Objectivity

[Shinji-Katawane]

Ok. Here is a question for you. We talk about religions quite a bit here in M&R. Now my question to you is can you be completly objective in your discussions about religions?

[Tarrou]

No.

[Starlock]

It's not possible for a human to be 100% objective. That's part of what makes science falliable at times... it passes through human hands, eyes, and minds. You can aim to be as objective as possible, however. I try to do that a lot in ED - largely to avoid stating my own personal opinions on things but also because I'm an academic by nature and like to appear more professional with my arguments. You know... those people who post their opinion and just leave don't really contribute very much to an 'extended discussion' anyway. I try to but the "discussion" back in "extended discussion" - can we tell I'm of the GIFTED (Gaian Intellectuals for True Extended Discussion)? I can play either side in a debate most of the time, and if I find that I can't, I usually do not post in the thread.

[maenad nuri]

no.

part of my problem is that I often can see both sides in a debate. And while it can be fun to stay on the fence, it often doesn't make other people think. I've offered opinions that I don't believe in, or that I personally think is wrong, but ultimatly, I'm basing things off of my reasoning, my experience and what is true for me.

[Starlock]

Nuri

no.

part of my problem is that I often can see both sides in a debate. And while it can be fun to stay on the fence, it often doesn't make other people think. I've offered opinions that I don't believe in, or that I personally think is wrong, but ultimatly, I'm basing things off of my reasoning, my experience and what is true for me.

Or you can play devils' advocate. twisted
But yeah, I ultimate base off experiences too, inevitably. I think everyone does. After all, if there are already those speaking for the side you are against, why make their voices louder? Most often I might take an argument against my own opinion when nobody else is voicing it. Someone needs to, right? 3nodding

[Pom Graines]

I CAN be as much as possible. But it depends if I WANT to be. Sometimes I am, but I usually reserve my professional discussions for my friends/family/people I see face to face (which friends and family do NOT always fall under the later category) On this thread I want to state my opinion because though that may be unprofessional it gives me a place to say my beliefs without everyone I know getting on my back and ruining relationships.

[Shinji-Katawane]

Starlock

Nuri

no.

part of my problem is that I often can see both sides in a debate. And while it can be fun to stay on the fence, it often doesn't make other people think. I've offered opinions that I don't believe in, or that I personally think is wrong, but ultimatly, I'm basing things off of my reasoning, my experience and what is true for me.

Or you can play devils' advocate. twisted [./quote]Which she does very well.

Starlock

But yeah, I ultimate base off experiences too, inevitably. I think everyone does. After all, if there are already those speaking for the side you are against, why make their voices louder? Most often I might take an argument against my own opinion when nobody else is voicing it. Someone needs to, right? 3nodding

Which is I guess part of the human condution.

[maenad nuri]

Starlock

Or you can play devils' advocate. twisted
But yeah, I ultimate base off experiences too, inevitably. I think everyone does. After all, if there are already those speaking for the side you are against, why make their voices louder? Most often I might take an argument against my own opinion when nobody else is voicing it. Someone needs to, right? 3nodding

Actually, I do, all the time.

Although I think sometimes that an unpopular position is unpopular for a reason. I must always remind myself, though that the stance on paganism here is very recon and traditionalist heavy. Other places, I am the devils advocate, and they don't like me very much.

[Psilan]

Shinji-Katawane

Ok. Here is a question for you. We talk about religions quite a bit here in M&R. Now my question to you is can you be completly objective in your discussions about religions?

Of course not. What would make you think otherwise?

Now, I try (as much as possible) to be objective, arguing using facts rather than personal opinion. (And in some cases arguing for positions that I personally oppose, though that's rare).

[Shinji-Katawane]

I think you can be somehwta objective but not trully. Personally I get defensive of my viwes on my religion and my practices but I try to be objective.

[Shay Straylight]

As an unmitigated a*****e, I find it quite difficult to be objective. However, I do find that the more cold, hard information I have on a particular subject, the more "objective" I become.

That doesn't curtail my douchebaggery in the least but, hey, take what you can get, no?

[Ummy]

No. You can't be completely, or even close to completely objective. Part of believing something is that, on some level, you think your way is right. This is your frame of reference. Whether intentional or not, you are going to lean towards that direction.

Even atheists and agnostics, for to refuse choice (in this case, religion or belief in high power, etc) is a choice in itself.

That doesn't say that you can't acknowledge and respect other viewpoints. I hold a great respect for a follower of any religion, as well as those seeking. I know about other religions and study other religions, and many times agree with other religions.

But in the end, my beliefs and opinions are still formulated from my unique frame of reference. It isn't possible for me to be completely objective.

[Fiddlers Green]

Until I master telepathy, I've only got my own knowledge and feelings to go on. So that would be a no. My own senses taint any true knowledge I may come across anyway. I can try to be what I view as objective, but even that is my personal understanding of objective, which probably isn't objective in the platonic concept....

[Shinji-Katawane]

so now I wonder how "objective" a person can really be in the discussions of religions?

[Yisp]

Shinji-Katawane

so now I wonder how "objective" a person can really be in the discussions of religions?

I wonder how objective one wants to be in the first place.
Faith is by its very nature subjective.
If we take the hard science's "objectivity" into religion, then it all reduces itself to psychology.
I guess the farthest you can objectively go, is to say that "faith" is involved, as that would be a statement I guess every religious person would agree with.
But anything beyond that, i.e. the nature of this faith, its objective, its effects, and so on, can only be described in subjective terms in an inter-religious discussion. Of course, keeping the discussion inside one specific religion can give you a superficial sense of objectivity, since major aspects of faith are then already accepted and a certain level of basic religious experience is provided.