I wasn’t convinced of that when he was a guest speaker when I was trudging through university, and I’m still not convinced. The last statement seems to suggest that we have traits that were not related to survival; I’d say we have traits that were needed for survival but we got stronger versions of some of those traits than mere survival required.
1 Like
I think I have answered your question about objectivity/subjectivity as I understood it.
@heymike3,
I’ve processed what I understand to be Gould’s thoughts on beauty and posted those thoughts.
What is your response? I am particularly interested in understanding:
- Whether you see Gould’s argument as based in subjective interpretation or not. Or if you see it as holding objective explanatory power. And your reasons for that.
- Your understanding of the value or explanatory weight of arguments like Gould’s
- What you see the goal or purpose of arguments like Gould’s to be, or of apologetics in general
I do think this is a matter of faith, so no argument from me.
Gould often argued for spandrels, features that may have multiple functions but only one function that was selected for. For example, our nose does a great job of holding up our glasses, but that’s not what our nose evolved to do.
2 Likes
That would fit in the humor thread!
No, I asked what is an objective truth for you. I skimmed your previous comment and pretty much lost interest in any further discussion when you provided textbook definitions for objectivity and subjectivity.
To be honest, I don’t expect much to come out of talking about this with you.
I still remember our first contention when I wrote about Acts 2:36. It’s pretty neat how that passage blends the objective and subjective. Yet it’s the kind of subjectivity that is self-evident, ie. the conviction of sin or the ability to act
Sorry. I wish you had explained that you were looking for a different kind of answer. As I had stated, I understood you to be asking in the context of my posts before, where I had not said anything about objective truth but only objectivity and subjectivity.
I provided textbook definitions of the terms I had used, because I understood you to be asking for clarification of what I had said, not something else. And I saw no reason to reinvent the wheel.
I don’t think I have a unique understanding of objective truth. We could say that objective truth is something that is true independent of individual perception or belief or knowledge, etc.
But this description doesn’t always work. The term “truth” can be slippery in itself. For example, we might say something like, “Stealing is wrong.” We might agree on the statement itself and see it as a universal truth. But when we negotiate what is meant by stealing, we may realize that we have very different understandings of it, or of circumstances, where an act designated as theft in one community is not seen as theft in another. Are those subjective interpretations? Possibly.
I think its harder to nail down the question of objective-subjective when one is confronted, for example, by standards of different communities. The standards are independent of the individuals within the community. So they may seem universal or at least “best” to the members within that community, while others from outside that group, judging from different community standards, see that view as unjustifiable, much less bizarre.
Does this answer your question? Or begin to?
I have some vague recollection that you mentioned some verse from Acts. I don’t know what the contention was.
So here’s Act’s 2:36:
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
What do you see as self-evident subjectivity here? And what does it have to do with the conviction of sin or the ability to act?
And what does that have to do with “my” view of “objective truth?”
Or Gould’s claims about beauty?
Not really. Just one example of an objective truth in your view is what I am asking for.
Thank you for clarifying.
The way you phrased the question, I understood you to be asking for my personal, unique description of objective truth. Which is why I gave you such.
Interestingly phrased question, if nothing else.
Earlier I had said “objectively demonstrable.” Things that fit that would be statements of fact. “My watch is on the kitchen table by my coffee cup, rather than on my wrist.” But a statement of fact, while demonstrable, doesn’t really fit the idea of “truth” that I think is usually meant, Truth - roughly - is something that makes a difference in one’s life.
Something like “the state has authority over those within its borders” I think fits what is commonly understood by objective truth. You can agree with the statement or with the legitimacy of state power, or not. You don’t have to understand it, believe it, even notice it. But there are examples all around all the time of state authority and ithe exertion of its authority. It is demonstrable.
Hope that helps.
That does. I see facts as truths. So an objective fact is synonymous with an objective truth for me.
The world is not flat would be another example I was thinking of.
The authority of the state would be a little more nuanced in my view as I wouldn’t see it as absolute.
But let me get back to Gould’s argument… and reread the earlier comment and see how I want to respond.
I chose the sentence “The state has authority over those within its borders” as an example of an objective truth, because it fits my understanding of an objective truth to be, and I explained why. My intent was not to have a philosophical discussion regarding the philosophy of the state. State authority IS a complex issue, and there is much to discuss in regard to it, but that is all beside the point of fulfilling your request for an example of an objective, demonstrable truth. As I explained above.
Would you prefer a different example?
Then we are using somewhat different definitions of “truth.” Feel free to use your own. However, understanding what your interlocutor means by truth, or that there are subtle differences in meaning, is important. Which is why I gave you two examples that demonstrate different types of true statements, both of which don’t align with my understanding of the term “truth.”
Objective truths are facts is another sense of relationship between the terms. Or a statement is either true or false. In the sense of an objective truth or objective falsity.
So what did you think about Draper’s argument? I said that accepting it is helpful for understanding Gould’s argument.
Draper’s argument for agnosticism is based on the high probability God exists with respect to the apparent design in the world, and the high probability God does not exist with respect to the horrific and apparently pointless nature of suffering in the world.
Generally, I believe, people expect more from the concept of “truth” than merely it’s factuality. Google’s Gemini provided this, which I think is a pretty good description:
A fact is a piece of information that can be proven, while truth is a broader concept that can include facts, beliefs, and values.
What I’m getting at is that truth is not only recognized as something that is true (I am drinking coffee, not tea.) but life-altering (You are loved.). But I am confident that you already know that difference.
Much to do for a few days in R.L. I’m looking up for myself and reading some overviews of Draper’s and Gould’s work. This will take me some time as well.
In the back of my mind in this and any discussion about apologetics are ongoing questions such as these:
“What is the end goal of professional apologists like Gould?”
“In what way do they believe their actions as apologists lead to the achievement of that goal?”
Certainly worthwhile questions, and Gould may answer those somewhere as he has written extensively on apologetics.
I can expand a little on Draper’s argument if you like, but I’m not sure where he has written on it.
I know that he has taken a turn in recent years, or since I had him in 2005. He appears to be more accepting of a universal mind or panpsychism. I think he has a book coming out on that.
As far as Draper’s argument, it’s pretty simple. Life appears to be designed. He was very informed on intelligent design arguments, and would say while they are not absolutely conclusive, the existence of God is likely based on that. And vice versa with the extremely difficult to understand suffering that is found in the world.
1 Like
I don’t have time or energy to read either of these guys. So that would be a help.
A huge avalanche of work has landed on me and the committees I’m on in the last week +. I haven’t had time to spend on much else. Would you say that the segments from your earlier posts that I quoted below are adequate information about Draper’s views to attempt to continue this discussion? Is there anything else you think I should know?
If so, I’ll pull some thoughts together into a reply.
1 Like
[Substantive edits in italics; 3/12/2025]
Probability: In the context of arguments, I understand “probability” as a statistical concept or a description of likelihood based on patterns of experience. I don’t understand how the probability of a deity can be debated in a case such as ours, where there is no way of establishing or testing the patterns that have elsewhere been linked to the existence of a deity. Attempts to establish probability in cases like these rely on metaphor and analogy, which may have no useful connection to the reality in question or our ability to know it from our position. They are subjective interpretations after all.
Design:
I find the idea of design a matter of perspective, and therefore interpretation, at best. The defects of various versions of design as related to science have been hashed over in this forum alone for years. I don’t need to review.
However, as a non-science person, I am probably looking at design a little differently as well. So I will focus on non-science criticisms of it:
It relies on analogy to indicate that an entirely unique thing (reality) functions in ways similar to things that are essentially different from it, or components of it. There is no way to confirm whether these analogies tell us anything true.
From our perspective, there is no way to tell whether the reality we observe is designed by someone outside the system, or the result of near-infinite “shots on goal” in conjunction with the basic properties of the stuff from which reality is formed.
Argument from Evil
I’m assuming Gould’s argument is similar to others I’ve heard. Something like: because there is death, suffering, evil in the world, any creator god could not be good by nature. And since the god that can be is not good by nature, if there is a god, it is not the Christian God.
This is a critique of the theological claims of Christianity and really shows nothing about the likelihood of the existence of God or the non-existence of God. It seems to me to be a robust challenge to Christian doctrine, which vast numbers of people have found important over long periods of time.
Argument for Agnosticism
If one is going to try to establish the existence of God from the “ground up” so to speak, and following traditional lines of thought, I think this is a rational conclusion. I think @mitchellmckain has shown some real originality in the way he approaches the existence of suffering in life, which allows him to incorporate suffering into his theology, but which also makes it impossible for him to accept much of traditional Christian doctrine. @Richard may also, but I have read fewer of his posts.
Argument from Beauty (from the slide you photographed)
- The fact that the world is saturated with beauty and that the experience of beauty has a transcendent quality to it are not surprising given theism.
- The fact that the world is saturated with beauty and that the experience of beauty has a transcendent quality are very surprising given naturalism.
- Therefore, by the likelihood principle, the fact that the word is saturated with beauty and that the experience of beauty has a transcendent quality to it strongly support theism over naturalism.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Gould makes statements in his “argument”, but these are all interpretive statements that don’t have any logical connections. Beauty, the experience of it, “transcendent quality”, “surprising” are all entirely subjective and dependent on Gould’s particular definitions or inclination. There is no logical connection between a “transcendent quality” of beauty (whatever that is) and naturalism or theism. Perhaps he relies on a definitional connection, but no objective “therefore” is possible from statements 1 or 2. To claim there is one is misleading.
If there is a connection between Gould’s statements and Drapers, you’ll need to draw the lines for me. But even so, at best it’s contingency built on contingency.
As a Christian I understand the information I have about God to be from revelation which is gathered into the Bible. This is where we find the Gospel, what we understand to be the word of God. Faith comes by hearing the Gospel, not an “argument.” Arguing about arguments is even less fruitful, distracting from the Gospel.
1 Like
How many so you’re an author named Michael Peterson jokes do you get? At least the book is not on Joseph and the Stairway.
I agree that it’s a sort of god of the gaps argument when trying to find god in science.
The starting question is problematic in that it assumes that we can find evidence of God with the methods of science. All scientific findings (facts) need interpretation and the interpretation is constrained by our worldview.
I do not see much sense in trying to convince an atheist that the universe is created by a/the Creator. Good arguments might lower the intellectual barriers preventing believing, maybe even change an atheist to an agnostic, but some sort of believing is a necessary condition for believing in (E, OE, YE)creation.
What scientific research of the universe and Earth can do is help to determine what letters to put in front of the word ‘creation’ (E, OE, YE), assuming a basic belief in some sort of Creator.
An exception to the possibility to use scientific results to determine what letters to put in front of the word ‘creation’ are tight YEC, like Answers in Genesis. Their statement of faith tells:
" No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation [= our interpretation of Genesis]. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information [except us]"
It does not matter what evidence you find, whether scientific, theological or whatever, AiG-type YEC will always deny anything that is against their interpretation of Genesis. Because they deny it a priori, they need to invent an alternative explanation to the scientific findings. If they cannot, there is always the miracle card.
For example, light has travelled millions of light years from distant galaxies, except that these YEC have to deny it because millions >> 10’000 years. When there is no rational alternative explanation, there is a need for the miracle card: God created the light so that it seems to come from the distant galaxies although in reality, it cannot be older than crudely 10’000 years…
2 Likes
I would dispute your use of the word “much” in this – to instead say not accepting all of traditional Christian ideas/teachings. Frankly I think some of the issues I dispute are ones in which I think the so called “traditional Christian doctrine” has strayed considerably from the earliest Christian innovations to a corruption by Gnostic/Plato and pagan influences. Such as, for example, going back to the idea of appeasing a deity with blood sacrifices, which I think is fundamentally at odds with the essential Christian message. It is one thing to start with such an idea when speaking to a pagan audience and quite another thing when speaking to those who would never believe in appeasement and make Christianity about getting them to accept such a pagan idea as a foundation of Christian teaching.
Or considering the connection you are making to suffering maybe you just need to flesh out what you mean by this (for I hardly think this connects to all Christian doctrine). My best guess is that all you are really talking about is the idea that death and suffering are consequences of the fall and the promise of God’s kingdom is elimination of all of these. That is hardly “much” of Christian doctrine, but just one single point of it. You are certainly right about my rejection of this, but I think this is one that goes right back to the pagan notions of appeasing gods in order to avoid the bad things that can happen in life. It is a degradation of Christianity to a highly pagan mentality and an ancient paganism at that (since I don’t see this thinking being very prominent among modern pagans).
It is a matter of understanding what is REALLY wrong with the world and it most certainly is neither death nor suffering – for these are things which life depend upon and are an essential part of how it works correctly. To be sure, the only way I can see any value in Christianity is if what it is really about are the self-destructive habits we have and it is these which are what is really wrong with the world and what desperately needs changing.
1 Like
Kendel, it seems to me that you suggest that God did not design what we call our reality…that its a random statistical inevitability that was simply set in motion?
Im just trying to reconcile how that works with:
- the notion that Christ elected to come and save humanity from the wages of sin
- Revelation 21…no more tears, pain , suffering, sickness…a restoration with a new heavens and new earth
- Revelation 12.7-17 there was war in heaven…the ancient serpent/dragon who fought against Michael and his angels, and did not prevail was cast out down to this earth
Biblically, how do you support that sin/evil vs love and rebuilding of a world without the corruption of sin fits in with random statistical inevitabilities? Dont you see that what the above extrapolations from your statement appear to propose is that its through evolutionary self enlightenment that salvation is to be found? That this is contrary to biblical theology?
If i were to take this even further, it suggests that we attain salvation through the knowledge Christ gave us during his ministry rather than his death on the cross. Dont you see the problem with that subsequent conclusion…its 100% wrong! We arent saved because of our knowledge, we are saved entirely through faith and belief that Christs death is sufficient to pay the wages of sin!
1 Like