Objective Truth and Apologetics

[bogeydogg]

There is a lot of argument on here about objective/ subjective truth. I want to explore this a little. Before I do I would like to define a few terms, feel free to redefine them if you choose.

Truth - the quality or state of being true.

If this is true then it would suggest that truth has some ontological quality. I would define this quality as being that it accurately reflects reality, as well as it may be known.

Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea about them.

Objective (adj) - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in representing and considering facts.

That seems pretty clear.

Subjective (adj) - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

So if I understand this correctly objective truth is that which manifestly reflects reality quite independent of what i or anyone else thinks about it. Whereas subjective truth is what i think about truth.

The reason I want to consider this is because i think post-modernism has elevated subjective truth to the point which it blurs the line between objective and subjective truth which leads to people presenting opinion as fact and not understanding why there are those who disagree.

For example, I believe that God exists. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the personal manifestation of that God. I believe He did die on a cross and was resurrected and has ascended into heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father from whence He will come again to judge the quick and the dead.

Now all of the above statements are either objectively true or they are objectively false in that they do/don’t accurately reflect reality without regard to what I think about them. However my belief in them is subjective and that is where the line in apologetics comes in. Can the apologist adequately build an argument based upon objective fact to change the subjective opinion of the nonbeliever.

If this is so, then does not the apologist have to be a scientist and a philosopher as well as, and maybe before, a theologian?

Also, aren’t objective reality and objective truth the same thing?

 

[Joyousguard]

Truth - the quality or state of being true.

If this is true then it would suggest that truth has some ontological quality. I would define this quality as being that it accurately reflects reality, as well as it may be known.

Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea about them.

Objective (adj) - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in representing and considering facts.

That seems pretty clear.

Subjective (adj) - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

I think most of us who are religious would agree with you on theese points even though they obviously have an entire discussion involved in each individual statement.

So if I understand this correctly objective truth is that which manifestly reflects reality quite independent of what i or anyone else thinks about it.

Correct. The moon exists and will continue to exist regardless of my feelings or opinion on the subject. Objective truth or reality is not dependent upon the individual.

Whereas subjective truth is what i think about truth.

That is a good way of putting it. Subjective truth looks to the individual for the answer to the question “what is true?” The individual would be the end all and be all for reality as we know it.

The reason I want to consider this is because i think post-modernism has elevated subjective truth to the point which it blurs the line between objective and subjective truth which leads to people presenting opinion as fact and not understanding why there are those who disagree.

This is very accurate. Bendict XVI has called it the “Age of relativism” and he is correct. We live in an age where the old questions of “What do you think?” have been replaced with “what do you feel?”, a small subtlty but appropriately representing what is going on. People wish to replace God with themselves. They do not like the fact of a supreme being in control over their own designs and desires.

For example, I believe that God exists. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the personal manifestation of that God. I believe He did die on a cross and was resurrected and has ascended into heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father from whence He will come again to judge the quick and the dead.

Now all of the above statements are either objectively true or they are objectively false in that they do/don’t accurately reflect reality without regard to what I think about them. However my belief in them is subjective and that is where the line in apologetics comes in. Can the apologist adequately build an argument based upon objective fact to change the subjective opinion of the nonbeliever.

Your beliefs are only subjective when they are not backed up by objective reality. An opinion is just an opinion until it is backed up by truth and objective reality, then it becomes truth and fact. We use the term “belief” to describe things of a theological nature. When it comes to Christ we could still use the term “belief” but it is not just beliefs we have but rater they are independet of our own views. “Christ is the Son of God” is not just a belief but is absolute reality and is not subject to anything any of us believe or think.

If this is so, then does not the apologist have to be a scientist and a philosopher as well as, and maybe before, a theologian?

Dominicans (the religious order) are firm believers in the importance of philosphy. “Good philosophy leads to good theology”. Theology is considered a science and philosphy is part of that science as well as numerous other disciplines. Theology is the understanding of God and even geology helps us in this endeavour.

Also, aren’t objective reality and objective truth the same thing?

I guess you could say that objective reality is made up of objective truths.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bogeydogg:

…Can the apologist adequately build an argument based upon objective fact to change the subjective opinion of the nonbeliever.

Some subjective opinions are based on factors which differ from a rigorous search for truth. In this regard, a grasp of Pragmatics may be useful:

• What does a subjective opinion do?
• What purpose does a subjective opinion serve?
  Understanding WHY a person clings to his/her own subjective opinion frees the apologist from using ‘evidence’ and ‘logic’ as a bludgeon; it opens up the field to questions rather than answers.

And empowers people to gain accountability for their own searches. As long as we continue to defend against challenges based on the subjective opinions of the challengers, who do we end up persuading? Do any of these encounters take the form of actual dialogue, to say nothing of actual dialectic?

Questions have answers. The Catholic Church has answers to questions. But often what stands between a person and his/her coming home to the answers is that his/her QUESTION has not been exposed to the light. In this respect, much of Catholic Answers is ‘objectively’ about Catholic Questions.

bogeydogg:

If this is so, then does not the apologist have to be a scientist and a philosopher as well as, and maybe before, a theologian?

Scientist, philosopher, psychologist, historian, AND theologian. There was a time when no turf war existed among these fields.

 

[bogeydogg]

Your beliefs are only subjective when they are not backed up by objective reality. An opinion is just an opinion until it is backed up by truth and objective reality, then it becomes truth and fact. We use the term “belief” to describe things of a theological nature. When it comes to Christ we could still use the term “belief” but it is not just beliefs we have but rater they are independet of our own views. “Christ is the Son of God” is not just a belief but is absolute reality and is not subject to anything any of us believe or think.

I would agree with you to the extent of one believer talking to another believer. I would say however that the person who does not believe is also going to believe that opinion, even those based upon fact, is subjective. To that end, especially when dealing with post-modernism, I think first the establishing of truth is what matters. First there must be some sort of idea of what truth is before any discussion can be made about whether or not something is truthful.

But you are right in affirming the Catholic Faith. Of course it is accurate and I did not intend to intimate that it was not nor that it is open to compromise.

But given your strong convictions, how would you approach someone who flatly denies any such thing as objective truth and views all propositions as contingent and irrelevant?

 

[bogeydogg]

Some subjective opinions are based on factors which differ from a rigorous search for truth. In this regard, a grasp of Pragmatics may be useful:

• What does a subjective opinion do?
• What purpose does a subjective opinion serve?
  Understanding WHY a person clings to his/her own subjective opinion frees the apologist from using ‘evidence’ and ‘logic’ as a bludgeon; it opens up the field to questions rather than answers.

And empowers people to gain accountability for their own searches. As long as we continue to defend against challenges based on the subjective opinions of the challengers, who do we end up persuading? Do any of these encounters take the form of actual dialogue, to say nothing of actual dialectic?

Questions have answers. The Catholic Church has answers to questions. But often what stands between a person and his/her coming home to the answers is that his/her QUESTION has not been exposed to the light. In this respect, much of Catholic Answers is ‘objectively’ about Catholic Questions.

Scientist, philosopher, psychologist, historian, AND theologian. There was a time when no turf war existed among these fields.

Can you explain a little more about Pragmatics?

I understand of course that when dealing with the changing of ideas care is needed. My dad is a full blown atheist and we have many conversations where I push until it becomes painful for him and then I have to back off to keep dialogue open. Perhaps if I understood a little better what you are saying it will give me new insight into a perplexing problem, “How do you gently shift the paradigm upon which someone has built their life?”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bogeydogg:

Can you explain a little more about Pragmatics?

Here’s a start:

iep.utm.edu/p/pragmati.htm

plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=pragmatism

bogeydogg:

I understand of course that when dealing with the changing of ideas care is needed. My dad is a full blown atheist and we have many conversations where I push until it becomes painful for him and then I have to back off to keep dialogue open. Perhaps if I understood a little better what you are saying it will give me new insight into a perplexing problem, “How do you gently shift the paradigm upon which someone has built their life?”

Only the Holy Spirit can do this.

What we can offer is friendship. If that friendship produces a genuine enquiry, then we can share our own experience of the Truth.

I am convinced more and more every day that our true work is friendship.

 

[bogeydogg]

OK, so if I can grasp the pragmatic reasoning which enables one to hold to a world view, even if it is false, then how does one scale the wall of subjectivity in order to try and reason objectively about truth?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

OK, so if I can grasp the pragmatic reasoning which enables one to hold to a world view, even if it is false, then how does one scale the wall of subjectivity in order to try and reason objectively about truth?

These are good questions, Mr/Ms Dogg. I hope that you get many thoughtful suggestions from folks.

1. A pragmatic reasoning which enables a false world view will have some confusion inherent to it (because the world view to which it points is false).
2. Confusion is based on error and denial of that error.
3. Once the confusion, error, and denial come to light, then it is no longer reasoning. is it?
4. Folks can still cling to ‘unreasonable’ reasoning based on a preference for what is not beautiful.
5. The beautiful (and therefore the good) has a power of its own. It is difficult and actually sociopathic to cling to the ugly and evil in the face of the powerful attractions of the beautiful and the good.
6. Either way, the question becomes compelling: why is this thing beautiful (good)? Or conversely, why is this thing ugly (evil)?
7. I deal with this question with my art students by asking: WHY do you like/dislike this thing?
8. Asking WHY transports the enquiry into the realm of empirical observation. That realm opens doors into the community of scholars.
9. In any case, we can’t force folks to see things our way. We can only hope to attract them into common language, common understanding, and common ground by presenting them with attractive things such as the beautiful, the true, the good, and so on.
10. So I guess it might be beneficial to have a look at the realm of aesthetics too.

 

[bogeydogg]

That would b Mr. Dogg thank you, though aesthetically pleasing I am not. But my wife loves me so?

OK, the great why question is a very difficult one though because it inevitably leads to subjective perceptions of reality which, if one is arguing with a thorough post-modernist, makes common language incredibly difficult to find. Because while one may argue, why do you find this thing which is false to be god even though it manifestly is not, the retort will follow along the lines of, “Well its only false to your way of thinking.” When one then pursues the vein of showing what is true and false, then this mumbo jumbo of value judgments like true and false are necessarily subjective comes up. So one argues that no in fact true and false are based on accurate reflections of reality at which point the rejoinder is, “yes but we can’t trust our senses to accurately reflect reality.” DA DA DA DA DA DA!!!

The point is, if a person is bought into post-modernism and rejects judgment and rationality as expressly western and or subjective, how would I climb out of that hole to find common language.

The reason I ask is that I have pretty much the identical conversation with many friends and usually wind up pointing out the inconsistencies in post-modern thought only to have them reject rationality itself and walk away. Am I just casting pearls before swine here? Should I just drop it?

Incidentally, I have dropped it with some people because of what St. Jerome said to St. Monica, “Spend more time talking to God about Augustine than you do talking to Augustine about God.” Having heeded this advice there are some friends whom I pray for constantly but only engage them in such conversations as these when they prompt me to do so. However, the reason I ask is because, when prompted, I want more meaningful answers.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bogeydogg:

That would b Mr. Dogg…

Thanks for the clarification.

bogeydogg:

…my wife loves me so?

This is good.

bogeydogg:

OK, the great why question is a very difficult one though because it inevitably leads to subjective perceptions of reality…

But these subjective perceptions of reality do not remain static when confronted with the question ‘why.’ An observation is tested

a) when it is measured against logic and
b) when hypotheses flowing from the observation actually work.

bogeydogg:

…if one is arguing with a thorough post-modernist, makes common language incredibly difficult to find.

Incredibly difficult, yes. But not impossible. Post-modernism is just very rigorous. And therefore difficult to read.

bogeydogg:

Because while one may argue, why do you find this thing which is false to be god…

Asking the question 'why do you find this thing which is false to be god; demonstrates in no way that the false thing is actually god. The question is rhetorical; the underlying statement is an undemonstrated assumption.

“Well its only false to your way of thinking.”

Logic is not relative.
Observations tend to be relative to what one has experienced. But that changes, as I have explained above.

bogeydogg:

When one then pursues the vein of showing what is true and false, then this mumbo jumbo of value judgments like true and false are necessarily subjective comes up.

The mumo jumbo may come up. But that doesn’t mean it is logical. It is what it is: mumbo jumbo.

bogeydogg:

So one argues that no in fact true and false are based on accurate reflections of reality at which point the rejoinder is, “yes but we can’t trust our senses to accurately reflect reality.” DA DA DA DA DA DA!!!

It is not so much a question of our senses being untrustworthy. It is more a question of our senses being only one part of the equation.

bogeydogg:

The point is, if a person is bought into post-modernism and rejects judgment and rationality as expressly western and or subjective, how would I climb out of that hole to find common language.

By actually reading post-modernist writing. Instead of reading only commentary on post-modernism writing. Mind you, much of post-modernist writing is actually commentary on other post-modernist writing. Nevertheless, even a cursory reading of pomo will reveal the rigour with which the writers define terms and derive common language.

bogeydogg:

The reason I ask is that I have pretty much the identical conversation with many friends and usually wind up pointing out the inconsistencies in post-modern thought only to have them reject rationality itself and walk away.

Walking away tells you that there is no conversation happening. Just because folks drop a few pomo names, doesn’t mean they are doing pomo.

As for inconsistencies: pomo is not one way of pondering. In fact it is a pluralist way of pondering.

bogeydogg:

Am I just casting pearls before swine here?

Yes.

bogeydogg:

Should I just drop it?

Yes.

On the other hand, you could ask the pomo question ‘If philosophy is to speak to us in times such as these, then what form must it take?’

bogeydogg:

Incidentally, I have dropped it with some people because of what St. Jerome said to St. Monica, “Spend more time talking to God about Augustine than you do talking to Augustine about God.”

Understood. I think this is a good answer to the pomo question I cited my the last quote box.

bogeydogg:

Having heeded this advice there are some friends whom I pray for constantly but only engage them in such conversations as these when they prompt me to do so.

Just make sure their questions are genuine questions and not bald opinions in disguise. And make sure you are in a genuine conversation, and not merely being a toy for ‘rightfighters.’

bogeydogg:

However, the reason I ask is because, when prompted, I want more meaningful answers.

Questions do have answers. But that doesn’t mean that our job is to provide them. It is more often than not very effective to rephrase the questions posed by your challengers.

 

[bogeydogg]

I meant good not god.

Well that had to be confusing.

How does one discern between real discussion and rightfighting?

 

[drafdog]

The only place where objective truth may be found is in axiomatic systems of mathematical logic. These are logical constructs and can generate a variety of propositions which are true within the system.
Outside the system is another thing entirely. Since these are artificial constructs, they may or may not reflect what we call the real world.
Ordinary philosophical and theological statements are hampered in their ability to represent objective truth by the fact that the words used are only symbolic of the realities they attempt to express. They are allegorical in nature and allegories fail in the final analysis to convey perfectly the ideas they were meant to express.
Objective truth is then impossible to express in words. As an example, consider the oath taken in a court of law whereby the witness swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I assure you that if the witness could in fact deliver on that oath we would be on our knees each night praying to him.

Matthew

 

[bogeydogg]

The only place where objective truth may be found is in axiomatic systems of mathematical logic. These are logical constructs and can generate a variety of propositions which are true within the system.
Outside the system is another thing entirely. Since these are artificial constructs, they may or may not reflect what we call the real world.
Ordinary philosophical and theological statements are hampered in their ability to represent objective truth by the fact that the words used are only symbolic of the realities they attempt to express. They are allegorical in nature and allegories fail in the final analysis to convey perfectly the ideas they were meant to express.
Objective truth is then impossible to express in words. As an example, consider the oath taken in a court of law whereby the witness swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I assure you that if the witness could in fact deliver on that oath we would be on our knees each night praying to him.

Matthew

I have two sons. One is named Liam the other is named Otha. This is objectively true and yet is not part of an axiomatic mathematical system.

I don’t believe the language used in theological apologetics is based upon allegorical or symbolic language. Rather I think the problem is communication and a breakdown in understanding. For example, when I am talking about God that word ‘God’ may mean many things to many different people. Some may think ‘Jesus’ some ‘Allah’ some ‘higher power’ some ‘fanciful flight of fantasy’ etc. So before any meaningful conversation can be held first there must be an understanding of what the terms being used mean. However, this understanding does not have to symbolic or allegorical. If I was to attempt to build an apologetic based upon physical matter, I would not be comparing God to anything found in nature and neither would I say that ‘x’ represents God but rather I would build the apologetic around the existence of matter and causality both of which are very solid ideas based upon observable reality and neither of which is God or is like God but rather derive their existence from God.

 

[drafdog]

Bogeydogg, the problem is that you didn’t understand what I said in my post. The words themselves are symbols and alagorical in nature.
Suppose that for some reason Liam decides to change his name legally to Bill. Your statement is no longer true. His name is not Liam. An objectively true statement is true regardless of time, place and circumstance. That your son’s name is Liam is only relatively true.

Matthew

 

[bogeydogg]

I think we are defining objective truth differently here. I think truth is that which accurately reflects reality. I think objective truth is that which manifestly reflects reality apart from any subjective opinion about it. Of course what is objectively true may change, but just because the nature of something, like a name, may be transient and thus the truth about it subject to change does not however mean that objectively true statements about that something cannot be made.

As far as being relatively true I think you are correct if I understand what you mean by relatively. If you are saying that my son’s name is Liam is relatively true because it is true only insofar as it refers to the relationship of my son and his name then yes I agree. Sorry I have insomnia and I can see that is worded poorly but I hope my addled brain made my understanding clear enough please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood. However, even if we are only referring to truths based solely upon relationships and thus transient truths, we can still make objectively true statements about those relationships if our truth statements are manifestly accurate.