Can Atheists & Agnostics be objective about spirituality

[Bro Dave]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave

(I just realized I accidently put this in the wrong area... I think it belongs under philosophy, if so feel free to move it)

[Bro Dave]

For you my statement is subjective. For me it is not. We each have the final say as to what we accept as true, and so, you are within your right to make that judgement. As I am equally welcome to evaluate all that I experience and therefore judge to be objective reality.
We all are forced to have boundries for what we accept as real. I just have set my boundries wider.

Bro Dave

Dave, as soon as you start using "for you" and "for me" you are getting by definition subjective.

That was, I believe, my point! Objectivity is a perception, not a reality.

Similarly, what you judge to be objective reality is, by definition, subjective.

Yup! You got it!

Now, one can, and some have, argued that there is no objective reality.

I think that is what I have been,(ever so poorly) arguing.

Or perhaps there are degrees of objectivity. Either way, you have not really provided any meaningful sense of what you mean by objective spirituality.

Objective to the one capable of experiencing it

I have provided a few definitions of objectivity, but I am still at a loss as to how to apply them to spiritual phenomena.

That is because you insist that since you do not recognize the possibility of anything beyond the physical, nothing can possibly exist!

Since you were the one to first apply the idea of objectivity to spiritual things, could you please, using the normal English meanings of the words, tell us what you mean?

Normality is, as normality does…

Bro Dave

[QED]

So, I guess we all experience the same sensations for taste and smell as well? Clearly, even for our obvious physical senses, the interpretations of our brains is completely individual.

I stand by what I said. Yes we have independent interpretations but all this is taking place in a 'device' (you or me) that is remarkably similar. What I was getting at is that this 'device' is subject to the same glitches in each case.

This reminds me of the crop circle arguments. Just because a couple of jerks admitted to using a stomping board to create very simple designs, hardly means that ALL crop circles have to have been so created.

Oh yes it does. Before we understood how it was done people would say it must be paranormal because we can't imagine how else they could come about. This estimate is based on probabilities. The probability of the wind sweeping it into geometrical patterns was felt, by some, to be lower than the probability of the paranormal getting involved. Now just what probability can we assign to the paranormal? Hard to say. Of course I'd say zero, much less than the wind doing it. However, once we see how men with rope and planks can pull-off this stunt, the probability sky-rockets that that's the explanation. And when we come to assessments our best guide is probability.

(I notice that you emphasize the simplicity of the confessed designs. Some extraordinarily complex designs have been confessed to as well, but the majority go unclaimed because the intention is to create a mystery. This has also been confessed.)

Sleep paralysis is an excellent example that can be generalized to demonstrate numerous forms of temporary psychosis. Deviations "from normal human operation" might not be experienced by everyone, so it is valid to raise known examples otherwise people might well assume that what they experience is always a direct-line to reality. Nothing could be further from the truth and, whether you like it or not, it brings into question every single apparently paranormal experience.

Sheesh! Are we now to conclude the brain is so unreliable as never to be trusted? Or only that we should not trust it where things spiritual are concerned?

I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble but, yes, the brain can readily be shown to be unreliable on many sensory and cognitive issues. Just go out and buy one of the many optical illusion books and stare in disbelief at the vanishing dots and parallel lines that aren't. Of course you exaggerate the situation in order to dismiss it, by saying that it implies we should never trust our brains.

But what are these Spiritual things you talk of?

[McCulloch]

For you my statement is subjective. For me it is not. We each have the final say as to what we accept as true, and so, you are within your right to make that judgement. As I am equally welcome to evaluate all that I experience and therefore judge to be objective reality.
We all are forced to have boundries for what we accept as real. I just have set my boundries wider.

Dave, as soon as you start using "for you" and "for me" you are getting by definition subjective.

That was, I believe, my point! Objectivity is a perception, not a reality.

Similarly, what you judge to be objective reality is, by definition, subjective.

Yup! You got it!

Now, one can, and some have, argued that there is no objective reality.

I think that is what I have been,(ever so poorly) arguing.

Or perhaps there are degrees of objectivity. Either way, you have not really provided any meaningful sense of what you mean by objective spirituality.

If there is no such thing as objective and all objectivity is subjective, why did you confound us by saying that there is such a thing as objective spirituality?

[Bro Dave]

If there is no such thing as objective and all objectivity is subjective, why did you confound us by saying that there is such a thing as objective spirituality?

I confounded nothing. I stated that objectivity exists only in the mind of the individual. If you would like to re-phrase that to say there is no true objectivity, it is your subjective judgement call to do so.
(although you will no doubt argue you are being "objective"... )

Bro Dave

[ENIGMA]

If there is no such thing as objective and all objectivity is subjective, why did you confound us by saying that there is such a thing as objective spirituality?

I confounded nothing. I stated that objectivity exists only in the mind of the individual. If you would like to re-phrase that to say there is no true objectivity, it is your subjective judgement call to do so.
(although you will no doubt argue you are being "objective"... )

Bro Dave

With such a definition of "objectivity" doesn't the argument in the initial post implode into meaninglessness?

Yes, atheists are objective about spirituality, to them. It is impossible for them to not be objective about spirituality, since objectivity only has reference to them, in this instance.

[McCulloch]

If there is no such thing as objective and all objectivity is subjective, why did you confound us by saying that there is such a thing as objective spirituality?

I confounded nothing. I stated that objectivity exists only in the mind of the individual. If you would like to re-phrase that to say there is no true objectivity, it is your subjective judgement call to do so.
Emphasis mine.

If objectivity exists only in the mind of the individual, then it ceases to be objective because objective means that the information is based on observable phenomena uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. How can that which is only in the mind of the individual uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices or be based on observable phenomena? I fear that you are still using a definition of objective which is foreign to the rest of us.

[Bro Dave]

If there is no such thing as objective and all objectivity is subjective, why did you confound us by saying that there is such a thing as objective spirituality?

I confounded nothing. I stated that objectivity exists only in the mind of the individual. If you would like to re-phrase that to say there is no true objectivity, it is your subjective judgement call to do so.
(although you will no doubt argue you are being "objective"... )

Bro Dave

With such a definition of "objectivity" doesn't the argument in the initial post implode into meaninglessness?

Yes, atheists are objective about spirituality, to them. It is impossible for them to not be objective about spirituality, since objectivity only has reference to them, in this instance.

Unfortuantely, yes, this is true. This is the prime reason we have so much hatred based on what we consider to be "objective truths". It usually take a lifetime of honest seeking, before it dawns on the seeker, that objective truth exists only within. And, since none of us is capable of grasping ABSOLUTE TRUTH, we will all settle for something significantly less...
But its okay! We learn the way your kids learn. We don't start our kids at the Post Doctoral levels, we start with the ABC's, and work up. And, as we learn a little, we build a foundation that will suport a larger understanding. This will never end. And since we start as very different people, with very different cultures and I.Q.'s, our initial truths will seem strangely contradictory. It is only with a lot of growth that we eventually see our common destinations, no matter our points of origin.

Bro Dave

[abnoxio]

To be objective, it implies objectivity, which is derived from the same root word as object, or something that can be touched, felt, observed, delt with, interacted with. You are lacking if you wish to convince those other than the predisposed. Basically, you are silly, that will be your legacy BRO!

[Bro Dave]

To be objective, it implies objectivity, which is derived from the same root word as object, or something that can be touched, felt, observed, delt with, interacted with.

So, you are saying being spiritually touched, and feeling God's love and His presence, and observing literal miracles does not count, because they are not your experiences. That's pretty narrow, but expected.

You are lacking if you wish to convince those other than the predisposed.

My friend, I expect to convince no one. I simply share the product of my years of seeking truth, and the answers it has brought me.

Basically, you are silly, that will be your legacy BRO!

We all create our legacise... how is yours coming along?

Bro Dave

[QED]

you are silly, that will be your legacy BRO!

As stated in the Forum rules
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.

If it's any help, you are permitted to say something like "believing in unseen spirits is silly" -- so long as you justify the statement by adding something like "because no known physics could account for them".