(July 18, 2009 at 5:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There needs to be evidence for something objective do you not think though, in order to rationally believe in it?That depends what you mean.
It's very problematic if you are saying we need "objective proof" that there is a such thing as "objective truth".
Because it begs the question that there can be objective truth foundations, by demanding "objective proof" that such can be.
It presupposes that there already is a such thing as objectivity.
Any notion of objective truth merely means something which is dogamtically held to be objective epistemic foundation for a belief. So you are saying you want objective epistemic foundations for the contention that there is a such thing as objective epistemic foundations. That is simply not possible. Any argument or proof has to presuppose that there can be objective epistemic foundations if it wants to pretend to provide objective epistemic foundations for the possibility of objective epistemic foundations!
It is implicit already in the quest for evidence. Meaning that the question is one of presuppositions, not of evidence.
So to answer: can there be proof or evidence for the existence of objective truth, I will reply that that depends entirely on what your presupposition is. Whether I believe it? I believe it cannot be coherently proven by agnostic means, because any search for such proof already has presuppositions which are not agnostic. It can only be proven by working from already-existing presuppositions, namely that there is such a thing as objective epistemic foundation, or objective truth.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
-G. K. Chesterton
