Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

The problem, as Postmodernist critics have ably shown, is that scientific neutrality is an ideal that nobody can meet. And in science, as Polanyi has pointed out, we have to begin with an intution -- the scientist observes a phenomenon, and then he hypothesizes, and so on...

But wait. Polanyi points out the overlooked step: how does the scientist know what is "interesting," or what is "worthy of hypothesizing about"?

Well, Polanyi is just one link in a chain of thought that goes back through Hume's "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions" all the way to Protagoras claiming that "Man is the measure of all things."

Oh, decidedly not. He owes his insight to an entirely different line of thought. His point is not cynical or critical of science at all, the way theirs has been construed to be.

No, Polanyi is only interested in reintroducing us to the role of the investigator in any investigation. As he puts it, "Knowledge is personal," or as he also said, "tacit" -- not meaning that it is unreliable, or suspect, or like Nietzsche thought, all about power, but rather that science is a distinctly human activity, in which human beings are invariably involved, and which much of which goes on in the procedure is done with a kind of intuitive, human impulse, rather than with some mechanistic purity.

That being said, Polanyi was himself a scientist of great distinction. He had no disdain for science or its methods, for sure.

How do human beings, you for instance, manage to escape their "biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on" when they are doing religion?

Polanyi's point is that you never really do "escape" your role as a human investigator. You always bring, along with your methods, your own disposition and interests. Along with that, things like bias can come, to be sure, especially if the investigator is not humble and alert to their possibility. And that's what Polanyi seems to campaign for: not the denigration of science, but rather its performance as a duly humble and self-aware kind of activity.

So no kind of investigation is entirely what we pretend, sometimes: neutral, devoid of human input, utterly impartial, only-the-facts, and so on. All of it involves a personal commitment of some kind. But that commitment is not, according to Polanyi, automatically evil or polluting of our "pure" scientific process, but rather the reasonable accommodation to the undeniable fact of our participation in our science.

Religion isn't science, of course. Science deals with the physical and material world only. So far as the metaphysical or transcendent goes, it has difficulty even having anything to say. It has some, of course; but mostly inductive stuff, not experimentation, data, methodology, and so forth, which are the real stock-in-trade of science. The bottom line is that science is terrific for the areas in which is claims competence, but a realistic view of science doesn't mistake science as the comprehensive answer to every question...or even every important one.

What does it mean for your assertion that:

...a dictionary is "accurate" when it captures the most relevant facts about the thing it is defining with the greatest precision.

I find that a pretty clear claim, I think. But okay, I can illustrate.

Try to define "palomino." But try to do so in a way that keeps it clear that a palamino is not just not a beagle or a wardrobe, but is also not a shire, or an appaloosa, or a rahvan, or a unicorn, or whatever else. A good definition will include precisely the characteristics that make a palomino a palomino, and eliminate all the other possible confusions with other types of horse.

A poor definition would be "a palomino is a type of horse," because such a definition would be too broadly inclusive to capture the relevant details; and with such a definition, you'd never find a palomino, except by pure accident. A good definition would include that "palomino" is a recognizable colour type, and give you that -- that would narrow your search considerably. A technical definition might give you not just the colour type, but also the fact that palominos are products of a particular recessive gene, so the genetics will not be as telling as they should be in other horses...and so on. But only experts in horses are going to be much interested in the genetic particulars; ordinary folks might be quite happy to go on the colour-of-coat criterion alone, and for some folks who are not much interested in horses, the definition "a type of horse" may be all they care about. It depends on what purposes each reader has in mind.

Clear enough?

[Immanuel Can]

The first evidence is just the evidence of logic: we all can know, for certain, that all answers cannot possibly be true at the same time, in precisely the same way.

This can be very simply illustrated, if you doubt it.

There are three possibie positions on the existence of God (or gods), leaving aside for the moment the question of the nature of any.

1. There are no gods. (Atheism)
2. There is only one God. (Monotheism)
3. There are many gods. (Polytheism)

What you can see, if you do even rudimentary analysis of these three, is that if 1 is true, both 2 and 3 absolutely have to be false. But if 2 or 3 is true, #1 absolutely has to be false. But also, if 2 is true, then 3 is also false; and if 3 is true, then 2 is false. In fact, all three positions are absolutely rationally exclusionary of the others.

What does this tell us? Not that we have yet shown which of the three we ought to believe: that would, understandably, take more steps. That's not the purpose here. What it DOES tell us, is that no matter what we do, two of the three absolutely have to be false.

And that tells us that either all the Atheists, all the Monotheists, or all the Polytheists are wrong...and two of the three are wrong.

So it's not possible for us to imagine that all religions and ideologies can be true. Some, and by any count a very great number, absolutely have to be false.

Oh, and one more thing...

The three positions outlined above -- no gods, one God, many gods -- are not just mutually-excluding. One more thing deserving of important notice is that they are also comprehensive of all possible positions. There is no chance of 'some other thing,' some 'fourth thing,' being the case, because there is no position not accounted for by the existing three.

If there's ten or twenty or a million gods, then it's #3 that's true. If there's just one, then it's #2. And if there is no such thing at all, it's #1. What other possibility is there? There's none.

What does that tell you?

It tells you, for sure and for certain, that ONE of the three IS true.

Two out of three false. One out of three true. That is beyond possibility of rational doubt.

Now, which is which?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Religion isn't science, of course. Science deals with the physical and material world only. So far as the metaphysical or transcendent goes, it has difficulty even having anything to say. It has some, of course; but mostly inductive stuff, not experimentation, data, methodology, and so forth, which are the real stock-in-trade of science. The bottom line is that science is terrific for the areas in which is claims competence …..

You are almost there, Cricket! You’re right up on the edge. Even a push from a gust of wind could lead you to the next thought.

It’s tight there. Reach out and grab the bitch!

(Or allow me, if that seems more fitting).

[Alexis Jacobi]

How do we know? Because no matter what a set of claims may be, those that are directly contradictory of one another, if one is true, automatically eliminate all their rivals from the possibility of being true at the same time. That's Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction at work, or what sociologists call "incommensurability." There's simply no way at all for everybody to be right.

Try this one out: All religions are similarly false so no one of them contradicts any other one. Each is simply mis-based.

The non-contradiction law applies insofar as each is — essentially misguided. So, one does not so much contradict the other in some ultimate sense and, presto-chango, prove it right thereby: they are all of them residual world-organization perception methods and no one of them is actually “right” in the way this word is normally used.

The Jew and the Christian believed “God’s people passed through the Red sea when God parted the waters.”

The Hindu believes that “Rama flew across the ocean to rescue His wife Sita and enlisted the aid of the Monkey-god Hanuman.”

Which seems more plausible to you, Oh exalted disciple of Aristotle!

There's simply no way at all for everybody to be right.

Stay with that thought! Hug it like a Teddy Bear .

It will take you to the other side ….

[bahman]

So what is your evidence?

My evidence for the existence of God, or my evidence for what type of God He is?

We discussed the first one in very length. Let's focus on the type of God you believe is true.

As above, the number of possible wrong answers is utterly irrelevant to the question of the existence of a right answer.

Why do you think that other religions are wrong?

We don't "think" they are; we know they are. You and I, if we are rational people, cannot possibly be in doubt that the majority of people are simply wrong -- and everybody of any religion, if they are being rational, could not possibly avoid the same conclusion.

How do we know? Because no matter what a set of claims may be, those that are directly contradictory of one another, if one is true, automatically eliminate all their rivals from the possibility of being true at the same time. That's Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction at work, or what sociologists call "incommensurability." There's simply no way at all for everybody to be right.

So all relgions and ideologies can be wrong. That could happen. And one or perhaps two or three (if they agree on the essentials) can be right, and the others wrong. But the one thing we know for certain, by the most basic laws of logic, is that it is an utter impossibility for them all to be true at the same time.

Yes, I agree that not all religions could be possibly right when there is conflict between them.

On what do you base that conclusion?

I already mentioned that Spiritual beings are very powerful and they can cheat us.

The problem is that you can't just doubt the spiritual beings. You also owe it to yourself to doubt your own doubt. For how do you know that one of them isn't actually telling you the truth?

If you open the door to all "spiritual beings," you will surely be fooled. But if you don't open the door to the right spiritual influence, you'll miss the truth. And that's just a different way of being fooled...in both cases, you've been bubbled out of the truth.

But how can you choose to open the door to the right spiritual beings? Satan can always intervene by giving a false image, even for example hallucination of Jesus or the Virgin Mary!

Let's say that's so. It changes nothing about the question of the existence of a right answer. All it tells us is there are wrong ones.

So either give me evidence or a reason for what your religion is the right one?

I've started, above. The first evidence is just the evidence of logic: we all can know, for certain, that all answers cannot possibly be true at the same time, in precisely the same way.

This can be very simply illustrated, if you doubt it.

There are three possibie positions on the existence of God (or gods), leaving aside for the moment the question of the nature of any.

1. There are no gods. (Atheism)
2. There is only one God. (Monotheism)
3. There are many gods. (Polytheism)

What you can see, if you do even rudimentary analysis of these three, is that if 1 is true, both 2 and 3 absolutely have to be false. But if 2 or 3 is true, #1 absolutely has to be false. But also, if 2 is true, then 3 is also false; and if 3 is true, then 2 is false. In fact, all three positions are absolutely rationally exclusionary of the others.

What does this tell us? Not that we have yet shown which of the three we ought to believe: that would, understandably, take more steps. That's not the purpose here. What it DOES tell us, is that no matter what we do, two of the three absolutely have to be false.

And that tells us that either all the Atheists, all the Monotheists, or all the Polytheists are wrong...and two of the three are wrong.

So it's not possible for us to imagine that all religions and ideologies can be true. Some, and by any count a very great number, absolutely have to be false.

I agree.

"...that would convince me," you ask? I couldn't possibly speak for you. Let me ask you, instead: what evidence would you allow to convince you?

Let's say that the evidence that convinces you.

I've read several religious key works: the Koran, the Gita, the Dhammapada, the Tao, and various others. But I'd be lying to you if I left you with any impression that it was this investigation that swayed me to Christianity. I read them later. And I found that confirming, alright; but it wasn't the way I came.

My personal faith came about as a combination of things: knowledge, yes, some of that; but also personal experience.

What sort of experience did you have?

And while I can make some rational arguments for you, I know that part of the picture is going to be missing until you engage in your own search. One does not merely study about God; one has to seek to know God, and know Him relationally, personally, experientially, as well.

What do you mean by seeking to know God? How could you know him personally and experientially if you haven't had a single experience of God?

And if one is not prepared to do that, God Himself has deliberately left not enough information in the world for you to close on a decisive answer; because His goal is relationship with you, and He is not interested in being known in any lesser way.

So the only way to know God is to know Christ. After encountering Him, you can always make a fruitful search of the other religions, if you're so inclined; and if you want to make a comprehensive search, you can start with Christ and work out from Him. But the main thing is you've got to start, and start for yourself; because second-hand demonstrations are never going to be enough. They can be indicative, but never conclusive. We only really believe what we have personally experienced.

Have you ever encountered Jesus? I encounter Jesus daily. I am however not sure whether I am dealing with my subconscious mind, Satan, or Jesus! How can I be certain what the truth is? I have to say I tried hard to get to this point. I tried hard to be honest with myself, becoming holy and sinless,... I am telling you this because you told me that you haven't had any spiritual experience. At most, you can get where I am while you are alive. How could you be sure? I am full of doubt!

I know you studied a few other religions. I am wondering on what basis you dropped other religions and picked up your current religion.

I have. But it wasn't mere academic knowledge by itself that led me to Christ. Quite simply, it was Christ Himself. The stuff I learned about religions was all just head-knowledge. What I really needed was a personal transformation; and that, I only got when I began to pursue the knowledge of Christ Himself.

Now, this is very ambiguous. You believe in Jesus either by reason, emotion, perception, or imagination. Take your pick and let me know.

[bahman]

How do we know? Because no matter what a set of claims may be, those that are directly contradictory of one another, if one is true, automatically eliminate all their rivals from the possibility of being true at the same time. That's Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction at work, or what sociologists call "incommensurability." There's simply no way at all for everybody to be right.

Try this one out: All religions are similarly false so no one of them contradicts any other one. Each is simply mis-based.

The non-contradiction law applies insofar as each is — essentially misguided. So, one does not so much contradict the other in some ultimate sense and, presto-chango, prove it right thereby: they are all of them residual world-organization perception methods and no one of them is actually “right” in the way this word is normally used.

The Jew and the Christian believed “God’s people passed through the Red sea when God parted the waters.”

The Hindu believes that “Rama flew across the ocean to rescue His wife Sita and enlisted the aid of the Monkey-god Hanuman.”

Which seems more plausible to you, Oh exalted disciple of Aristotle!

There's simply no way at all for everybody to be right.

Stay with that thought! Hug it like a Teddy Bear .

It will take you to the other side ….

Yes, I missed that! What if all religions are false?

[Harbal]

Yes, I missed that! What if all religions are false?

I think the possibility is worth considering.

[bahman]

Yes, I missed that! What if all religions are false?

I think the possibility is worth considering.

Yes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, I missed that! What if all religions are false?

One must I think consider “function”. I will illustrate. The “function” of Immanuel’s phantasy about God parting the sea has nothing at all to do with revealing or explaining physical or mechanical “laws”. It is a Story the function of which is to demonstrate the power of the god-concept and too God’s protective hand over His “chosen people”.

For us, and for those in our present situation (the way we see and understand things), such things do not, will not, cannot happen.

But Immanuel must double-down on a commitment to a fantastic exception (a miracle) because he is “a man of faith”. Were he to negate or deny it (one instance) it could then unravel many or all other instances.

Better to protect the supporting column. Too many dangers appear if not. Immanuel, incredibly, is a Bible literalist through and through. Many Christians (many Jews) aren’t.

But no part of the faith-declaration has anything to do with arriving at physical laws. And since “parting the waves” will never, ever be demonstrated, it is a separate issue for “group belief” (social adhesion).

Religion as a science-method is obviously false. There was an attempt to apply a religiously-determined model to the “real world” (the Great Chain of Being) and elements of this system are still with us, but largely that metaphysical system collapsed.

As Wilbur Boneman once (smartly) pointed out God has retreated “into the gaps”.

But to say “religion is false” is not quite right. It functions in its domain. But outside of that, it ceased to function.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let me know if all this seems right, Immanuel. Do you accept or do you propose amendments?

[bahman]

Yes, I missed that! What if all religions are false?

One must I think consider “function”. I will illustrate. The “function” of Immanuel’s phantasy about God parting the sea has nothing at all to do with revealing or explaining physical or mechanical “laws”. It is a Story the function of which is to demonstrate the power of the god-concept and too God’s protective hand over His “chosen people”.

For us, and for those in our present situation (the way we see and understand things), such things do not, will not, cannot happen.

But Immanuel must double-down on a commitment to a fantastic exception (a miracle) because he is “a man of faith”. Were he to negate or deny it (one instance) it could then unravel many or all other instances.

Better to protect the supporting column. Too many dangers appear if not. Immanuel, incredibly, is a Bible literalist through and through. Many Christians (many Jews) aren’t.

But no part of the faith-declaration has anything to do with arriving at physical laws. And since “parting the waves” will never, ever be demonstrated, it is a separate issue for “group belief” (social adhesion).

Religion as a science-method is obviously false. There was an attempt to apply a religiously-determined model to the “real world” (the Great Chain of Being) and elements of this system are still with us, but largely that metaphysical system collapsed.

As Wilbur Boneman once (smartly) pointed out God has retreated “into the gaps”.

But to say “religion is false” is not quite right. It functions in its domain. But outside of that, it ceased to function.

I agree with what you said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But how can you choose to open the door to the right spiritual beings? Satan can always intervene by giving a false image, even for example hallucination of Jesus or the Virgin Mary!

Nota Bene:

Those who sign up for The 10-Week Course get access to the merch section.

We offer 8oz and 16oz spray bottles of Spirit Verification Solution.

When an Angel appeareth, or the Devil, or Mother Mary, just spray it. If it is real, it remains. If not — poof! — it dissolves and you can go about your day unperturbed.

[bahman]

Let me know if all this seems right, Immanuel. Do you accept or do you propose amendments?

It seems that he is not willing to discuss things with you anymore!

[bahman]

But how can you choose to open the door to the right spiritual beings? Satan can always intervene by giving a false image, even for example hallucination of Jesus or the Virgin Mary!

Nota Bene:

Those who sign up for The 10-Week Course get access to the merch section.

We offer 8oz and 16oz spray bottles of Spirit Verification Solution.

When an Angel appeareth, or the Devil, or Mother Mary, just spray it. If it is real, it remains. If not — poof! — it dissolves and you can go about your day unperturbed.

Oh, I need that spray badly!

[Immanuel Can]

Let's focus on the type of God you believe is true.

Okay.

I agree that not all religions could be possibly right when there is conflict between them.

Great. That's an obvious thing, isn't it?

But how can you choose to open the door to the right spiritual beings? Satan can always intervene by giving a false image, even for example hallucination of Jesus or the Virgin Mary!

That's a very good question, and the right one, I would suggest.

Well, neither you nor I is an expert on the spiritual world, I assume, though it's clear we both understand something of its existence. We also know we are at a severe disadvantage in negotiating that plane. So what I can suggest is only what the Scriptures themself instruct us to do:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God..." (1 John 4:1-3)

So we can follow the guidance God has given us on that; or if we decide not to, we're really at sea and at a very serious disadvantage in anything involving the spiritual world. We really can't know, then, what would be true and what would be deception.

So either give me evidence or a reason for what your religion is the right one? ...Let's say that the evidence that convinces you.

I've read several religious key works: the Koran, the Gita, the Dhammapada, the Tao, and various others. But I'd be lying to you if I left you with any impression that it was this investigation that swayed me to Christianity. I read them later. And I found that confirming, alright; but it wasn't the way I came.

My personal faith came about as a combination of things: knowledge, yes, some of that; but also personal experience.

What sort of experience did you have?

I began to read the gospel of Matthew, and that introduced me to Someone unlike anything I'd ever see before, or ever read about, or ever hear talk, or ever known...Jesus Christ.

I was a hard sell, at first; I was reluctant to commit to what I was reading. But it's just so utterly different, better and higher than anything else I'd ever read. And I found myself becoming conscious, gradually, as well, of a kind of "presence" with me as I grew to know Christ. My friends began to tell me I was changing (I didn't believe them, at first.) Eventually, He was just much more persuasive and powerful than a reasonable person could resist. And I began to understand why, even among people who do not accept Christ as God, He is a celebrated figure for his extreme moral clarity, exemplarly pattern and mind-altering teaching.

If you get to know Him at all, it soon becomes the decisive experience of an entire life. He's not Somebody that you can have no opinion about, that's for sure. He makes you decide. And the only way you can avoid it is by stopping, and by closing mind and heart to the truth.

And while I can make some rational arguments for you, I know that part of the picture is going to be missing until you engage in your own search. One does not merely study about God; one has to seek to know God, and know Him relationally, personally, experientially, as well.

What do you mean by seeking to know God? How could you know him personally and experientially if you haven't had a single experience of God?

That's the great thing about experience; if one hasn't had it yet, one still can. My experience won't be precisely your experience, I'm sure; but they won't be wildly unlike, either. But you read, you pray, and you desire to know. And if you follow that path, you'll end up a Christian.

As the Word of God promises, "you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

And if one is not prepared to do that, God Himself has deliberately left not enough information in the world for you to close on a decisive answer; because His goal is relationship with you, and He is not interested in being known in any lesser way.

So the only way to know God is to know Christ. After encountering Him, you can always make a fruitful search of the other religions, if you're so inclined; and if you want to make a comprehensive search, you can start with Christ and work out from Him. But the main thing is you've got to start, and start for yourself; because second-hand demonstrations are never going to be enough. They can be indicative, but never conclusive. We only really believe what we have personally experienced.

Have you ever encountered Jesus? I encounter Jesus daily. I am however not sure whether I am dealing with my subconscious mind, Satan, or Jesus! How can I be certain what the truth is?

Well, only by the test given above, of course. As I say, you and I are at too much of a disadvantage without that.

...you told me that you haven't had any spiritual experience.

I don't recall having done so. If I ever accidentally gave such an impression, it was certainly a mistake on my part. But I don't think I did. I believe I have always said that experience is part of the matrix of things that make spiritual belief vital.

At most, you can get where I am while you are alive. How could you be sure? I am full of doubt!

That's normal. And that's the thing: faith and doubt aren't opposites. Rather, faith is what you need when you encounter doubt, and doubt is the only reason anybody has to exercise faith. The most important thing is to be sure of the God in whom one's faith is invested, the One who is able to overcome doubt.

But doubt is also necessary. If one is going to risk commitment, it will never come without doubts. Relationship takes risk, the overcoming of doubts and the decision to commit in spite of them.

You believe in Jesus either by reason, emotion, perception, or imagination. Take your pick and let me know.

It's not an either or, because a person can have multiple reasons and avenues for his/her belief. The strongest and best beliefs are those that are first, reasonable; but second, dynamic, vital and experiential as well. Then, beliefs really ought to alter emotions. They certainly can alter how one perceives things, and what one is able to perceive, as well. And some kinds of beliefs only come through obedience and service; one discovers them in the active process of doing them...like an apprentice learning as the side of a Master. I think it's not even impossible to find a role for "imagination" -- not the fanciful kind, but the kind of imagination that projects hopes forward and guides future projects toward success.

Belief is strengthtened most when all such things triangulate on a single belief, rather than when they are severed from one another and put in opposition to each other. And in Jesus, I found enough to satisfy my reasons, my emotions, my perceptions, and yes, even my imagination...as well as things like my intellectual desires, my sense of a higher purpose, the touchstone of my moral world, and the focus for my future.

So my short answer to your question is simply "Yes, all of those."