We tend to consider as real the stuff to which the laws apply. For example, because we have laws for space-time, we feel that space-time is real stuff. Science does not reject subjectivity, but the laws of nature are the laws of the objective world from which somehow emerges subjectivity. In that sense, subjectivity is not real.
In this objective view of the reality, we cannot have a direct access to the laws of nature. We can only have formula and eventually build a technology to use them. However, these formula change when physics progresses. They are getting more and more accurate. The laws that are eternal are not accessible. They are part of the subjective world, a concept.
I believe that the true laws are real stuff. They are about themselves and how they get expressed in the objective world. The unification of these laws is God, eternal, everywhere, omnipotent, just like the laws. Being in the subjective world, we can experience them as God directly in our consciousness
Why are we so much in denial of our subjective world as being real, not just an emerging reality?
Scientists hold the subjective view with suspicion because so many times in the past it has proven to be wrong.
For example, a purely subjective approach to explaining the motion of celestial bodies leads us to the idea that these celestial bodies move, and we are stationery at the center. It is only by taking an objective approach that we allow ourselves to be detached and see things purely from the point of view of logic, and not from our particular (subjective) vantage point. And we see that we are *not* the center of the universe.
Complete objectivity is extremely difficult, but it must be the goal if we are to discover things.
The problem with subjectivity is that it is impossible to verify or transmit. If I have an experience, there is nothing I can do to make you have that experience too. If my experience is a personal, religious experience, this may be extremely powerful to me ... but without objective evidence of this experience I can only tell you I had it ... you cannot verify that experience for yourself.
Objective evidence, however, while perhaps weaker in emotional power, has the advantage of being shareable and verifiable. If I observe something, I can show it to you. We can share logical conclusions based on that observation. If we disagree we can share the same observation with a larger group of people until a consensus emerges.
So objectivity is the only path to the %26quot;real%26quot; truths that we can *share* as a community.
You may be quite right ... the Final Truth may be a personal one, a subjective one. But *IF* we start with the assumption that the Final Truth for you must also be the Final Truth for me ... then we have to approach that Final Truth using objective methods.
{edit}
Indeed, I may have misunderstood you ... but I also think you misunderstood my answer.
My point is that we are not in %26quot;denial%26quot; about subjective views ... but that it is impossible to share them. Science also has no way to address them.
As another example, a frequent question asked here on YA is %26quot;how do I know that my experience of a color like %26quot;green%26quot; is the same as yours?%26quot; Answer: you can't. All we can know is whether we put things into the same color categories. But beyond that my experience of the color %26quot;green%26quot; is inaccessible to you. I am not in %26quot;denial%26quot; that that experience is real. We are just unable to share it.
If you have some example of a subjective view that is accessible using the objective method (i.e. the scientific method), please elaborate.
Why are we so much in denial of our subjective world as being real, not just an emerging reality?
Love the photo of a panda
Don't know the answer to the question
What are you trying to say? We are in denial because we do not want blame or responsibility. That is the new age answer to everything. We do not want to have to do anything to justify what we have done wrong and caused problems in this world.
To address your comments from the bottom up:
1) You may be giving too much credit to %26quot;our consciousness.%26quot;
2) This, %26quot;god-is-the-sum-total-of-all-the-natural鈥?argument for god's existence is very common, particularly among scientists or science-minded thinkers who hold on to their religious or spiritual beliefs in the face of apparently contradictory scientific knowledge about the real/natural world. You are simply defining god as %26quot;everything%26quot; that nature does and is. OK, fine, however you want to justify it.
But doesn't it bother you that every time we discover something new about nature, a new universal natural law, you have to redefine what your god is. Many fundamentalist religious types balk at the idea of constantly having to move aside as science progresses. But this is what they have to do to keep up.
If you look at the history of science and religion, there are many examples of things that were once explained by supernatural deities that can now be explained by science. If you extrapolate this trend into the future, it should be clear that god as an explanation for natural phenomenon is not necessary anymore, and as it turns out, never really was. That doesn't mean that the idea of god as a means to define good ethics and be comfortable with human mortality doesn't serve a good purpose (it doesn鈥檛 mean it does either), but god as an explanation for natural things is simply not necessary.
It may be correct to refer to natural laws as %26quot;eternal%26quot; and %26quot;everywhere,%26quot; but saying %26quot;omnipotent,%26quot; because of how god is often personified, is suggesting a human trait - it sounds like you are personifying the natural laws so you can fit your god idea around them. Nature itself does not have knowledge of its power, or plans for how to use its power.
3) I agree with much of what you say about subjectivity, I just don't think it's necessary to call nature, god. Why don't you just call it what it is, nature. Besides, because the idea of god has such unnatural or supernatural connotations for so many people in the world, I think it's detrimental to human society to redefine god and something that we know exists (nature) and then turn around and say, therefore god exists. This confuses many people into thinking that science justifies or proves gods existence and helps create an environment where destructive beliefs about god can flourish.
Now, assuming that I am not confused about what you are asking, I think the answer to your question is, %26quot;we aren't.%26quot;
I don't believe that the only things we experience as real are things to which natural laws apply. I experience love, awe, trust, disgust, pain, etc....these experiences are real to me, and I don't know of any law that applies to them. I understand they are functions of neurons firing in my brain, but that doesn't make them any less or more real. While the mechanics of these experiences fall under somewhat universal laws, they are not necessarily universal in outcome, they are in any relevant sense of the word subjective, and they are absolutely real. Whether you want to call experiencing these things as God directly in our consciousness doesn't really make any difference, at least not to me.
As for the objective...you have a point, because everything we experience as individuals is the object of subjectivity. However, for there to be any semblance of functionality in our world, there has to be some things we agree upon and set as objective facts.
There are a couple of things I don't agree with (or maybe don't understand), however. How can anyone be sure that the natural laws that are eternal are not accessible? Why is there a need to equivocate natural laws with God? And why is there a need to personify a natural law as omnipotent?
