I think that is mistaken. If it were the case then all science would be impossible, there could be no physics for instance, there could be no observable natural laws such as cause and effect which is patently the case, ignore that for a second and you will fall foul of gravity or something. A lot can appear subjective or intersubjective, although its usually the soft sciences that this higher superstition reigns in, the hard sciences would laugh it off or consider it too absurd to even challenge properly.
I may not be understanding your point here properly, if that's the case then please clarify. However . . .
It is possible to test a lot of things in the physical world. Admittedly there is an element of 'the truth will become apparent' in science, like religion, because experiments can be interpreted differently; I think this is more true of physics than biology, say, although even in biology something correlational can easily be wrong. But the point is that our conclusions have implications in the physical world that are at least theoretically testable. And if they don't bear out in practice, then we know to revise.
Science does have a fair bit of philosophy and unspoken assumptions. But it seems to work. So that suggests to me that there is something real going on.
Religion, so far as I can tell, is inherently not testable. We can't really know if something real is going on or not, not in the same sense as we can with a physical experiment.
That doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of knowing whether or not a religion has something to it, but it does make it difficult to know how we should approach it. I am highly concerned about deluding myself; if something is true I want to to be true for certain.
So far I've not found a satisfactory methodology for approaching religious questions; I've just succeeded in ruling out all the methodologies I've come across, except accepting its truth as an axiom, rather like Euclid's axioms.
The results I get when I construct my worldview with a religious axiom are . . . interesting. I prefer the worldview that includes the religious axiom because it is more symmetrical and intellectually complete, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to assert that it is true. So I just have faith that it is.
That's not to say that objective criteria are easy to come by, its difficult, although difficulty doesnt not mean its impossible or not worth the effort. Ultimately its demonstrable, if in no other way than the abstract reasoning which suggests there is no objective criteria is impossible to practically ascribe to and live by.
Oh, I agree that objective positions can't be used. Or at least none that I've come across. They're all variations of extreme agnosticism. Even when they integrate 'evolutionary advantage' as a justification for behavioral choices, since an is doesn't get you an ought, at most they get a 'placeholder' default behavior to be followed until they get evidence for a better set of behaviors. Since they know their behavior is just a default, that should objectively strip anything like 'moral outrage' at the behavior of others; however, since 'moral outrage' is just another evolutionary behavior shouldn't it continue? But not if they are intellectually honest . . . There are a bunch of problems.
In practice humans must pick an option, or at minimum a set of axioms, and then make decisions based on those assumptions. But I continue to be aware that other systems could be constructed, and that I don't have a good objective reason to invalidate those other systems. That bothers me, because I don't want 'a system', I want The System.
What would you consider an objective criteria?
I dont understand faith that way at all, in many ways this sounds like an existentialist, particularly Camus' position, or post modern thought experiment. All things beinq equal, ie the same, and possessing moral and practical equivalence, it does not matter what you choose of those things.
I don't think all systems bring equal results, but positing that good results are the criteria is a problem because our definition of good results is subjective unless you go with a naturalistic pseudo evolutionary definition, but that in turn leads you back around to the extreme agnosticism which has the problems I outlined above.
If good results are not the criteria, what are?
Faith in my view requires evidence but it is not wholly about evidence or evidence is insufficient in the explanation of faith. I dont restrict the word faith to religion alone BTW you have faith in partners, parents, significant others, doctors, experts, others, lovers because you never have complete and perfect knowledge in any of those situations.
See, I don't think that faith in the context of religion is at all similar to faith in the context of other things. My faith in regards other people just means I have no reason to believe they are fakes, and I might have some evidence that they are not. But that would change if new evidence came up. So I wouldn't call that faith, just my best estimate of the situation.
On the other hand, religious faith should be unshakeable; at least in Christianity, repeatedly this is emphasized. The disciples who believed without seeing Jesus resurrected are praised above 'doubting Thomas' who needed the evidence. To take one example.
So if religious faith should be unshakeable, the logical conclusion to me is that it should be totally divorced from any evidence. But if that's the case, what caused you to believe in the first place?
I am not certain on whether my idea of faith is a sound concept; I have the sense something is missing . . .
I have myself what I would consider evidence of a personal God but you may dispute what I would consider evidence, that'd be fine BTW, I dont expect there to be agreement on things like that. In part because people are satisfied by different things, you obviously are satisfied with the conclusion that God does not exist, I am not. One thing I'd come back to though is that while there could be indirect evidence of the existence of a God its always going to be incomplete, otherwise it would not be God.
I haven't concluded that God doesn't exist, on the contrary I firmly believe that He does on the basis of faith. I just don't have a good system to justify that belief because I think my current conception leaves much to be desired.
My basic trajectory is inspired by this thought experiment: "What if in a thousand years science found this or that. Would it affect my belief?" And if the answer is yes, then I conclude that I can't have found an unshakeable basis for religious belief. If my basis is not unshakeable, then how can it be intellectually satisfying? How can I be willing to put my life on the line for something that the jury is still out on?
Does that make sense?