Morality and Subjectivity

This could be one of the few times I've actually agreed with iano's conclusions. My reasons are slightly different though: Certainty about anything, especially the existence of God, is impossible. Ironically, that statement is a contradiction, but hopefully you can see my point. Any true scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as a scientific fact; there are only theories. Short of God himself granting you the power of logical perfection, you are left only with the option to favor one side over the other. I believe that morality can be based on a purely objective and logical front, but even if it can't your conclusion doesn't follow from your hypothesis - that is unless you are arguing that opinions and beliefs are completely random and have absolutely no observational support. To clarify my point, purely subjective thoughts are an attempt to explain reality purely through logic. Purely objective thoughts are an attempt to assume nothing and explain patterns through observation and probability.Hopefully, you don't take these definitions too literally, but I want you to realize to points I'm trying to make:
(1) Almost all thought is a middle ground between these two extremes; maybe morality is subjective but it certainly isn't purely subjective.
(2) Even purely subjective thoughts have credence - they are based on logic. Even without observational support, logic is a phenomenon tempered by the patterns of our observed reality, which allows a person to function in society. By mere virtue of being able to function, logic isn't random, and therefore subjective thoughts can't be completely worthless. This is a pretty rough explanation, but hopefully you have some idea of what I'm talking about.

I did acknowledge this: I made the contradiction to prevent having to explain the long version. However, since you've challenged my statement, I will address three points in the following argument:(1) The contradiction is trivial.
(2) It is arguably impossible for God to grant the power of logical perfection.
(3) Science is by no means a narrow field."Certainty about anything, especially the existence of God, is impossible" is a contradiction because the word impossible implies the certainty of the validity of the statement. This is fixed simply by saying, "Except for this statement, certainty about anything, especially the existence of God, is impossible." However, the point I was trying to make wasn't whether or not anything could be certain; it's that it doesn’t matter that you can’t be certain. Consider that we might have only been programmed to think logical truisms and mathematics can be proven. It is possible that our reality is nothing more than a subset of some greater existence, and the logic local to our perceived universe is nothing more than a system of rules organized by some God-equivalent from out of a completely chaotic and infinitely more expansive macrocosm. My question is, could this in any way impact our method of using logic and observations to define patterns and make predictions about the future? If it could, is there anything we could do about it? The answer is of course that we cannot, and that the only way we can function is to accept these uncertainties for the purpose of progression.As far as God allowing you to be certain that he exists, consider that the only way for this to happen is for you to have infinite knowledge. This is the case because not only would you need to know everything about this universe (which is finite), but about how there is no potential for the presence of a greater logical being, a level of knowledge that can only be reached at infinity. However, the only way to have infinite knowledge is to be God himself, right? The only way for you to obtain this information, then, would be to become one with God. And I’m not talking about some kind of spiritual journey - you would have to be him, as in merge with him.Finally, I cannot completely refute the claim that Science is a narrow field because narrow is a relative term. I can note, however, that science is practically infinite in its potential, and to say that it is “very narrow” seems to insinuate that it is grossly limited by its inability to be certain of anything. Again, certainty is possibly impossible, but being bounded by this has by no means discouraged the progression of science. If anything, being uncertain is what inspires and motivates it.

Allow me to modify my earlier statement: It's possible to be absolutely certain of something because we are capable of making logical mistakes. To think that you are certain about something is probably synonymous with being certain about something. A person could be certain that he saw a ghost, even if it was in actuality nothing more than the hallucinogenic side-effect caused by his latest acid hit. His logical fallacy was that he didn't consider the possibility that the image he saw was nothing more than a mental fabrication.The only way to be certain while remaining completely rational, however, would be to have infinite knowledge. My argument still stands that it would be illogical to be absolutely certain of something unless you are certain that there is no possibility for a greater realm of understanding - an understanding that only God himself can possess. The brain, containing about 100 billion neurons, has an obvious limit to the amount of information it can hold. If you believe that God is able to store an infinite amount of information in a finite space, you have granted God the power of logical immunity. This is scary to most people because it would mean that since his realm of understanding exceeds logic, he would be allowed to be good despite lying or intentionally misleading religious advocates.

I divided certainty into two groups: rational and irrational. My argument was that rational certainty is impossible; therefore, if it's that obvious, then obviously you've fallen into the category of irrational certainty. And I would agree that I know not of your certainty, for with the exception of math and science, I've never known any type of certainty. With that in mind, the only assumption math and science has made is that what we have perceived as logic is indeed logical, as assumption that is of no consequence.Though I know not of your certainty, it has been categorized as irrational and illogical, and if everything I said is "numbingly obvious," then apparently you agree with this categorization. Since you're choosing not to base your certainty on logic, I ask that you don't present your view of certainty as evidence or support to any claim you want to have meaning.

I'll try to clarify:
Subjective means to exist only in the mind and objective means to be based on facts and evidence. I believe that most complex thoughts are a combination of the two, especially including moral systems.Example: Consider a moral system that considers lying immoral. This rule is easy to justify: if lying wasn't discouraged, then a person might be more compelled to lie because it's easier. This would make conversation worthless because the person would likely be compelled to answer questions based on ease rather than validity. It logically follows, then, that telling the truth should be a moral standard. I would deem this type of reasoning subjective because it relies solely on logic.On the other hand, a person might've actually observed a society where lying was promoted. He might have noticed the productivity of that society versus one where lying was discouraged, and decided that based solely on productivity, the society that discourages lying is more productive and therefore morally superior (assuming that productivity is an aim for the moral system). This, then, would be a more objective approach.In general, I believe that moral systems attempt to base most of their standards on observed phenomena while filling the gaps with subjective reasoning.

Mathematics is based on a set of axioms. Assuming the axioms to be true should be considered subjective; however, I should think that the rest of Mathematics would be objective. Thanks for pointing this out - I'll definitely have to rethink my interpretation of the definitions to these words before I can regain a clear understanding.I'm still of the persuasion that most complex thought is a combination of of subjective and objective reasoning. I'm going to have to take back my earlier statement - A moral system wouldn't be based on objective observations with subjective reasoning to fill in the blanks. It is probably more closely related to mathematics in that it takes a set of beliefs generally accepted to be true and builds upon them using logic. The axioms of any moral system, however, are much more numerous and less widely accepted as truths than those of math, making it a much more subjective method of thinking. This would account for the some of the wildly different moral standards seen in different cultures.I feel like this approach makes much more sense, but it's still hazy because I still need to consider how observations fit into the picture. I'll see if I can revise this and come up with a more complete version later.

I can't believe that its been only slightly more than a day given so many new posts, but I'd still like to respond because after careful consideration, I’ve finally gained a clear understanding of my position. It should be much more clear what I've been trying to argue by understanding my new approach, then how it applies to previous attacks or questions:The approach
My approach previously was to explain the difference between subjective and objective thought. However, certain trivialities in meaning made it so that these approaches were less independent than I had previously realized, so I’d like to break thought up into two completely independent groups: assumed and absolute reasoning.Assumed reasoning would be the base of all thought; the assumptions that I am referring to are irreducible, and therefore can’t be proved or disproved. For example, if someone stated that all apples are red, we can’t prove this to be false. We could show him a green apple, but he’d have to accept our definition of green as well as the axioms of logic to be inconsistent. It follows, then, that although it isn’t possible to prove or disprove any single assumption, it is possible to show a set of more than one assumption can be inconsistent. These assumptions are made, of course, for the sake of the potential for methodology or complex thought. Axioms, truisms, and some proverbs are subsets of assumed reasoning.Absolute reasoning is the type of reasoning that builds off of assumed reasoning. No amount of absolute reasoning can be disproved because the fault can only lie with the assumptions. Mathematics and logic might seem like examples of absolute reasoning; however, it can all be traced back to its axiomatic backbone. Because of my definition, there is actually no tangible subset to absolute reasoning; there can be only supersets.Attacks and questions
I found this to be the most aesthetic and basic intuitive notion about the way we think. Given this theory, I’d like to address three points that I failed to explain earlier: These can both be explained with the same argument:
The problem with the word “objective” is that as it is defined, nothing is completely objective. Nothing can be completely factual - math and logic are traced back to axioms, and even science acknowledges that it can produce only theories. Moral systems are no exception, and differ by the number and type of assumptions. As a base, moral systems will have what I’ve been referring to as axioms, or self-evident truths. The reason that these are accepted as “truths” isn’t because they can be proven, but because they are unanimously accepted by the world (possibly with the exception of the delusional or mentally sick) as true. On top of this base, we have less widely accepted beliefs such as the after-life and sanctity of life, which stem off to create limitless moral systems. Even if we were to accept the base of moral systems as being objective, it can’t all be objective or else cultural relativism wouldn’t exist. If they were indeed absolutely objective, we would all have the same moral system.As far as applying the term “especially” for the certainty of the existence of God, I am referring to the notion that there are no axioms for religion. There is nothing universally accepted for the presence, definition, or consequences for assuming the existence of God. Furthermore, the number of assumptions is much greater for any religion than the assumptions needed for concepts such as probability and logic (both of which can be traced back to less than 10 axioms). Therefore, the reason I used the word “especially” is that the number and contestability of your assumptions is much higher. Remember that I admitted that a person can be certain, but that it simply wouldn’t be rational. However, I now realize that this isn’t even the case; you would merely need to make another assumption. Allow me to explain:
Rational thought is what I referred to previously as absolute reasoning. To be rationally certain of the belief in God while including the axioms of logic, you need only to make these assumptions:(1) You can be certain of axioms. This may be because they are derived from the laws of the Universe, and in principle it’s bounded by logic which inevitably leads to these absolute and self-evident truths.
(2) The existence of God is self-evident.
(3) Though not everyone accepts the existence of God as being self-evident, your ability to reason is better than theirs. Note: Before you get too excited, this claim is common to people who believe that they’ve been “enlightened” by the teachings or intervention of a logically superior entity.If these are indeed your beliefs, I can’t argue against them because they are irreducible and consistent. Obviously you wouldn’t call these assumptions, but I’d like to note that I disagree with all three of these. On the other hand, if you don’t believe these, I’m curious to see you explain how you can rationally be certain of the existence of God, unless of course you admit to not being rational.Edited by jmrozi1, : identified wrong person for quotes