French Ban on Religious Symbols in Schools

[Jester]

In response to this law, Human Rights Watch issued this statement:

The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation in salaat.

Do you agree or disagree with the Human Rights Watch's reaction (and, of course, give your reasons)?

[Jester]

You are certainly free to take the position that ideas about what would be better are subjective. My only contention is that this contradicts the idea that they are based on evidence, meaning that I see no reason why there is evidence regarding this subject that "we see around us every day". There is no such thing as evidence for or against a subjective idea.

There's all sorts of evidence that can be used to bolster subjective positions, what are you talking about?

If an opinion is bolstered by evidence, then it ceases to be an opinion, and is instead a theory about objective reality. Evidence refers to reality, not opinions.

Have you ever been part of a serious debate? Both sides present evidence to support their claims and then attempt to tear down the evidence of the other side.

Yes, when they are discussing what is true, not when they are discussing purely subjective matters.

Just because evidence is not proof doesn't mean it isn't useful.

I don't see where I implied otherwise.

We do see variations in the subjective morals and ethics of various human cultures every day, yet you don't want to admit that they actually mean something.

I'm not sure how the phrase "actually mean something" relates to the idea of subjective positions. Subjectivity, by its nature, is a matter of opinion, rather than telling us anything meaningful about external reality.

It's like claiming the sun is purple polka-dotted and just because you can look up and see that it's yellow doesn't change anything.

The claim that the sun is yellow is not a subjective claim. It is an objective claim about the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that radiate from its surface.
A subjective claim about the sun would be to claim that it would look better if it were dotted with purple. That is the sort of claim that can't be supported with evidence.

Is this to say that you agree that the beliefs of various cultures is not the test of objective morality? In that case, why mention shifts in them as part of an argument that such a thing does not exist?

No, it's proof against objective morality. If there were such a thing as objective morality, a position that morals are somehow universal and absolute, then they ought to be supported by all peoples everywhere, even those who do not subscribe to you particular religious beliefs.

This is a very strong claim about what objective morality would be like - were it to exist. What I had requested in my last post, however, was support for the idea that this was a valid test. To respond with a demand that it is does not address my point.
Keeping in mind that no suggestion of objective morality in history, so far as I know, has ever argued that all people or cultures have an equal understanding of it, is there any support for the idea that this would be the case, or is it simply a claim?

If you have to hold people down to the ground so that "gravity" looks better, then you ought to be rethinking your ideas about gravity.

If you are arguing that objective morality should be evidenced by the behavior of individuals and societies, then I would point out that morality is a concept about how people ought to behave, not how they do behave. This entire premise regarding the test for objective morality overlooks this fact and is otherwise unsupported.

Regardless of whether or not you will personally be impressed with my reasons for my position here, I see absolutely not "evidence in front of [my] eyes that there is no such thing as objective morality". I'd thought you'd just agreed that contrasting our thoughts on morals with the Aztecs wasn't a legitimate test of the issue, but didn't see any other evidence to support your point.

If you can't even articulate your own reasons for buying into it, why would you expect anyone else to?

I wasn't asking you to. I was asking you to accept the fact that a lack of objective morality hasn't been proved, as well as the fact that no one has yet shown any way in which subjective morality has more meaning than any other opinion.
If you can agree on those two accounts, and with the idea that this same goes for meaning in life, then I have no other points to address. If you do not agree on those points, however, then I suggest you debate my arguments surrounding them, rather than request support for a claim I'm not at present making.

I will maintain that your claims are consistent with nihilism, but also respect your wish not to be referred to in that manner.

You can maintain anything you please but that doesn't make it so. The only thing in a logical discussion that matters is what you can defend and support and so far, you're not doing a whole lot of either.

Very well, if you wish for further explanation.
By "nihilism", I was referencing this definition from Miriam-Webster.

a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

If you wish to claim that you do not deny the existence of objective moral truths, you are free to make that point. As it stands, I'm assuming that you simply have a different understanding of nihilism than I do. In which case, as I have said, I am happy to refrain from using the term.

As for the idea that "we ourselves give our own lives meaning and purpose", is this meant as more than the idea that we can make ourselves feel better by believing that we have purpose in spite of a dearth of evidence, or do you feel that there is actual support for this claim?

Which evidence might that be? Steven Hawking, a man condemned to life in a wheelchair, has given himself the purpose of discovering the truth about the universe and in so doing, has lived far, far beyond his life expectancy.

This is a claim that, because you and others personally feel that this is purpose, then it must be so. I was not asking whether or not people can do things that are impressive enough that they and others will feel that their lives are meaningful. I completely agree that this is possible, even common. What I requested was evidence supporting the idea that these feelings describe reality.

..but you choose to turn a blind eye to it, instead choosing to believe in an imaginary man in the sky. When do you think you'll be presenting evidence to support that?

Certainly not until that is the topic of debate.
Even were it, I'd probably be pointing out that, euphemisms aside, I don't believe in "a man in the sky".
For now, let's please try to keep this on topic and make it less personal.

I personally hold the opinion that classic rock is "better" than country music, but would not claim that I can support that opinion with logical precepts and rational argument, specifically, because it is an opinion.

Can you not give reasons why you think that way?

Yes, and they are purely comments about my personal tastes. They describe my emotional reactions to the music, but tell others nothing about the music itself.

Can you not come up with examples and evidence that have convinced you of that?

No. I was not convinced by evidence. I was convinced by personal experience and my own emotional reactions to the music. Evidence had nothing to do with it.

If your opinions are just blind assertions of individual enjoyment, based on nothing but primal emotion, then sure, opinions are pointless.

That is exactly what I am claiming, yes.

Most rational people, however, can and do go farther.

In which case, might I have an example? Can you give me a logical argument supporting that one particular type of music is better than another? If we agree that emotional reactions are not valid evidence, then such an argument should omit them.

More to the point of the topic, would you give such an argument regarding morality and meaning in life? I have heard many claims that subjective opinions can be logically supported, as well as demands that I support my position, but have yet to hear any reason or support for that conclusion.