The Objective Realm

[Harbal]

But what Science cannot do...is make the Decision of your life for you. Hence, when it comes to the most intimate and important aspects of life—sex, marriage, children, individual humans must make their own Choices. To Decide, is not the realm of Science, and so Religion steps-in to assume Authority,

The decisions you mention can be made without reference to religion, and should be made without reference to it. Religion is about an elite minority controlling the bahaviour of society according to their own preferences.

[Skepdick]

But what Science cannot do...is make the Decision of your life for you. Hence, when it comes to the most intimate and important aspects of life—sex, marriage, children, individual humans must make their own Choices. To Decide, is not the realm of Science, and so Religion steps-in to assume Authority,

The decisions you mention can be made without reference to religion, and should be made without reference to it. Religion is about an elite minority controlling the bahaviour of society according to their own preferences.

You can say the exact same thing about morality.

[Sculptor]

FFS
Science is not i the business of marraige.

I agree...

I guess you and I have something in common, for once in a lifetime. I only wonder how Harbal is going to take this contradiction.

The Catholic church is in the business of controlling women's wild spirit. If you think that is "successful" then you need to think again.

Only the Catholic Church??

FFS!
Your brain is like a kitchen drawer when people throw stuff they think they might need sometime never.
What eve make you say that?

How many men in existence have tried to keep their girlfriend/wife's libido from escaping to the local tavern, bar, night club, rave, dance party I wonder???

I've no idea. ANd I do not know why you think this is relevant.
Are you suffering from infidelity?

I couldn't imagine marrying a 19-year-old girl, for example. They screw like rabbits. I don't know how the Old World kept them in check, except through extreme discipline and threat, I guess.

You imagination is fertile.
But you seem prone to prejudice.

Have you ever heard of the Reformation?

You mean "Humanity's Biggest Mistake Ever"?

The Reformation opened up the human mind. What followed was the ENlightenment, science progress, and secular politics which gave us everything we have today.
So no - not any kind of mistake.

What Protestants did was to actually read the fucking bible to find out what was in it; tranlating it into several langauges.
Catholics were prevernted from that and had to rely on the priests how read in Latin.
DO you know enough Latin the read a book?
No?
I'm not surprised.
So, nah one of the best things that ever happend.

[Harbal]

But what Science cannot do...is make the Decision of your life for you. Hence, when it comes to the most intimate and important aspects of life—sex, marriage, children, individual humans must make their own Choices. To Decide, is not the realm of Science, and so Religion steps-in to assume Authority,

The decisions you mention can be made without reference to religion, and should be made without reference to it. Religion is about an elite minority controlling the bahaviour of society according to their own preferences.

You can say the exact same thing about morality.

Say it then, for all I care.

[Impenitent]

some religions tell you what you can do...

every government tells you what you must do under threat of punishment

-Imp

[Advocate]

Knowledge is justified belief sufficient for a given use case. It is always perspective bound and never approaches objective (which implies exhaustive), except in the case of logic which is relationships that always replicate, such as the laws of physics. But this is meta-epistemology, not metaphysics.

[commonsense]

some religions tell you what you can do...

every government tells you what you must do under threat of punishment

-Imp

I get your point, but actually what you must not do.

[Sculptor]

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.

Obviously not.
Whilst it is true that the world we construct of realithy within ourselves, it must be understood that it is constructed primarily from our contact with the objective realm.

[Sculptor]

some religions tell you what you can do...

every government tells you what you must do under threat of punishment

-Imp

There is a difference here.
All religions tell you want you can and cannot do, but also what you MUST do. Most use the threat of ETERNAL punishment.

When they have power then they act worst than any governement since most of them believe they are doing gods work.

Secular governments are generally less draconian, and are more concerned with restricting behaviour which does harm to other people, and to threaten the state.

Democraic governments try to consult the people. Religions that try that tend to undermine their premise for existing.

[LuckyR]

I'll cut to the chase then.

Science can examine the past, History. Science can examine the present, Physics. Science can examine the future, Probability, Statistics, Math.

But what Science cannot do...is make the Decision of your life for you. Hence, when it comes to the most intimate and important aspects of life—sex, marriage, children, individual humans must make their own Choices. To Decide, is not the realm of Science, and so Religion steps-in to assume Authority, for better or worse, for good or evil. These are The choices. You may choose wrongly. You may choose rightly.

This is why Science has no answers and no authority, in matters of 'objective' morality.

Uummm... not quite. You are correct that science analyzes situations but does not draw conclusions whereas religion has conclusions in the absence of analysis (dogma). However when each individual human subjectively decides on their personal moral code they each use their own personal blend of dogma, psychological tendances, observations (including scientific analysis) and peer pressure. Thus neither has a uniform advantage, that is some weight dogma more, other weight their observations/life experience more (which can include science).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.
........

You are too hasty in concluding what is 'objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness" without consideration that are many valid alternative and opposing views to the above.

Originally, 'objective' is related to 'object' which is claimed to exist as absolutely mind-independent.

• object = a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

The the idea of a mind-independent object is problematic and proven to be illusory by many philosophers, i.e.
-Berkeley refuted mind-independent 'materialism'
-Hume refuted a person is without a real personal identity but rather is a bundle of activities.
-Kant refuted the mind-independent thing-in-itself
-Russel doubted "perhaps there is no external table at all?"
-Modern Physics claimed "the moon does not exist if no humans look at it"

Science has given up the idea of a mind independent object but resort to 'physicalism', so it should be 'physicality' instead of 'objectivity'??

The old meaning of objectivity [confined to objects] has morphed into a view that is independent of human bias, generally "a" person's opinion, beliefs, judgment and idea.
e.g.
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.

but more importantly is 'scientific objectivity'
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
which is independent a scientist's but rather scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the specific human-based scientific Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge [FSR-FSK].

This mean the "Law of Motion" is true and objective not because Newton said so, but rather the Newtonian FSR-FSK supported by a community of scientists said so. It is the same with the Theory of General Gravity or QM's principles, or Principles from Chemistry, Biology and other scientific fields.

As such, the modern view of 'objective' and 'objectivity' of any claim of reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, i.e. not one person or a disorganized loose group of people.

Because the FSR-FSK is human-based, whatever that follows [objectivity, reality, beliefs, etc.] CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
There is no objective realm that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is objective must be coupled with the human conditions.

So, whatever the claim, as long as it is a organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, the claims are objective.

But there are degrees to 'what is objective reality' ranging from 0.001% to 99.99% depending on the credibility and reliability of the said FSR-FSK.

To date, the human-based scientific FSR-FSK [in its best] is the most credible and reliable among all other FSR-FSK in terms of its objectivity and claims of reality.
What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy?
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

In this case the scientific FSK is the standard all other FSKs are compared with.

Organized Theism as a religion is definitely an organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, thus it claims are qualified to be objective.

But in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK, the theistic FSK has 0.0001 degrees of objectivity because it is grounded on a God which is illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As argued, there is no Objective Realm that is absolutely mind-independent which exists even if there are no humans around.

[promethean75]

A very simple thought experiment that immediately presents a problem with this stuff about reality not being mind-independent.

If two people and only two people are hanging out and one of em falls over dead, the other guy should stop existing becuz the guy who was perceiving him (making him exist) is now dead.

The only way to solve this one is to insert a third party observer (god) like Berkeley did. And u don't wanna do that do ya, VA?

[commonsense]

A very simple thought experiment that immediately presents a problem with this stuff about reality not being mind-independent.

If two people and only two people are hanging out and one of em falls over dead, the other guy should stop existing becuz the guy who was perceiving him (making him exist) is now dead.

The only way to solve this one is to insert a third party observer (god) like Berkeley did. And u don't wanna do that do ya, VA?

So objectivity is actually subjective??? For the 3rd party the 2nd guy exists, but not for the dead first guy?

[promethean75]

I'm not understanding the question becuz i don't even know what 'objective' and 'subjective' even mean anymore.

I used to throw those words around years ago but today i try to do philosophy without using such confusing and (possibly) nonsensical terms.

Might the question be rephrased please.

[commonsense]

A very simple thought experiment that immediately presents a problem with this stuff about reality not being mind-independent.

If two people and only two people are hanging out and one of em falls over dead, the other guy should stop existing becuz the guy who was perceiving him (making him exist) is now dead.

The only way to solve this one is to insert a third party observer (god) like Berkeley did. And u don't wanna do that do ya, VA?

So objectivity is actually subjective??? For the 3rd party the 2nd guy exists, but not for the dead first guy?

So objectivity is actually subjective, right? For the 3rd party the 2nd guy exists, but not for the dead first guy, right?