|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 0:35:44 GMT
If it's subjective, then don't form a belief on the matter. Wait until there is a demonstration of truth. The main thing wrong about religious beliefs is the desire to pretend they represent answers, when they don't reflect reality whatsoever. "Subjective" basically refers to location. Namely, saying that x is subjective is saying that x is a mental phenomenon, or in other words, it's occurring in a brain functioning in ways that amount to mentality. So whether something makes sense or not is subjective, because making sense to someone is a matter of whether they're in particular mental states in relation to it. Beliefs are also subjective--beliefs are mental phenomena. In my view, truth is subjective as well, though that hinges on a technical issue re how truth is viewed in analytic philosophy (namely, it hinges on the fact that truth is seen as being a property of propositions, and then it's an upshot of my analysis of what propositions are ontologically, what properties of propositions are ontologically, etc.) What a lot of people are referring to in their truth talk is something like, "What's the case in the world objectively (mind-independently)." But we call that a fact in analytic philosophy, and there's a standard, technical reason that there is a significant distinction made between facts and truth(s). That's why you should based beliefs on demonstrated, non-subjective, criteria.
That's why water is made of H2O is a valid statement, and god exists is not.
|
|