Subjective vs. Objective Truth

Yesterday, I said that I think the anecdotal experience of many people is enough to support the idea that God probably exists.  (I said a lot of other things, too) 

Let me addend and clarify, if possible.

When I admit that I think the existence of a divine… something is likely, I want to be clear about a few things I am NOT saying. 

I cannot find any evidence in the subjective/anecdotal/narrative experiences mentioned to reasonably suppose that God conforms to any version of which I am aware.  If there is some reason to believe that God is there, I can’t find any reason to believe that we are aware of God’s attributes.  I make no presumption that God is moral, truthful, good, loving, or cares one bit about us.  (I make no presumption against those things either... I just don't pretend to know or to have any evidence).

I cannot find any reasonable evidence that God cares whether I believe or not.

I cannot find any reasonable evidence that the existence of God (or even a belief in the possibility of that existence) brings with it an impelling commitment to action. i.e. God's existence does not reasonably support a theology, philosophical system of beliefs, or a laundry list of rules and dos and don'ts. 

I categorically cannot find any evidence that God wants me to participate in one “spiritual” society over another.  i.e. God doesn’t care in the least bit which church I go to, nor whether I go to church at all.

I think, I hope, this begins to explain why I agree with the conclusion that there is no evidence for believing in a theology, but not the premise that there is no reason to believe in God. 

I think a case for the existence of just about anything can be built quite effectively on the subjective experience of interaction with that thing.  Perception is reality, right?

However, that subjective experience is… subjective.  It carries no moral plan and cannot transform itself into an objective reality.

This is where I want to go:  The difference between objective and subjective.

Objective truth is truth that is independent of the interaction of the subject with the experience.  Your relationship with the object in question does not change the nature of the object, nor the measurable truth.

Subjective truth on the other hand is contained in the relationship between the two objects.  You are the subject, and the “truth” of the matter is the experience of interaction.  Further, that experience is only contained in the interaction itself, and has no bearing on the objective truth, nor does it have any bearing on the subjective truth of an interaction between another subject and the same object.

My wife and I have a relationship.  That relationship exists.  It only exists in our interaction with each other.  It has no bearing on my objective existence (I exist without her), nor does it have any bearing on her relationship with her mother (a fact that I would have been smart to recognize early in our relationship).

Everything about my relationship with her is subjective.  Nevertheless, it is real.  Subjective truth, I would submit, is the beautiful part of life.  In fact, beautiful is, itself, an inherently subjective word.

If I have an interaction with God, it is definitively subjective.  If God tells me what to do, it is only relevant within the context of my interaction with God.  The second I try to extend the imperative relevance of that interaction to my interactions with anyone else… the second I start to proselytize, I am trying to turn my subjective experience into something objective.  This is where I will gladly stand with the atheists.

I find (at this point) that the proclamations of people about the objective nature of God, based on their subjective experiences, are inherently flawed in this problem.  It is clear that there is no objectivity in the discussion of God’s attributes or aspirations for us.  As much as I appreciate attempts to say otherwise, I don’t see how a discussion of the existence of deity cannot be subjective in nature.  It simply cannot be demonstrated that God is there objectively.

Ok… [wiping sweat from furrowed brow]

To summarize:

I find the weight of the anecdotal evidence to be compelling as to the probable existence of something that we would call divine.

All of that anecdotal evidence (taken collectively) contains no implication of some divine agenda for mankind.

All of that anecdotal evidence (taken collectively) doesn’t say anything to me about what God wants me to do, if indeed, God wants anything from me at all.

Is it useful then to tentatively acknowledge God’s existence?

I think the benefit is this: If I recognize that God can exist independent of the people who claim authority in the divine narrative; if I recognize that divine existence doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with human preachers; then I am free to let go of the implications they want me to cherry pick.