The objective universe

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Objective. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. Based on observable phenomena. Of or having to do with a material object.


Sin_is_fun kindly presented us with the objective truth regarding our existance (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0). Likewise, AlAyeti has on many occasions provided us with his objective take on the world. Unfortunately, these two "truths" are entirely adverse to one another.


How can we claim to live in an objective universe, when absolutely EVERYTHING we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell is a matter of perception?

Sin and Al percieve two different truths. In an objective universe there would be no differing perceptions. There would be no perception at all. There would only be a material, observable, fact.

I am sure that there is a 'reality'. But how may we claim to know that reality when trapped in a first person role?




I assert that the universe was created by a supreme fuzzy pink platypus, and that our evolutionary ancestors were mind-reading monotremes that treked from pluto on modified flying marshmellows. You may laugh at that theory, but can you prove it wrong?

I believe that we will never achieve a faultless definition of reality, and by no scientific or philosophical means rightfully claim a belief as "truth".

What are your thoughts?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The point is that no one has to resort to absolutism in order to make judgements about facts and theories. And inherent in science and rationalism is the ability to change belief as new facts are discovered.

Indeed, no one has to. But a lot of people still do.

Scientists and rationalists claim to be completely open minded to new evidence. But in many cases they are not. Many of them revert to absolutism in some degree unknowingly, causing them to go beyond reasonable doubt in debunking new ideas. Just look at the Christian scientists in Darwins era.

I think that if we would all accept that nothing can be known for certain, we will be less prone to closed-mindedness. This is the main purpose of my argument. Most Christians are incredibly closed minded, mostly due to the belief in an absolute reality. Many athiests are closed minded for the exact same reason. Agnostics in general do not seem to have this problem, by the very nature of their belief.




Now, on to the theory business. I am not quite convinced.

A theory can't be the same as a fact by definition, true. But can't it be "correct"?

The theory of a geocentric universe is now widely regarded as false. If a theory can be wrong, why can't it be right?

What if my teacher asked me to explain how photosynthesis works? If my explanation is true, is it not "correct"?

Correct. Free from error or fault; true or accurate.
Fact. Something believed to be true or real.

The ony thing that really differentiates these words is the part of speech, from what I can see. So in essence, if an explanation is 'correct', it must be 'true', and if something is 'true, then it must be 'fact'.

But I concede, you are right on a fundamental level, at the very least.

No. I'm saying that we can prove there is no omniscient being with free will. The fact that theists believe it after it has been falsified qualifies them as irrationalists.

How do we prove that?

Yes and no. No, I cannot prove it wrong with 100%, undeniable certainty. But, fortunately, 99.999999% will do just as well. Since I've never seen this fuzzy platypus thing, and there's no evidence of life on Pluto, and marshmallows aren't capable of spaceflight, etc... We can be pretty sure that your hypothesis is wrong.

All of human experience is like that, really... I don't know with total certainty that apples grow on apple trees, but I can be very, very sure of this, based on all the accumulated evidence.

I agree. This pretty much sums up my argument, in fact.

Indeed, 99.99999999% is good enough. Just as long as we acknowledge it is not 100%.

[The Happy Humanist]

This was an interesting conversation, sorry I got in on it so late.

Platypus, I know what you're saying, that nothing can be known with <echo chamber effect>absolute, total, 100% certainty <effects off>. There is the vanishingly small possibility that we could all wake up in The Matrix tomorrow. And even THAT might not be the "real reality," because the next day we might wake up and find out that the Matrix was just a dream, and we're really all in a Super-Matrix. Or Hell.

But to take it to the extreme of actually giving weight to these doubts seems irrational. And I think calling oneself an agnostic, because of that infinitesimal possibility that God exists, is giving undue weight to what is really no more than a thought experiment. Reality may in fact be just the way we perceive it.

Think of it this way: "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing." Is even THAT statement absolutely true? If what you say is correct, and we cannot know that anything we "know" is in fact true, then that applies to the statement that we know nothing...which would turn around to mean that we actually DO know things, and that reality really is...real!

In other words, we can play mind games with ourselves all day, or we can accept reality as presented and move on with our lives. If there are chinks in reality, we'll find out soon enough. If I take the stand in a courtroom trial as a witness to a murder, and I'm asked if I am 100% certain I saw the defendant kill the victim, I'm not going to lapse into a lecture on Cartesian skepticism or Solipsism, I'm going to say, Yeah, I'm 100% certain. I think everyone sorta knows that I mean, "within the usual epistemic limitations. "

And JulioD, I'd like to hear more about why you consider agnostics "closet theists," whereas I consider most of them to be "closet atheists"?

Fascinating stuff....

[The Persnickety Platypus]

If I am to cast aside all doubt (no matter how miniscule), how will I ever come to accept new explanations when fresh evidence is unfurled?

An absolutist's view leaves no room for new interpretation. Remember Galileo? Darwin? Their explanations were not welcome in the church's static worldview.

All doubts have weight. Maybe not enough weight to convince me that the theory I submit to is incorrect, but enough weight to make me realize that there could be a better explanation.

But rest assured, the influence of these doubts is minimal.