH

THERE IS TRUTH FOR ME AND TRUTH FOR YOU.

TRUTH IS A MATTER OF OPINION

I HAVE A RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT I WANT

OBJECTIVE VIEW OF TRUTH

STATEMENTS ARE TRUE BECAUSE OF FACTS. A PERSON'S SAYING x, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO; IT'S TRUTH IS INDEPENDANT OF ANYONE SAYING IT.

TRUTH IS LIKE A MOUNTAIN PEAK. WHETHER THE CLIMBER GETS TO THE PEAK OR NOT, DOES NOT AFFECT ITS OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE.[/quote]

Here's an issue: whether religion is a subjective or objective view of truth?

People will say it's subjective because they have proof and facts that a certain religion is true,
ie. Catholics. They will say the writings in the Bible are fact, and are true.
Is the Bible a credible source? Lots of people say The New York Times is a credible source.
Other credible sources could be priests. They are considered 'experts' of that line of study. Columnists for The New York Times are also considered 'experts' in their field of work.

How is religion an objective view of truth? is it right to accept the claim that 'Jesus was God'? Many people say it's true because it says it in the Bible, but I believe that to be a load of crap.

However, why would I believe something written in The New York Times is true?

Here's the catch. If you follow a writer for The New York Times and his work has turned out being true and agrees with other experts in that field of work, then he is a credible source. Are any of the people who wrote the Bible a credible source? I don't even fucking know who wrote the Bible(s).

The issue I picked is a broad topic, and is too vague, and may not even be an issue. Though I hope my conclusion helps...
this is from my text book:

it is reasonable to accept an unsupported claim if it does not conflict with our observations, our background knowledge or other credible claims, and it comes from a source that is credible and not bias.

Our most reliable source of information about the world is our own first hand observations. The reliability of our observations is no better than the reliability of our memory.

here's a claim i'm willing to accept,
religion is bias...

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.escape000.f2s.com/mogs.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Mute (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Escape Artist]

Credibility is more like the ability to believe something. If, say, I tell you I've done something (killing deer, whatever) and you believe me to be credible, you will accept that as truth.

Now, whether or not I actually killed said deer is an unknown to you, as you were not there to witness it.

If that's the case, then you cannot call it fact...so it's a subjective belief, and no more. It's fairly hard to debate beliefs, as they typically have little factual basis backing them up.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.bastitch.com/easig.gif" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="Orange"><FONT size="-2">
Jailbait©
</FONT c></FONT s>

[mute]

hmmm, ya kinda got me stuck now...

here's a question, that may be relevant...

so if an astronomer believes that the Earth rotates around the sun, due to gravity, that belief is subjective?

this stuff gets me thinking about everything i hear now http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/eek.gif

i wouldn't have the luxury of waiting until i was absolutely sure you killed that deer... point is, if i act on the basis of best evidence (me believing you're credible) availible to me, i would be doing the most reasonable thing, even if later, i discover you lied...
that would just bring your crediblilty down... kinda puts the phrase right in your face, 'trust no one'

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.escape000.f2s.com/mogs.gif" border=0>

[Escape Artist]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Mute:
hmmm, ya kinda got me stuck now...

here's a question, that may be relevant...

so if an astronomer believes that the Earth rotates around the sun, due to gravity, that belief is subjective?

Possibly. Most scientific conclusions are drawn from best evidence and previous experiments.

For example, if here on Earth I know gravity pulls me to the ground, and I can experience this phenomenon (as I am now), then I can logically come to the conclusion that elsewhere, gravity acts the same.

Now, on the moon, the gravity is less, as we have seen with our own eyes from any video taken at the time, so we can assume gravity is not static and can vary in strength.

Ok, so we know so far from observation that gravity in itself pulls objects together and can vary in strength. If you were to get, say, a couple magnets, you'd find that no matter the position of them in relation to the ground or other static objects, they still attract to each other. From this we can conclude that gravity is not a force that pulls from a single direction; depending on the object causing gravity, it can even pull sideways. Most of this can be seen and felt, no? You can experience it and apply said experiences to other similar objects.

this stuff gets me thinking about everything i hear now http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/eek.gif

i wouldn't have the luxury of waiting until i was absolutely sure you killed that deer... point is, if i act on the basis of best evidence (me believing you're credible) availible to me, i would be doing the most reasonable thing, even if later, i discover you lied...

Indeed. You must extrapolate a few things from my statement that I killed a deer:

1. The likelihood that I would (knowing me, past actions, etc)

2. If I'm capable of killing said deer

3. If, during the time I said I killed the deer, I wasn't around THT or whatnot.

From those you would make a best guess. If, later, I proved you wrong and told you I hadn't, you'll have applied that to me for future statements. Same with gravity, if you know I said something and lied, you'll presume that I may and likely will do it again. Basically precedents and known observations at work.


that would just bring your crediblilty down... kinda puts the phrase right in your face, 'trust no one'

Gotcha there. See, to interact with anyone, you must have some degree of trust. For example, if you were to go to the supermarket, you would have to trust fellow shoppers not to rob you, kill you, etc etc.
Without trust you would live in a world of pure paranoia and fear. There's always trust; it's not readily apparent. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/smile.gif

[/quote]



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.bastitch.com/easig.gif" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="Orange"><FONT size="-2">
Jailbait©
</FONT c></FONT s>

[disturbed]

<u>sub·jec·tive</u>
adj.

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
Relating to the real nature of something; essential.


<u>ob·jec·tive</u>
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

n.
Something that actually exists.
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal.


Based on these definitions, I say that religion is subjective. Although it does not meet all of the definitions for subjectiveness, ie. existing only in the mind, it does not meet the definitions for objectiveness. Religion is EXTREMELY influenced by emotions and personal prejudices.

------------------
Victims.. Aren't we all?

<IMG SRC="http://www.disturbedmonkey.net/sig.jpg" border=0>

[This message has been edited by disturbed (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Escape Artist]

Perception is reality. Take a couple nutcases, we'll use Mudflap and Skeet.

If Mudflap believes the Maglite he is attempting to insert into Skeet's rectum is really a rubber chicken, then to him...it's a fairly genuine rubber chicken. We perceive rubber chickens to be what they are because we've seen them before, but really you could call a tree a chicken and be right.

We know there's an object buried up Skeet's rectum, but that's really all we know objectively other than general details about the object in question.

Most knowledge is derived from past experiences and conclusions that have been drawn as a result...and even science is somewhat subjective. Religion is almost wholly subjective...you read the Bible, the Koran, whatever the book may be and you simply draw your own conclusions and perceive it based on your knowledge, experiences and other affecting factors.

If you were influenced by others at a young age to believe religion is a load of shit, then you will probably see it as that.

In any case, the objective factor here is that said texts exist and are generally the same when it comes to content. How you take them and what they convey is entirely dependent on your outlook. A lot of things in life require you to simply believe something without wholly corroborating facts...what you believe is up to you.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.bastitch.com/easig.gif" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="Orange"><FONT size="-2">
Jailbait©
</FONT c></FONT s>

[mute]

shit i toally missed your reply to mine..? (don't feel like thinking)

my statement on 'trust no one' was too vague in heart of this discussion, what i meant was don't trust everything someone tells you, even your own friends at that matter...

tho i'll use the phrase 'trust no one' for around here, cause i actually don't know if someone i know, that is 'cool' with me, will rob me http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/eek.gif

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.escape000.f2s.com/mogs.gif" border=0>