Welcome to the Wonderful World of Subjectivism.
In this world, knowledge is limited by your personal experiences.
It’s a world where both of us are right even when we hold conflicting opinions.
Because, in this world, the truth is an illusion.
Reality is a paradox.
The Wonderful World of Subjectivism is populated by people who don’t know anything.
There is no certainty in a world of contradiction.
(Though we can’t be certain about that.)
So what’s the problem with believing everybody is right?
It’s wrong.
And subjectivists don’t believe in “wrong”.
Subjectivists only believe in “different”.
People with subjective worldviews like to think of themselves as “open-minded”.
But subjectivism demands an extremely narrow point of view.
Subjectivism sees this:
Or this:
But the truth is this:
The subjectivist will say, “All three views are correct.”
Two of the views are partially correct.
Only one view is absolutely “right”.
At this point, a subjectivist will say something like, “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”
Which, not surprisingly, is wrong.
It reveals the futility of trying to maintain a consistent subjective worldview.
- You claim every opinion is equally valid.
- My opinion differs from your opinion.
- Your opinion is that we “agree to disagree”.
- My opinion is that we CANNOT “agree to disagree”.
- You reject my opinion in favor of your opinion to “agree to disagree”.
- You just refuted your claim that every opinion is equally valid.
Subjectivism is directly opposed to the Gospel.
Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
He is either right or wrong about that.
But in the Wonderful World of Subjectivism…you’ll never know.
28 Responses
Let’s break it down into a simple atheist syllogism:
Premise one: Subjectivism means that very opinion is equally valid
Premise two: Christians are wrong
Conclusion: Therefore, everyone has a right to their own opinion except Christians. They are wrong.
Yup, that makes sense. 😛
It’s a good post. I like how you used those pictures. Highly ironic conundrum for me, because I’m often trying to get Christians to understand that subjectivity has great value within our faith. God speaks to us personally, we receive Him subjectively. Rather than subjectively receiving Him, we tend to want lean into objective reality, as in doctrines and theology and in no time everyone is just a heretic who shouldn’t be allowed around children. So in my opinion, many Christians need to nurture and embrace some subjectivity, but atheists need to get out of their head once in a while.
Greetings IB22,
This is exactly what I was referring to above- are you using “subjectivity” to refer to our own personal experiences of what is objectively real, or are you trying to sneak some of what JB describes in his post into Christianity?
What HE means above by “subjectivity” is the doctrine that all opinions (or, doctrines) are equally valid (or “true”). But it sounds like you are using the word to mean our own experience of God speaking to us PERSONALLY (Which is either a real experience, or one we invent).
When you say “Christians need to nurture and embrace some subjectivity” are you saying that there is more to the Christian life than mere doctrine- because it is a personal relationship with the living God, or are you saying we can feel free to reject doctrines and invent our own because we can decide what we WANT to be true, or what we FEEL is true no matter what church or Bible have said?
It’s a complex issue,isn’t? Healthy people need a balance of both objective and subjective going on. We can’t solve our problems by attempting to slay post modernism or rid the world of subjectivism, as if objective reality is the only truth there is.
Somebody smart once described it as if we were fish in an aquarium, subjective truth reigns supreme within the ocean, and “we can decide what we WANT to be true.” Objective truth is the aquarium walls we are going to slam into if we go too far. In faith we really want to preserve and honor some subjectivity, because faith is actually a very subjective experience. Objective reality will tell you there’s no such thing as talking donkeys, people healed by their faith, or the dead rising. Objective reality is actually what atheists cling too, although it is more than obvious that they aren’t trying to be objective at all.
Sorry IB22, but this is entirely wrong. FAITH is not a subjective experience. Beliefs are subjective (Even though still objectively real), because they are internal, personal, and not PHYSICAL things, but FAITH is when we really act as though those beliefs are true. If you don’t have objectively real actions which are based on your subjective (And yet still objectively real) beliefs, then your faith is dead. That’s what the Bible says. FAITH is not a FEELING anymore than LOVE is.
“Objective Reality” doesn’t say anything about there being talking donkeys or not. If there have been talking donkeys or people healed by faith, or dead people being risen back to life, then those things were/are OBJECTIVELY REAL. They don’t exist merely for people who choose to believe them anymore than the earth is flat for some people and round for others. Maybe what you are trying to say is that common experience says most donkeys don’t talk? Most dead people stay dead? And of course that is true, which is why we think it is a miracle that they ever happened at all. But that doesn’t make it less objectively real. That isn’t a matter of objective vs subjective, its a matter of common vs rare, just as flipping a coin heads up 20 times in a row would be rare, but (were it to happen) not a subjective experience which isn’t objectively real.
And the idea that “we can decide what we WANT to be true,” isn’t smart at all. It’s nonsense- and DANGEROUS nonsense. Just apply this idea to ANY real world situation: I want to believe I am invincible, so I can run into traffic any time I want or jump off a building. I want to eat fast food and watch TV but be slim and fit. I want to believe I am rich… but how much can I OBJECTIVELY spend before I run out of money? What I WANT to be true doesn’t change what really IS TRUE.
And Christianity offers nothing for people who want to make their own truth and be their own God. Christianity offers the one, true God, who gives us His objective moral law, and offers us one REAL way to be saved and given eternal life, whether we want it or not. The Bible doesn’t call Christianity an ocean of choices, it calls it THE WAY. And it is THE WAY. Jesus didn’t say he was one of many truths, ways, and lives, if we choose to believe or WANT it to be so. He said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.”
Maybe you are using some of those words wrong? Maybe you need to think about what TRUTH, FAITH, Objective or Subjective mean? I think I have a series that can help you a lot. Check out this youtube playlist: https://youtu.be/hvO9R53BJ6w
You may need to jump right in at Chapter 3. I hope it helps.
🙂
So, what’s kinda funny is I too was going to critique IB’s post, but for the entirely opposite reason ^_^. Both of you talk as if we have direct access to objective reality – which we don’t. We can only postulate that objective reality exists and have a good guess what objective reality is through our subjective experiences. It’s probably a pretty safe bet most of the time (Which is why I don’t walk in front of buses), but we can’t be 100% certain.
Subjectivity doesn’t mean you get to decide what’s true and what’s not true in the sense that you’re talking about. However, how we use language can change whether or not a certain phrase is or is not true. You’re right in your above post with JB that individuals do no determine the meaning of what an Author is trying to convey, but individuals do determine the meaning of what they hear the Author saying based on their prior experience with language the author is using.
“And the idea that “we can decide what we WANT to be true,” isn’t smart at all. It’s nonsense- and DANGEROUS nonsense.”
Is it dangerous nonsense to subjectively believe that contrary to the evidence around us, contrary to our circumstances, contrary to our experiences, the Lord will make what is impossible, possible?
Faith requires subjective truth. We control our thoughts, which control our feelings, which really will begin to determine our reality. Indeed, “we can decide what we WANT to be true,” within certain parameters. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Our faith only becomes a matter of objective truth, after the fact. First you have to subjectively believe in something unseen.
I think IB has a point.
Technically, everything is a subjective experience in that we can only experience things from our own point of view. Objective truth is experienced subjectively.
At the same time, I agree with you that we are not free to “create our own reality”. Things aren’t true just because we believe them. I don’t think IB will disagree with that.
The pagan view sees all truth as an optical illusion. Godless minds can’t make firm declarations about morality because they see truth as a paradox.
“At the same time, I agree with you that we are not free to “create our own reality”. Things aren’t true just because we believe them. I don’t think IB will disagree with that.”
Well, often things are made manifestly true, simply because we believe them. For example, the last part of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
We really are free to create our own reality in this case. ” Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” So of we refuse to believe, refuse to take responsibility for our own reality, we will proceed to create an entirely different one. The same is often true in life, if we believe it can’t be done, it won’t be done. If we believe it can, the odds are a whole lot better. Which one is objective truth? They both are.
Which part of John 3:16 is rendered true by our belief? Surely you’re not suggesting that God’s love for the world is contingent on our belief. And if we don’t believe God loves us, is that manifested in reality? And God gave his son whether we believe it or not.
Our belief in Christ does alter our subjective reality. Our belief in Christ does not alter the objective nature of God.
I feel like the point is we can believe in the existence of objective truth even if we will interpret it subjectively at times.
“And if we don’t believe God loves us, is that manifested in reality?”
Yes.That is one reason why we want to live in a world full of Christians and not full of atheists.If we don’t believe God loves us, suddenly people becomes no more important than a meaningless clump of cells. God goes right on loving us, He did give His only Son, those things are objectively true, but if we don’t receive them they won’t exist in our world.
I think we agree.
…I think.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around how something can be objectively true but not exist in our world at the same time.
Maybe the objective truth is that subjectivity is too simple. Does that work?
That works for me. 🙂
Once again JB, you have hit the nail on the head. A true subjectivist, when told subjectivism was stupid and wrong would say, “That is ALSO true.” But they always argue, showing that they think SOMETHINGS are TRUE and other ideas are FALSE.
In college, I had professors try and explain the superiority of “Asian/EASTERN” logic because while “Western” logic says either/or, Eastern says “AND.” I told them that was stupid, and as an example explained that a truly EASTERN philosopher would hear me call it stupid and say, “Yes.” But then you have a form of “Logic” which is forced to agree that it is stupid and wrong. Which is stupid and wrong.
I find that this is a problem with terminology. Just like most (if not all) “Atheists” actually mean they are “Agnostics,” people who say TRUTH is relative actually mean PERCEPTIONS (or EXPERIENCE) is relative. They are mistaking their perception OF reality for the reality itself. It’s the way small children think you can’t see them if they close their eyes. This is why I made the BRAINSWERK series on my YT channel. I think if people could be taught to say what they really mean, then maybe many of them would stop saying stupid things.
Which means I’m still a bit of an optimist.
Ravi Zacharias tells a story about a conversation he had with someone about the notion of “either/or” vs. “both/and”. The person insisted that Ravi was too narrow to believe that “either/or” was the only correct view. Ravi replied, “So you’re saying either I accept your ‘both/and’ proposition or I am being too narrow?”
The person he was talking to just smiled when the light came on.
Peter Kreeft has a similar story- he found a college professor at a table selling his new book. His book was on Post Modernism, a relativistic philosophy which says that no words have meaning in themselves. The reader GIVES the text meaning when they read it.
Kreeft asked him about it. “You are saying that words have NO meaning?”
“That’s right,” the man answered. “The reader GIVES the text meaning, but the text HAS no meaning of its own.”
“Then why should they buy your book?”
At this point the professor fell silent and began to look very sad, and so Kreeft quietly walked away.
From my experience, this field of topics can get very muddled very quickly. Based on your description of Subjectivism, I think we do live in a world that partly meets that description, but with a few key differences.
As stated, knowledge is limited by personal experiences. Two seemingly conflicting opinions can both be true. We can’t be certain (100% confident) about most things (and we can’t even be certain of that ^_^).
However, this does not mean all claims are equally valid. And truth may not be an illusion (depending on what is meant by truth… or illusion for that matter).
I think a primary concept to keep in mind with this topic is the subjectivity of language. Since words mean (at times very slightly) different things to different people, it can be difficult to talk about the same thing with another person, even within the same conversation. A conversation about, I dunno, Morality for instance ^_^.
I do not disagree. But I would suggest that you and I would be able to have a conversation and come to an agreement (though no 100%) about what terms mean. That is because our goal is to reveal truth. When the goal is to “win an argument”, the conversation changes. The idea that we must have 100% confidence in our ideas is one of the tactics employed by people who don’t have good ideas in the first place.
Yes, I think what you just is well worded. It brings to mind what you’ve said before that fundamentalists can be found in most any corner of philosophy or theology.
It’s possible that we’ll come to blows over “determinism” in the future. I’ll scream obscenities at you and you’ll tell me I shouldn’t be allowed around children.
I’ll be looking forward to it. Working a decade in human services, obscenities only make me stronger.😂
Also, if your encouraging the idea of free will… I don’t even know you should be around adults with such dangerous and depressing ideas.
If I don’t have free will, who I am around is not up to me.
I can’t imagine the disaster it would be if were up to you. It would be a randomized nightmare.
Why would randomized behavior be a nightmare?
I guess there’s only chance that it would be a nightmare. I can’t help but think it would likely be bad. Nevertheless, I have to remain open to the idea that it could’ve been pleasant.
I see what you did there.
Hopefully, God will write an article about free will soon!