What would you do if it were proven...?

[Candide_West]

But what does it mean when you say you are aware of the concept? You are aware that there is such a concept? Or you are aware of it in the sense that you understand the concept for yourself? If the latter, then you must have some experiential grounding for that understanding, don’t you think?

Why must I have experiential grounding on something in order to understand a concept? I can understand the concept of God but do not believe he exists, equally I can understand the concept of the flying spaghetti monster but do not believe it exists either.*

I can imagine the existence of any number of things which do not in fact exist. True that once I have imagined them I guess you could say I have “experienced” them. But that doesn’t say anything about whether those things actually exist outside my mind.*

True enough. But if the atheist admits that she doesn’t want to concept to be ‘dead,’ then she admits one of two things: 1) it is dead for her, but she is happy for there to be others for whom the concept is not dead, and this despite the fact that she regards them rather superciliously, as people who cling to a childish fantasy; 2) she will have to admit that ‘God’ indeed is an entirely legitimate concept that mature intelligent adults have to take seriously in order to be mature intelligent adults - which would be to concede Rahner’s point. It seems to me that you have to pick one of these options.

Really? Then it looks like I’ve totally missed Rahner’s point. I’m happy enough to say that considering if such a being exists is a part of mental development into adulthood. Of course it’s not the only question that ought to be asked as part of growing up in our society. But nonetheless I’d say it’s an important one to consider.

Yes, it is rather bald perhaps. But less bald if I add the corollary of this claim, that is, that there is no other way to question ‘radically’ - so you can go ahead and try to prove me wrong by telling me about some other way that would question just as radically.*

My understanding of how things work is that generally the person making a claim (in this case you) needs to support it as opposed to me needing to prove you wrong.

In any case perhaps a good starting point would be to define what you mean by the term “radically” in this context.*

Again, I challenge you: tell me how we could do this without a God concept?

See above.

Hopefully I’m starting to put some hair on these assertions. In any case, you’re welcome, and thank you for writing back too.

My pleasure, this looks like a very engaging topic.

 

[Candide_West]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist.
3. Therefore there is a being who has a nature that intrinsically the act of existence.*
4. It follows thus that “Existence” is a nature, and the nature of existence is to be real as opposed to nothing.

Mindovermatter2, if you don’t mind I’d like to respond to the above since it seems rather odd and I’d like to see if I’m missing something.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing

This appears to a bald assertion. No human has ever encountered a nothing or has any experience of how nothing would behave. So how can we say that nothing can come from it?

1. Absolutely nothing cannot exist.

Again this would appear to be a bald assertion. But in addition if true it means that the first point is not only unsupportable but irrelevant as well (since a “nothing” could not exist for nothing to come from).

1. Therefore there is a being who has a nature that intrinsically the act of existence.*

This does not appear to follow from the above premises. And it doesn’t appear to be required to be true (ie “existence” could be a function defined by something which is not a “being”).

1. It follows thus that “Existence” is a nature, and the nature of existence is to be real as opposed to nothing.

This does not appear to follow from the above. In addition it seems tautological since it could be paraphrased as “existence is a nature and it’s nature is to exist”.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe in order that I might someday understand.

A warm welcome to the forum, Rick, and a good opening statement -

to which I would add “fully”…

 

[stevekehl]

mindovermatter2,
Wow, ask a simple quesion… I for one, would continue as I always have. Mindless pursuit of pleasure has left billions empty, broken, searching, and hurting through the years. Should I abandon my wife and kids because there is no God, would I find fulfillment in taking by force whatever I could get. Societies laws won’t end if all people stop believing in God. Even if I stopped believing in God, I would still believe in the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Should I abandon my wife and kids because there is no God.

I assume that you would still value the objective truth over a fantasy, correct?

As a nihilist, I would say that “Wife and kids” is a meaningless concept. Your desire for meaning and value has forced you into buying in to that emotional illusion. You label the biological parasite “child” according to an invented meaning, a social artifice that you find pleasing but still has nothing to do with the objective nature of the thing you call a child. The idea of family has no true meaning. In objective reality, it is not your “son” or “daughter”, this is to say, it is not a being or essence with intrinsic value who you ought to love and nurture because of its relation to you or because that it is true of the nature of its being to be loved. Its just a parasitical object which you get stimulus from because it plays to your need of self importance and value. It entertains a fantasy that you unconsciously indulge in. The parasite lives of your emotions and false concepts. This is to say it survives through the illusion of emotional concepts such as “family” and the moral ought. The same goes for your wife.

You do not feel that you ought to love a rock, because there is nothing about its nature that compels you to believe that you should love it; thus it is unlikely that you will. But you do love your child, most importantly because it appears as if there is some real objective distinction in “value” between the nature of a rock and a child. Its not just you giving value to the thing, but the nature of the thing itself appears to your senses in such away as if it has a value existing wholly apart from your opinion of it; and you have responded to it, because you feel compelled to. Otherwise there is no reason to make the distinction unless, when we speak of family, we are just talking about glorified extensions of your penis; this is to say your subjective male ego fantasy. But assuming we live in a nihilistic world, there is no objective value and thus this is nothing more than an illusion played out through evolution. Being upset about the raping of a child is merely playing in to the illusion that the world around us, humanity, family, children, love, has meaning, and this illusion survives because its nature aids in successive reproduction. Thus, unless you are willing to admit that the child is just an extension of your ego fantasy, we must admit that in reality you have been fooled in to loving something which doesn’t really exist. You do not love your son, instead you love the “concept” of a son; and outside of that concept there is no objective “son”.

To somebody who does not value the objective truth over fantasy and illusion, this would not matter much to them. But the objective truth matters to me. This is the flaw I find in “happy-go-lucky-atheism”, because its proponents behave as if there all about “objective truth” and believing only what is objectively true. They’re quite happy to reject God, but they seem to have a problem with rejecting the illusion that is our humanity. They behave as if they are the pure rational ones; but this is evidently not the case, since they all continue entertaining a sense of moral dignity, family, and humanity, and some of them even have the gull to portray them as “truths”. They continue to fight for human rights as if they really and truly deserve them, and they call their opponents immoral. The truth is, they would not be happy if they told themselves everyday that it was all a self serving lie and that their lives are just meaningless bags of chemical process’s; and this is because this picture is contrary to our true nature as living persons. Might admit nihilism in theory, but In practice Its the sense of moral “truth” and " personal dignity" that drives them, that they have a right, and that their opponents are wrong.

Should I judge you and call you an irrational nut for entertaining those meaningless fantasies? No I would not because psychological rationality wouldn’t hold any objective value or meaning for me in that circumstance. But lets not pretend as if there is an objective meaning left in the moral concept of humanity or civilisation in the absence of God. We do not just lose God, we lose the very dignity of our humanity to the chemical fantasies in our brains. Humanity becomes Pinocchio the Puppet so desperately wanting to be a real person. We so desperately want to be something that has no objective meaning. We don’t exist, we are nothing more than fantasies and concepts.

In the end, what was the point? In such a world, as far as being committed only to that which is objectively true, committing suicide seems to be the only truly authentic act I can freely achieve.

They are truly living in a self glorified dream world, Neo. A nihilist is simply somebody that has chosen to wake up.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

whatssuuup!!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Mindovermatter2, if you don’t mind I’d like to respond to the above since it seems rather odd and I’d like to see if I’m missing something.
.

I might respond to this. Depends on how I feel.

 

[Candide_West]

What would you call G-d? Our G-d is one that does not depend on anything else for its existence, so your god would necessarily be dependent on our G-d and by that token, it could not really be G-d. Our definition of G-d is the only possible one. The word god can be applied to a number of things that cannot logically be G-d.

For a starter I think something I’d call a god would need to be self aware and active. But those features are outside of your definition of G-d.

One thought here, if it turned out that what you have defined as G-d was actually something non-aware such as a dimensional reference frame. But there was a being of enormous power who actually was omnipresent, immortal etc, did create all life on earth, and manifested himself as a human (Jesus) to teach us about himself, who made heaven and hell and everything else in the bible. But they weren’t G-d the way you have defined it (existence). Would you still worship G-d or would you instead worship the incredibly powerful being who created your religion, Jesus etc?

Not quite. Nothing is required for the existence of G-d. The negation is “nothing exists” a logical contradiction and therefore an impossibility. That is why G-d is a necessary being.

Ok so G-d is “that which requires nothing to exist”?*If so then two points. Firstly as far as I can see the negation of that is not “nothing exists” but more like “something is required for the existence of G-d” please correct me if I’m wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing in that which says G-d is necessarily a being. It could be anything. As per my question above there could be some other being who did everything you think he did but is himself dependent on existence (G-d).

Incidentally I’m just working with the bounds of your definitions for ease of communication here. As I have said, I don’t believe in anything I’d call a god.

We define What G-d has to be in logical terms because that is our mode of understanding, we naturally structure the world according to the law of identity. G-d defines who he is.

Ok, but again by your definition it is entirely possible that G-d is not a “who” but a “what”.

He makes His nature clear as day in what He does. We have collected 73 documents that describe G-d and mans relationship over the course of thousands of years. They can be mathematically verified by the fulfillment Messianic Prophecy.

To date you have given me nothing to connect G-d with the history of your religion (or any religion for that matter), nor the documents of which you speak.

Perhaps it would be make life easier to use a different term from “G-d” incidentally since it seems likely that people reading may conflate “G-d” with “God”. From your definition these may well be completely different things.

Ie “G-d” =“that which requires nothing to exist”
While people generally think of “God” as something more like*“the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship”

Perhaps the term “existence” would be more appropriate for G-d?

Incidentally I’m curious what you mean by mathematically verified in the post above.*

The G-d we know is willing to suffer with us and for us. The idea that our concept of G-d is is somehow not self aware or concious isn’t born out by what we know.

I think that would be “God” as opposed to “G-d” you are referring to. And while I’m happy enough to say that existence (“G-d”) exists. I would obviously disagree about God existing. So we need to be clear which we are talking about here.

If you wish to talk about G-d then I’m happy to work from a starting point of “G-d exists”. In which case to OP becomes “…if G-d were proven to your satisfaction to be non-aware”.

If you wish to talk about God then we obviously can’t use that starting point and the OP reverts to “…if it were proven to your satisfaction God doesn’t exist”.

I’m happy with either but we do need to be clear which we are discussing.*

G-d has a whole lot to say about what is right and wrong.

Again, that would be God not “G-d” (existence).

I would argue that since G-d has interacted with us multiple times, G-d is aware. G-d is not a “dimensional frame” That’s not a metaphysically meaningful term.

Fair enough, you can argue that, but then you are arguing effectively that “G-d” and “God” are the same thing. Which I don’t think you can do without editing your definition of “G-d” (existence) which I think will render the existence of “G-d” debatable which then takes us back to the starting point with the OP aimed at “God” again.

Incidentally “dimensional reference frame” is a physics term. It just refers to the dimensions in which things exist. Ie we commonly see things happening in 3D (3 dimensions), movement on a plane is 2D, movement on a line is 1D. There are many theories that the universe has in reality more than 3 dimensions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For a starter I think something I’d call a god would need to be self aware and active. But those features are outside of your definition of G-d.

What makes you think that those features are outside our definition of G-d? Our definition as Homo Sapiens doesn’t exclude us from being self aware or active.

One thought here, if it turned out that what you have defined as G-d was actually something non-aware such as a dimensional reference frame…

Our definition of G-d cannot be dependent on anything else, what ever can be said to exist, depends on our G-d who is the act of existing.

Ok so G-d is “that which requires nothing to exist”?*If so then two points. Firstly as far as I can see the negation of that is not “nothing exists” but more like “something is required for the existence of G-d” please correct me if I’m wrong.

G-d is defined as the act of existing. The negation of that is “nothing exists”

To date you have given me nothing to connect G-d with the history of your religion (or any religion for that matter), nor the documents of which you speak.

G-d showed up. We documented it over the course of centuries. Those 73 books which corroborated each other were gathered into the library we call the Bible.

…Ie “G-d” =“that which requires nothing to exist”
While people generally think of “God” as something more like*“the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship”
Perhaps the term “existence” would be more appropriate for G-d?

There is no difference between the two. Same idea of G-d

Incidentally I’m curious what you mean by mathematically verified in the post above.*

It refers to the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy, the reason that Christianity exists. A mathematical proof of Christian truth. Contrary to popular opinion, non theological faith is not a part of our religion. The theological virtue of faith means to trust in the goodness of G-d, His willingness to fulfill His promises. Not to believe in something without sufficient reason.

…

Fair enough, you can argue that, but then you are arguing effectively that “G-d” and “God” are the same thing. Which I don’t think you can do without editing your definition of “G-d” (existence) which I think will render the existence of “G-d” debatable which then takes us back to the starting point with the OP aimed at “God” again.

Incidentally “dimensional reference frame” is a physics term. It just refers to the dimensions in which things exist. Ie we commonly see things happening in 3D (3 dimensions), movement on a plane is 2D, movement on a line is 1D. There are many theories that the universe has in reality more than 3 dimensions.

I know what it means, its just not a metaphysical meaningful term. I didn’t mean to say I didn’t understand.

 

[trinitybeliever]

I assume that you would still value the objective truth over a fantasy, correct?

As a nihilist, I would say that “Wife and kids” is a meaningless concept…
…They are truly living in a self glorified dream world, Neo. A nihilist is simply somebody that has chosen to wake up.

DUDE! :clapping:

 

[trinitybeliever]

Originally Posted by Candide West
OK, not sure what you’re saying here. Are you trying to indicate that it could not be proven to your satisfaction that God doesn’t exist?

Precisely.

Candide still nothing?

 

[trinitybeliever]

Mindovermatter2, if you don’t mind I’d like to respond to the above since it seems rather odd and I’d like to see if I’m missing something.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing

This appears to a bald assertion. No human has ever encountered a nothing or has any experience of how nothing would behave. So how can we say that nothing can come from it?

Another way of expressing this is to say “nothing can produce nothing”.
Please show me mathematically how it is possible to get any product (something) from 0 (zero).

 

[Betterave]

You clearly confused Sartre for Sadr. Not the men, the philosophies. We all saw you do it. You thought I was referring to Sartre after I had clearly stated Mulla Sadr. That’s why the phrases did not match up, you mistook Sartre for Sadr.

LOL! Again, warp:

No, I clearly did not clearly fall prey to any such confusion. You are clearly mistaken. I merely pointed out that Sartre’s slogan is in fact Sartre’s slogan, and that his slogan is clearly not semantically equivalent to “God is immanent and transcendent,” i.e., that’s simply not what it means, and this is true regardless of who says it. In other words, it simply does not follow from what I wrote that I thought that Jean-Paul Sartre was Mulla Sadr(a) [whether we are talking about the men or their philosophies]. Your ridiculously arrogant accusation here is based on a non sequitur. If you think it is not, please explain how your argument does actually follow.

Yeah, me and his Momma. Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī

His Momma? Methinks you’re making stuff up again. Or do you actually have a reference for that: his Momma called him “Mulla Sadr”? LOL! What a joker!

They are standard metaphysical concepts known throughout the world for thousands of years now. You just didn’t know what they meant because you are just arguing as you look things up on Google.

LOL! What are standard metaphysical concepts known throughout the world for thousands of years now? Begging the question is a standard logical concept known throughout the world for thousands of years - are you familiar with that one? (Apparently not.)

Not everyone. Just you. If I want to argue with Google I’ll call up the Adsense folks.

LOL! WWMSD?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

LOL! Again, warp:

No, I clearly did not clearly fall prey to any such confusion. You are clearly mistaken. I merely pointed out that Sartre’s slogan is in fact Sartre’s slogan, and that his slogan is clearly not semantically equivalent to “God is immanent and transcendent,”…

I know, because you confused Sartre with Sadr, after you were told Sadr. The point being that they did not match up because you were confusing Sartre for Sadr. If you had paid attention to my answer when I gave it, you would not have confused a phrase that Sartre commonly used for the philosophy of Mulla Sadr, as I pointed it out. But you didn’t, because you didn’t pay attention. Now that you are denying it in when you did it in front of all of us, after insulting and condescending to everyone, because you are embarrassed.

His Momma? Methinks you’re making stuff up again. Or do you actually have a reference for that: his Momma called him “Mulla Sadr”? LOL! What a joker!

Yes, I do, His mother named him, Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī. lol

LOL! What are standard metaphysical concepts known throughout the world for thousands of years now? Begging the question is a standard logical concept known throughout the world for thousands of years - are you familiar with that one? (Apparently not.)

The fact that you aren’t familiar with some of the basic concepts in metaphysics is clear when you claim they are “slogans” and so on. This entire conversation is about your wounded pride. You insulted everyone, condescended to them and then you displayed a certain ignorance when you claimed I was making up slogans, as in fact they are ancient ideas. Then you rammed your foot farther down your throat by publicly confusing Sartre with Sadr. The false bravado isn’t fooling anyone.

LOL! WWMSD?

Yeah, I didn’t think you would have much to say about that.

 

[Betterave]

I know, because you confused Sartre with Sadr, after you were told Sadr. The point being that they did not match up because you were confusing Sartre for Sadr. If you had paid attention to my answer when I gave it, you would not have confused a phrase that Sartre commonly used for the philosophy of Mulla Sadr, as I pointed it out. But you didn’t, because you didn’t pay attention. Now that you are denying it in when you did it in front of all of us, after insulting and condescending to everyone, because you are embarrassed.

I’ve already explained twice why you are wrong about this, yet you continue to ignore my explanation. You seem to be going beyond stupid here, and showing yourself to be outright dishonest. Of course, maybe you’re just being dishonest because you’re talking to me. (Or maybe you really are that stupid that you’re simply unable to recognize and respond to an argument made against your claim? I don’t know; it’s certainly one or the other. )

Yes, I do, His mother named him, Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī. lol

Are you serious? I’m never sure whether you’re really just incredibly inept when it comes to basic logic, or if you are simply being dishonest.

The fact that you aren’t familiar with some of the basic concepts in metaphysics is clear when you claim they are “slogans” and so on.

That is a straw man, based on a false dichotomy, and a non sequitur. For one, they are slogans, although I didn’t simply claim that’s what they inherently were (straw man). Secondly, “basic metaphysical concepts” can be expressed using slogans (false dichotomy). And it certainly doesn’t follow from the fact that I call a slogan a slogan that I am unfamiliar with some of the basic concepts in metaphysics (non sequitur).

The preceding is what is called a substantial objection, so I’m sure you’ll just ignore it and go back to asserting your original position. (You’re welcome to try to prove me wrong about this… PLEASE try to prove me wrong about this!)

This entire conversation is about your wounded pride. You insulted everyone, condescended to them and then you displayed a certain ignorance when you claimed I was making up slogans, as in fact they are ancient ideas. Then you rammed your foot farther down your throat by publicly confusing Sartre with Sadr. The false bravado isn’t fooling anyone.

I can’t take responsibility for who is being fooled by what. What is perfectly obvious is that you are incapable of responding to any substantive objection that is raised against your ridiculous groundless assertions.

Yeah, I didn’t think you would have much to say about that.

Well congratulations! I guess that makes you clairvoyant or something. LOL!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ve already explained twice why you are wrong about this, yet you continue to ignore my explanation…

I understand, its just that the empirical evidence of you attributing the phrase solely to Sartre, when I told you that it was Mulla Sadrs’ idea is undeniable evidence that you did indeed confuse Sartre with Sadr. You were caught redhanded.

Are you serious? I’m never sure whether you’re really just incredibly inept when it comes to basic logic, or if you are simply being dishonest.

You didn’t know that Mulla Sadrs’ real name is Sadr al-Din Muhammad Shirazi. Another in the long line of mistakes you have made.

That is a straw man, based on a false dichotomy, and a non sequitur. For one, they are slogans, although I didn’t simply claim that’s what they inherently were (straw man). Secondly, “basic metaphysical concepts” can be expressed using slogans (false dichotomy). And it certainly doesn’t follow from the fact that I call a slogan a slogan that I am unfamiliar with some of the basic concepts in metaphysics (non sequitur).

Sure, we believe you. You didn’t mean what you said and how you said it. You meant something else. lol

The preceding is what is called a substantial objection, so I’m sure you’ll just ignore it and go back to asserting your original position. (You’re welcome to try to prove me wrong about this… PLEASE try to prove me wrong about this!)

I don’t need to anymore than i need to prove that you confused Sartre with Sadr. Its obvious, you can claim you meant something else but it was clear that you had no idea what I was talking about. After all, you had to ask me about it.

I can’t take responsibility for who is being fooled by what. What is perfectly obvious is that you are incapable of responding to any substantive objection that is raised against your ridiculous groundless assertions.

Since my assertions are based on the empirical evidence, your objections don’t mean anything. You were caught red handed.

 

[Betterave]

I understand, its just that the empirical evidence of you attributing the phrase solely to Sartre, when I told you that it was Mulla Sadrs’ idea is undeniable evidence that you did indeed confuse Sartre with Sadr. You were caught redhanded.

LOL! Wow, you are reeaally dense! Please look up the term “begging the question.” I attributed the phrase to Sartre because it is undeniably his slogan; it does not follow that I confused Sartre with Sadr. That’s another non sequitur, warp.

You didn’t know that Mulla Sadrs’ real name is Sadr al-Din Muhammad Shirazi. Another in the long line of mistakes you have made.

Yes, I did know that, you obstinate donkey! The ‘empirical evidence’ is perfectly clear (1) that I probably did know this (I quoted from the SEP article on Mulla Sadra which clearly noted this fact in its very first line) and (2) that your idiotic and pointless assertion that I did not know it is completely groundless.

Sure, we believe you. You didn’t mean what you said and how you said it. You meant something else. lol

You’re a donkey who will believe whatever he wants and pretend that it is based on evidence; whether this is because you are intellectually deficient or morally deficient, again, I don’t know.

I don’t need to anymore than i need to prove that you confused Sartre with Sadr. Its obvious, you can claim you meant something else but it was clear that you had no idea what I was talking about. After all, you had to ask me about it.

You don’t think you need to prove anything because…(see above).

Since my assertions are based on the empirical evidence, your objections don’t mean anything. You were caught red handed.

Again, see above. You are blatantly begging the question with this idiotic assertion, and you seem not to care about that in the least. Your fallacious excuses for ignoring all of my arguments and refusing to respond to my objections are utterly ridiculous.

 

[Betterave]

I’d agree that thermometers do not judge in a sense I’d call meaningful. But there again I’d say that was with my point rather than against it. By which I mean that a thermometer is totally objective. All it can do is represent the temperature it is exposed to. I’d say this is not a judgement but simply a measurement.

The thing about thermometers is that they display hysteresis. They present measurements, but they are always ‘behind,’ ‘chasing’ after a thermal equilibrium with their environment, so to speak. They are thus always in the process of ‘forming an opinion or estimate,’ at least in a very loose sense. But they do not deploy concepts, and that is why they are not forming judgments, in the way in which I want to use the term.

Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing here, I looked up the definition of judgement of Webster. There are several there, the one I think applies in this discussion is*

“4 a : the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b : an opinion or estimate so formed”

Does that seem like an appropriate definition to use? If not, would you care to offer a different one? Personally I suspect that the way we are using the word may be different.*

That definition is fine, but again, I would want to add the caveat about the necessity of the use of concepts in the kinds of opinion formation or evaluation that properly constitute judgments.

Ok, I’m still not convinced that judgements do always aim at objectivity. For example if the premises are all knowingly subjective then surely the judgement is entirely subjective?*

So other example, why is this piece of art “better” than that one. Our judgement may consider use of light, vibrancy, accuracy of form etc. But another person seeing those same things will conclude completely differently. In this case the premises are based on real (and identifiable)databut are all subjective in themselves.

In this case, if one judges that there are no objective criteria by which to form a judgment, then one must simply express a preference. That is why we shouldn’t say “In my judgment, vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate,” but only “In my judgment, neither is actually better - although I happen to prefer vanilla.”

(1) Ok, but surely in that case we all have an objective perspective? Since none of us live in the manner described. (2) But that would leave us with any individuals views being “objective” no? (3) Surely this rather degrades the meaning of objective?

(1) Yes, at least sort of: all competent language users have a fundamentally objectivity-oriented perspective.
(2) To the extent that they are not crazy, yes. But please note carefully what I said:
Indeed, it is about having an objective perspective, that is, a perspective that is not hermetically sealed but which is open to the views of others and committed to seeking ways of understanding that do not simply contradict the views of others but which understands and synthesizes these other views. Any perspective which did not seek this kind of objectivity would literally be that of a crazy person, who is simply out of touch with reality, floating along in her own private universe.*
In other words, sane perspectives are not ipso facto objective (as in objectively correct); they are ipso facto objectivity-seeking.
(3) Given the clarification above, no, clearly not. I think that many individual fail (in various ways) to seek, and many fail (again, in various ways) to find. Thus the meaning of ‘objective’ is actually elevated, not degraded.

Ahhh, I think this may be the source of the difference. I said that enforcing a restriction to single opinion on yourself tends to lead to closed mindedness, not that it is in itself an act of closed mindedness. Clearly we all believe our opinions are true / justified. Otherwise we wouldn’t hold them.*

Well it’s not immediately clear what you mean by “enforcing a restriction to a single opinion on yourself” means. Can you see that?

However, where we say “if I’m wrong about X then my life is ruined / pointless” then whether we like it or not our brains will bias us (in assessment of information / evidence) towards believing that which doesn’t cause such problems.

That’s true, but the claim might still be true, whether we like it or not, so unless we are content to closed-mindedly reject such claims, we will have to take the risk (and isn’t this inevitable?) of being closed-minded. In any case, I’m pretty sure that closed-minded is as closed-minded does (just like stupid is as stupid does); closed-minded is not as closed-minded believes. The latter position in fact tends to justify and thus produce closed-mindedness.

[continued below…]

 

[Betterave]

I’m sure you are as aware of this affect as I am. This is why it leads to closed mindedness, because if information is presented which would cause a major negative impact the brain wants to reject it as a self preservation mechanism. Rejecting valid information on the basis of a pre-existing viewpoint is (to me at least) closed minded.*

When you put it like this - rejecting “valid information” - you simply beg the question, or at least reduce your claim to a trivial one. If one is rejecting valid information in order to protect one’s ego, that would seem, simply by definition, to constitute closed-mindedness. But you have ignored the issue of what constitutes “valid information.”

Ok, but this still carries the affect I mentioned above. The “it can’t be true, that would be a disaster” affect.

For example, as I have said, if someone proved to my satisfaction that God existed, I’d believe he exists. If necessary based on what I discovered I’d make adjustments to my life. If I thought it’d ruin my life, or cause me to kill myself then I think that would make it very difficult to make an unbiased assessment of the evidence.

That’s all true, I think, but see above for why it is not to the point.

But it is about people imposing limits on themselves. If someone just said “I believe in God”. Then that’s fair enough. What has been the subject here is quite different.*

I don’t see how you’re grounding this claim. I’m still pretty sure this isn’t about people imposing limits on themselves; it’s about how people understand reality to objectively be. That understanding implies limitations, but that issue is secondary, and those limits are imposed by reality (as the person understands it), not by the person. Certainly the question remains as to the soundness of each person’s understanding of reality, but you can’t beg that question by assuming that reality is not as they understand it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

LOL! Wow, you are reeaally dense! Please look up the term “begging the question.” I attributed the phrase to Sartre because it is undeniably his slogan; it does not follow that I confused Sartre with Sadr. That’s another non sequitur, warp.

Its not obviously Sartres idea, its a concept that goes back a thousand years before him. I told you I was getting the idea from Mulla Sadr and you still confused Sadr and Sartre. The empirical evidence refutes what you’re saying.

Yes, I did know that, you obstinate donkey! The ‘empirical evidence’ is perfectly clear (1) that I probably did know this (I quoted from the SEP article on Mulla Sadra which clearly noted this fact in its very first line) and (2) that your idiotic and pointless assertion that I did not know it is completely groundless.

If you did not know than why did you mock me for stating his name? Because you clearly didn’t know.