Does the notion of "objective reality" require God?

[Qoeleth]

I have observed that many rationalists and atheists have a very strong sense of there being an “objective reality”. I would like to explore this.

• The existence (from ex sistere- to ‘stand out’) of anything requires that it be perceived or conceived. Otherwise, to whom is it standing out?
• The qualities or characteristic of anything are necessarily its perceived qualities- there are no ''objective" qualities- Food does not have a taste until it is actually tasted. Colour which are unseen are not colours. One cannot say in the abstract- “This object looks red”- without a subject to whom it looks red? Qualities only exist in relation to a perceiver.
• Now, all perceptions are situated in relation to the perceiver, i.e. are subjective.
• The idea of ‘objective reality’ requires either a ‘view from no-where’ (which is impossible and absurd), or “a view from everywhere”. Now, this “view from everywhere” pre-supposes the existence (or at least the possibility of) a universal perceiver (God).

So, my contention is that those who subscribe to the myth of ‘objective reality’ (our rationalist athiests), are also necessarily (whether they realise it or not), subscribing to the possibility of a ‘view from everywhere’, and thus God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve asked a similar question, only my question was on “objective value.” There’s not value without a valuer. One notion of objective value, which is value without a valuer, isn’t something from which I could make any sense. The other notion , which is that it is something valued by a god (not necessarily worried about which god here) makes “objective value” appear to be an idiom for the subjective values of a specific entity.

• Food does not have a taste until it is actually tasted. Colour which are unseen are not colours. One cannot say in the abstract- “This object looks red”- without a subject to whom it looks red? Qualities only exist in relation to a perceiver.

Actually here you kind of can . If you are trying to differentiate between red and orange there is room for subjectiveness. But if you can describe colour using some “language” that is more precise then you’ve got something that is less dependent on subjectiveness. In the case of colour descriptions of the wavelength and intensities of emissions and absorptions are a start for coming up with an objective description of the colour. This also allows us to speak about colours that we can’t see because they are outside the spectrum that humans can see. If you wanted to get more precise then you could include the velocity or gravitational reference frame from which the wavelength is measured.

So, my contention is that those who subscribe to the myth of ‘objective reality’ (our rationalist athiests), are also necessarily (whether they realise it or not), subscribing to the possibility of a ‘view from everywhere’, and thus God.

It sounds like Objective is being used in more than one sense here (?).

 

[The_Scott]

For there to be a reality, there must be someone to make it so. For example, I could easily make a chair. That chair went from a thought (non-reality) to a tangible object (reality). It’s an actual chair made of actual wood. If I never make that chair, then that chair never becomes a reality.

Now, if there is an objective reality, there must be an objective maker of that reality.

 

[Gidras05]

Interesting. I’m curious where this thread will go- my atheist friends all say the opposite. They all believe there is no “objective” anything, let alone reality.

Since they’re such materialist atheists, they believe that thought in and of itself can be obscured and can be irrational, and therefore anything we say or do is merely subject to the chemistry of our brains which are varied and can misfire etc etc. Since all we are, to them, are evolved animals, we can’t really ever assert anything objectively.

This unfortunately breaks down half of my arguments, since I literally have no common ground on which to build an argument. Typically I just turn the other way and focus on other people to debate with.

 

[Qoeleth]

Interesting. I’m curious where this thread will go- my atheist friends all say the opposite. They all believe there is no “objective” anything, let alone reality.

Since they’re such materialist atheists, they believe that thought in and of itself can be obscured and can be irrational, and therefore anything we say or do is merely subject to the chemistry of our brains which are varied and can misfire etc etc. Since all we are, to them, are evolved animals, we can’t really ever assert anything objectively.

This unfortunately breaks down half of my arguments, since I literally have no common ground on which to build an argument. Typically I just turn the other way and focus on other people to debate with.

I would be interested- we have people who believe in God and those who do not, and people who believe in ‘objective reality’ and those who do not.

Its seems to me that if a person believes in objective, rational reality (which I personally do not) they must believe in God to make it possible- otherwise, who is the universal perceiver to make objective existence meaningful- who is the ‘Being’ with the objective (i.e. universal) view?

On the other hand, if you reject the idea of objective reality, then, it doesn’t make sense to disbe**lieve that God objectively exists, since you don’t believe in objective existence anyway?

So, it seems impossible to be an atheist.

 

[davidv]

I would be interested- we have people who believe in God and those who do not, and people who believe in ‘objective reality’ and those who do not.

Its seems to me that if a person believes in objective, rational reality (which I personally do not) they must believe in God to make it possible- otherwise, who is the universal perceiver to make objective existence meaningful- who is the ‘Being’ with the objective (i.e. universal) view?

On the other hand, if you reject the idea of objective reality, then, it doesn’t make sense to disbelieve that God objectively exists, since you don’t believe in objective existence anyway?

So, it seems impossible to be an atheist.

In my view, in order to have a subjective view there must be an object. The descriptive qualities offered by various individuals on what a particular tree looks like, however different they might be, must be grounded in the objective reality of the tree that is being observed.

That being said, many people, whether atheist or the indifferent can agree that the tree exists objectively. Therefore your theory that believing in objective reality requires belief in God doesn’t seem to hold.

 

[kboucher]

Interesting. I’m curious where this thread will go- my atheist friends all say the opposite. They all believe there is no “objective” anything, let alone reality.

Since they’re such materialist atheists, they believe that thought in and of itself can be obscured and can be irrational, and therefore anything we say or do is merely subject to the chemistry of our brains which are varied and can misfire etc etc. Since all we are, to them, are evolved animals, we can’t really ever assert anything objectively.

This unfortunately breaks down half of my arguments, since I literally have no common ground on which to build an argument. Typically I just turn the other way and focus on other people to debate with.

It seems futile to argue anything with anybody who has no belief in an objective reality. On what basis can you argue?

I, for one, believe in an objective reality. It was known to me first as truth, then as Truth, then as God and now as the Holy Trinity.

 

[Qoeleth]

It seems futile to argue anything with anybody who has no belief in an objective reality. On what basis can you argue?

I, for one, believe in an objective reality. It was known to me first as truth, then as Truth, then as God and now as the Holy Trinity.

An alternative to ‘objective reality’ is ‘linguistic idealism’- ‘things’ only ‘exist’ by conceptually identifying them and naming them (cf. Gen 1). So, ‘reality’ is a marker, a genre, within a web of language. I would suggest that it is ONLY from the point of view of linguistic idealism that ‘argument’ (i.e. the generation of new connections and relationships between words) makes sense.

For example, to the ‘objective realist’, it would seem that there is no point in arguing over whether God exists- He either does or He doesn’t (objectively), and argument is ‘only’ words which do not affect ‘reality’.
Now, the linguistic idealist would say" “This argument is the experimentation of different verbal relationships, to determine whether, in this context, ‘God’ and ‘exists’ may be juxtaposed plausibly/interestingly/beautifully/usefully.”

 

[grannymh]

In general, an objective reality exists independently from human thoughts or perceptions.

 

[Qoeleth]

In general, an objective reality exists independently from human thoughts or perceptions.

Such a position requires (consciously or unconsciously) the inclusion of “super human thoughts and perceptions”- since, as noted previously, something can exist (ex sistet) only if it exists to so**me observor.

Of course, you, as a Catholic believe that this is God- so there is no inconsistency in you holding such a belief. My contention was that the idea of objective reality cannot be reconciled with atheism.

 

[grannymh]

Such a position requires (consciously or unconsciously) the inclusion of “super human thoughts and perceptions”- since, as noted previously, something can exist (ex sistet) only if it exists to some observor.

Of course, you, as a Catholic believe that this is God- so there is no inconsistency in you holding such a belief. My contention was that the idea of objective reality cannot be reconciled with atheism.

Objectively reality can be reconciled with atheism, because objective reality does not depend on one’s faith or non-faith. I used the word independently because that is exactly what objective reality is.

Obviously, once one accepts the philosophies (plural intended) that something can exist (ex sistet) only if it exists to some observer, then true objective reasoning becomes impossible for the atheist, theist and the agnostic. This lack of objective reasoning is the real inconsistency with Catholicism. When it comes to human nature, Catholicism does not distinguish between faith, non-faith, and doubt. Human nature is worthy of profound respect regardless of who is observing.

Going back to the OP, there is this statement. “Now, all perceptions are situated in relation to the perceiver, i.e., are subjective.” In reality, this is a half-true statement.
It is correct that when perceptions are based within the perceiver, then one can call them subjective. However, not all human perceptions are subjective. Human nature is rational; therefore, humans can perceive objectively which means that the focus is on the object existing independently from the observer’s personal reactions and subsequent thoughts. Atheists have the same human nature as everyone else. Because of the gift of reason, atheists can have the same approach to objective reality as others. Whether or not someone chooses an objective approach is another story.

What I see as happening philosophically is that objective reasoning has been supplanted by subjective reasoning which leads to relativism which makes it easy for non-theists to dismiss God. For a number of reasons, some, not all, people have lost sight of what human nature really is objectively. One philosophy professor I know taught that Communism followed logically through its predecessors right back to Descartes. Add to that view of philosophy, the popular preference for relativism and it is easy to understand why non-theism is attractive.

 

[inocente]

• The idea of ‘objective reality’ requires either a ‘view from no-where’ (which is impossible and absurd), or “a view from everywhere”. Now, this “view from everywhere” pre-supposes the existence (or at least the possibility of) a universal perceiver (God).

Imho you’re not describing objective reality there. Objective reality is whatever is true whether or not it happens to be believed or even known by anyone. The idea is that if no one existed there would still be truths, which therefore don’t depend in any way on perception, beliefs or judgment.

 

[davidv]

Imho you’re not describing objective reality there. Objective reality is whatever is true whether or not it happens to be believed or even known by anyone. The idea is that if no one existed there would still be truths, which therefore don’t depend in any way on perception, beliefs or judgment.

This reminds me of a statement made by our speaker at our parish mission this week.
Paraphased: An objective statement is true, or false, whether you know it, like it, or believe it.

 

[grannymh]

Imho you’re not describing objective reality there. Objective reality is whatever is true whether or not it happens to be believed or even known by anyone. The idea is that if no one existed there would still be truths, which therefore don’t depend in any way on perception, beliefs or judgment.

You are objectively smart about objective reality.

 

[Qoeleth]

Imho you’re not describing objective reality there. Objective reality is whatever is true whether or not it happens to be believed or even known by anyone. The idea is that if no one existed there would still be truths, which therefore don’t depend in any way on perception, beliefs or judgment.

Let us think about what ‘truth’ is. ‘Truth’ is a quality which attaches to propositions- unless there is a speaker of propositions, and recipient, there is no truth at all. How could there be truths if no speaker or hearer of language (not even God) existed?

There is no existence, no truth, no value, no meaning, without a subject to whom these things apply. The, literally, can be no truth withtout language, since ‘true’ is a quality pertaining to propositions. “In the beginning was the Word… And through it all things were made.”

Existence came into ‘being’ as a result of the language (the Word) of God. Without language, ‘truth’ is not possible. As Derrida said “there is nothing outside the text.”

I am happy to accept the idea of “objective reality”, only as “reality as a universal perceiver (G*d) does (or would) see it.” Which returns me to my original contention- belief in ‘objective reality’ is dependent upon belief in God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Let us think about what ‘truth’ is. ‘Truth’ is a quality which attaches to propositions- unless there is a speaker of propositions, and recipient, there is no truth at all.

It sounds like the intent here is to separate the our expressions (whether written, spoken, thought, or communicated/constructed in some other manner) from the entities to which they are applied. Though there is going to be some entanglement because there’s not many options for exchanging ideas here without using some form of language or expression.

I am happy to accept the idea of “objective reality”, only as “reality as a universal perceiver (G*d) does (or would) see it.” Which returns me to my original contention- belief in ‘objective reality’ is dependent upon belief in God.

This is dealing with a different definition of “objective” than what most others are discussing. Here you are talking about conformance to some “standard” where you’ve defined the perceptions of a God as that standard. When you are speaking in the context of some one that doesn’t believe that there exists any God or gods then I think the chances are low that this is the definition that they are using. A possible synonym that I think is applicable to the context in which you are hearing the phrase is “pertaining to the material/physical world” (if there are also non-material/physical entities the definition could be expanded to include them too). An antonym of “objective reality” in this context is “imaginary.” “Subjective” is an antonym for some of the other definitions, but not this one. The conflict comes in determining whether or not something has material existence.

If I have a ball on a table, and a group of people are allowed to pick up the ball, feel it, bounce it, or interact with it in some other way that group of people would most likely label the ball as being something that is a part of objective reality. It’s possible to start mixing in other meanings of the word objective here such as talking about the objective view from an eye or other system with a lens, or an objective description (objective as in impartial) of the ball. Objective is a polyseme. And just like with other polysemes this can lead to confusion. But I would suggest not applying every possible definition (when in doubt ask the person which definition they are using). While perception is a tool that we might try to use to directly determine that the ball is part of objective reality note that it’s not necessary for something to interact directly with our perceptions at all (ex:nutrinos, some forms of radiation, carbon monoxide and other gases with no smell). If I place some one in a room and tell them that I am pumping it full of carbon monoxide or that the room is full of radiation we would expect little difference in outcome whether the person believed it or not.

Some one can “perceive” non-extant objects as many of us do in dreams and some may do under hallucinations, drug influence, or voluntarily through imagination. With perception being one of the primary tools that one uses to determine whether or not something is a part of objective reality you might notice that this can lead to an incorrect evaluation of whether or not something is a part of objective reality. For example: have you ever woken up and during a brief moment that followed your sleep though something in your dream to be real? So some times we may compare our perceptions with those of another in making determination of whether or not we are being deceived by our perceptions. Such as by asking some else to describe what they saw and seeing how well it matches what we saw or what another saw. Not that this is considered 100% free of the possibility of any errors.

Krishna, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, and Raijin are all names of gods. I’m pretty sure we all have opinions on some of them being real or not real. But like radiation or gasses that have no smell our perceptions and beliefs don’t impact whether or not there are extant entities that posses the attributes associated with each one of those names (whether or not any of these entities are part of objective reality).

 

[Perplexity]

The OP strikes me as an argument against realism, not against atheism. Positing a god wouldn’t change anything in the OP. Thus, if the atheist is a realist, he’ll probably just appeal to realist arguments, the same as a theist would.

 

[inocente]

I am happy to accept the idea of “objective reality”, only as “reality as a universal perceiver (G*d) does (or would) see it.” Which returns me to my original contention- belief in ‘objective reality’ is dependent upon belief in God.

I think you’re making it too complicated, and aren’t talking about objective reality as it is normally defined, which is basically “that which exists independent of any mind”.

For an atheist, who doesn’t believe in any god, stars are part of objective reality since even if there was no life and so no minds anywhere, stars would still exist.

The same is true for a deist who believes god created the universe but then went away.

Now a theist might say that stars couldn’t continue to exist without her god continuously sustaining the universe, and therefore nothing can exist independent of the mind of her god, but the atheist and deist, not to mention theists who believe in a different god and theists who don’t believe their god sustains all existence, well they don’t agree. And they might ask the theist to first prove that her god exists independent of our minds, that is, to prove her god is objectively real.

Which might be a bit of a show stopper for the theist.

(In a way that doesn’t matter since objective reality is only a classification when all is said and done, except a lot of people do tend to think anything which falls outside the definition is somehow less reasonable, for some reason.)

 

[grannymh]

Let us think about what ‘truth’ is. ‘Truth’ is a quality which attaches to propositions- unless there is a speaker of propositions, and recipient, there is no truth at all. How could there be truths if no speaker or hearer of language (not even God) existed?

Emphasis mine.

Re. ‘Truth’ is a quality which attaches to propositions.

One does not have to “attach” truth to a proposition in order to make the proposition real. One can “evaluate” a proposition as to its truthfulnes, but that assumes that the proposition per se already exists as an objective reality.

 

[Qoeleth]

Emphasis mine.

Re. ‘Truth’ is a quality which attaches to propositions.

One does not have to “attach” truth to a proposition in order to make the proposition real. One can “evaluate” a proposition as to its truthfulnes, but that assumes that the proposition per se already exists as an objective reality.

A proposition though, is a verbal formulation. For example, if one says, “It is true that ‘star exist,’” they are commenting on the truth of the proposition (the verbal formulation), which does not exist outside of language.