On Objectivity

[BlackSheep]

It certainly does. Blue was not around before animals evolved that could distinguish it from green and red. Similarly, love was not around before animals evolved that could feel it.

The wavelengths of light we perceive as blue certainly existed before we or any creature could differentiate them. Love on the other hand did not exist until it was evolved.

[BlackSheep]

I agree with you. Craig is trying to muddy the waters with a self-serving definition of objectivity. I suppose he cannot objectively determine humans are bipedal without his god.

I think he simply uses words in an unclear way. Certainly it would be better if he spoke of universal morality. Maybe it is on purpose, but I fail to see what it gains him, unless it means most of his opponents do not grasp what he means because of it.

[DonJindra]

You're not taking into consideration how things exist without us knowing it. I understand your argument, and it's fun to wrap one's head around it. However, the elements which create what we call "blue" exist without us.

I don't dispute the elements remain. But that's not the same as the subjective experience of "blue". The fact that we have color receptors tuned for certain wavelengths is arbitrary. So I don't see how transcendental objective standards can apply -- particularly when each of us is a bit different in that color sense. Whose biology defines the "true" standard? Why his receptors and not mine? We end up defining "blue" on a statistical mean -- a mean applied to the human eye across the population. There is no "blue" standard outside that.

[DonJindra]

The wavelengths of light we perceive as blue certainly existed before we or any creature could differentiate them. Love on the other hand did not exist until it was evolved.

Still, I don't see the categorical difference in the feelings of blue and of love. Both of those feelings evolved.

[BlackSheep]

I don't see how God can turn "blue" or morality into a transcendental, non-human "objective" standard. Craig would especially have to explain why sharks, for example, don't follow that transcendent standard. That empirical evidence alone destroys any meaning in a universal outside-of-human standard.

Again in the Christian religion morality only applies to humans, or at least not animals, which they don't count as animals. To a large degree they take human morality ad claim that it was created by Yahweh and so becomes universal.

[BlackSheep]

Still, I don't see the categorical difference in the feelings of blue and of love. Both of those feelings evolved.

Love is a feeling. It is an evolved emotion that does not exist unless some creature with that evolved emotion exists. The wavelengths of EM radiation that correspond to blue on the other hand do. We don't 'feel' blue, we perceive it.

[BlackSheep]

I don't dispute the elements remain. But that's not the same as the subjective experience of "blue". The fact that we have color receptors tuned for certain wavelengths is arbitrary. So I don't see how transcendental objective standards can apply -- particularly when each of us is a bit different in that color sense. Whose biology defines the "true" standard? Why his receptors and not mine? We end up defining "blue" on a statistical mean -- a mean applied to the human eye across the population. There is no "blue" standard outside that.

How you perceive a certain wavelength is subjective. The wavelength is not. I meant the wavelength when I said blue. If you wish to substitute another term then please do.

[DonJindra]

How you perceive a certain wavelength is subjective. The wavelength is not. I meant the wavelength when I said blue. If you wish to substitute another term then please do.

No particular wavelength is blue. You cannot point to any one wavelength that's objectively blue. You'd like to point me to a standard range of frequencies specified by some committee. But that just proves my point. Blueness is a convention -- a convention based on "normal" sensation yet nevertheless a convention. We have all sorts of these conventions in language. What is a tall man? Who has blonde hair?

[DonJindra]

We don't 'feel' blue, we perceive it.

In this case, that's a distinction without a difference. I perceive love in my wife's eyes. Perhaps "sense" is a better work. We sense love and blue.

[DonJindra]

Again in the Christian religion morality only applies to humans, or at least not animals, which they don't count as animals. To a large degree they take human morality ad claim that it was created by Yahweh and so becomes universal.

Craig debates atheists. If he wants to live and debate in his own peculiar universe then he's welcomed to do so. But he cannot claim to be making convincing logical arguments that apply to everyone.

[gharik]

No particular wavelength is blue. You cannot point to any one wavelength that's objectively blue. You'd like to point me to a standard range of frequencies specified by some committee. But that just proves my point. Blueness is a convention -- a convention based on "normal" sensation yet nevertheless a convention. We have all sorts of these conventions in language. What is a tall man? Who has blonde hair?

I don't think you've addressed his argument. When he describes a wavelength as being "blue", what he means is something like "the wavelength which if I saw it with my own eyes would register as 'blue'." That is, "blue" specifies a wavelength or a set of wavelengths. That specification gets you out of subjective land--"What should we consider blue? What is normally considered blue?"--and into objective land--"What is the wavelength of this light? Is that wavelength listed in the collection that I've specified?"

[BlackSheep]

Craig debates atheists. If he wants to live and debate in his own peculiar universe then he's welcomed to do so. But he cannot claim to be making convincing logical arguments that apply to everyone.

I am unsure what you are specifically talking about.