Jejudo, South Korea
The Uncertainty Principle? That's as good a place to start as any. Quantum Physical theory defines it's success, not by the various descriptionist models presented (the math is always the same) but because it works.
I'm suggesting that we concentrate on what works and simply not worry about the objective or theological value.
I think most people would argue that that is simply not a philosophical statement (because philosophy deals with the unanswerable and therefore the irrelevant)but what I think it does do is refocus our thoughts on different questions.
Questions that have consequences in the world we see now.
You know, when we did this before we both got muddled in the same problem -- a confusion among different types of thinking (or philsophical paradigms if you want to be trendy about it). Instead of two, I think it's clearer if we try to think of three different paradigms:
1. Theology: Good/Evil
2. Rational: Objective/Subjective
3. Pragmatic: Agreement/Disagreement
None of these are pure of course, they intermix but it's based on which particular way of thinking, which particular questions we ask that determines which mode we use.
"There is a pen on the table" would certainly
be an objective statement in number 2 but probably wouldn't be an absolute truth in number one.
In number one, "How does this relate to God?"
In number two, "What are the factors for determining the objectivity of this?"
In number three, "Why is it that we agree (or disagree) with this statement?"
I agree that if your starting point is, "There is a God," there is proof everywhere to be seen, in everything around us, we can see the hand of God.
What I don't see is how you can communicate with someone who doesn't believe in God or believes in a different god. The conversation just seems to go in circles.
But communication does take place between people who believe in these incommensurable world views. I think it takes place because agreement occurs in other areas of thinking (we need food or clothing or whatnot).
I concede your theological view and want to discuss what are these things we can discuss but I don't believe that 'because of God' becomes a particularly persuasive argument in this situation.
On the other hand, I also think there can be nothing more obvious than think "There is a pen on the table" to be an objective statement. Yet, what is someone from a different culture sees this same object, not as a writing instrument, but as a weapon? The objectivity becomes suspect, doesn't it? At this point, objectivists move into a further description of the pen using mathematics but, to my way of thinking, this is simply a different way of describing the object. Why should we privilege it? It certainly has value for us, it's useful to see this 'pen' in mathematical terms but why is mathematics a more objective way of looking at the world?
If you see it as a pen, why does it matter?
If you see it as a weapon, why does it matter?
If you want to make another pen, it certainly does matter.
In the same way that 'because of God' loses it's persuasive force because people believe different things, 'because it's objective' also loses it's force because people are in different situations.
As Habermas points out in the book I mentioned earlier, pragmatists concede the objective world as already there. I disagree slightly because I think pragmatists concede whatever metaphysical worldview you, the non-pragmatist, has.
Earlier, I talked about the statement, "Shakespeare used more words than any other writer." I conceded that this was objective (provided it is indeed true of course) but why is that important? It's only important if we attach some subjective significance to it (always implicit in any statement for it to make sense).
We think the number of words is important.
Why is that?
An objectivist doesn't ask this question because it's subjective and someone who claims subjectivity doesn't feel the need to explain it's importance because it's, well, subjective.
But what does that mean and imply?