jsun3thousand wrote:i'm not objective. how i view, understand, and interact with the world is based on my life history, gender, race, sexuality, social class, education, nationality, etc, etc set within a specific sociohistorical context.
i became an atheist for several reasons. neither of my parents were very religious. despite my mother's lack of religious conviction, she forced me to go to catholic school to receive my first communion and be confirmed to make my grandmother happy. i was also sent to christian bible camp in the summer because my aunt is very religious. the conflicting messages i was receiving led to the origin of my skepticism of religion and god. i was around ten years old when i began questioning the existence of god. my life history primed me to easily to reject the idea of god based on a lack of evidence and all the contradictions i was taught. if i had been raised in a family that taught me a singular vision of god and embedded me in a supportive religious community that could answer my questions, i would not be the same person i am today.
if your (and everyone elses) view is subjective, is their any way you can criticize other views for being wrong? aren't those views just as valid because they result from the same criteria that your worldview is from? earlier you wrote this:
jsun3thousand wrote:while he [penn jillette] doesn't believe in god, his belief that he is objective and correct is no different than any religious belief.
penn jillette believes he is right. a christian or muslim or whatever believes they are right. why are you "right" in that nobody is right? what is the correct way to believe in something?
religious beliefs cannot be proven correct or incorrect because there is no empirical evidence that can lead to establishment of specific creator.
there is a difference between being subjective and being incorrect. humans are material, biological beings that live in a real material world and we make our subjective claims with evidence. without evidence you can't make a truth claim worth any merit. it's easy to prove that drinking cyanide will not make you stronger or that mercury will not cure syphilis. the world becomes messy when people try to make truth claims without evidence, like penn and ayn ryand society make about the reality of their objectivity. there is no evidence to demonstrate that claim, it is a dogmatic belief. you have to balance your argument with evidence. how truth claims should be made is truth using a established methodology to gather data, analyzing on your data properly, than you make an argument about your data. arguments are usually made to show the weakness of existing ideas, add to a current idea, or to make an new claim.
how we come to accept our current, contextual truths is based on who has the social power to control the definition of situation. michel foucault uses the term "regimes of truth" to describe how contextual truths are established. a truth regime is the "historically specific mechanisms which produce discourses which function as true in particular times and places."
even though humans are subjective, it doesn't mean anything goes. there are widely accepted rules about science. we have been reigning our subjectivity over the last 100 years or so by allowing disfranchised voices in on the debate. will the current regime of truths stand forever, probably not. nobody can predict the future. power and knowledge are intimately linked.