Why religious people can’t be objective: Part 2

I’ve obviously already covered objective morality, and the claims from the religious that you need a higher power for morals to be objective, and I stated that it’s flawed for two obvious reasons, and that morality can only ever be subjective.

1: Objective, in its simplest terms is an unbiased fact. The existence of a god has never been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, either using a strict adherence to the codes applied in a court of law, or by using the scientific method. Some may argue that neither have ever proved the non-existence of any god, but that’s irrelevant to the matter at hand.

2: If somehow, a divine creator was proven, or they stepped forward and proved their existence, which can’t exactly be difficult as they’re a god, then they have to prove that what they define as moral is fact, and without bias. Yet the god of the Bible clearly has preferences, like a sabbath should be spent worshipping. Sabbath is a day of religious observance and abstinence from work, which is Friday evening to Saturday evening in Judaism, and Sunday for Christianity. In the Bible, a man was discovered collecting wood on a sabbath, and god ordered his execution, as he defined it as work, and work is a sin on a sabbath day. A sin, is a personal attack against god, and followers believe it’s a moral sin. Is not worshipping a god on a specific day immoral, or is it pandering to a childlike ego, who wants to be noticed and respected on a certain day? I’d suggest quite confidently that it’s the latter of the two choices.

To put the difference between objective, and subjective as simply as possible, is objective is factual, and devoid of feelings or emotion, and subjective is the exact opposite. Most things in life are subjective as they are open for interpretation. What’s suitable for one, might not be suitable for another, and this is why the golden rule can be considered flawed. If something is objective it can be proven, and is impossible to deny. The people who claim objective morality is drawn from their religion, often believe that being LBGTQ is an immoral sin. But why? Because a collection of books that were written a few thousand years ago, by random anonymous authors, who claimed that the morals were provided by god himself says so. If someone is homosexual, has a consensual relationship with another, and live their lives as upstanding citizens, who work hard, pay their taxes and get involved in the community, how are they immoral? In the Torah, the 613 mitzvah list the things expected, and the things not expected for the followers of Judaism. Every form of incest is considered wrong, ie: sleeping with mother, uncle, sister, brother etc, and every form of homosexuality is wrong, ie: a man sharing a bed with another man, or a male relative, but there’s absolutely no mention of two women sleeping together. So how can it be considered immoral for two men to engage, but not immoral for two women?

If objective is devoid of emotion, how can it genuinely apply to morality? If someone was in distress, normally a person’s emotions take over, as they feel compassion, or empathy, and they help that person because it’s their duty, as it’s the right thing to do. As to what level of help you give that person is open to interpretation, so it’s subjective. If something is objective, it’s universally accepted. ie: a tree is a tree, so it’s objective, as it’s a fact. A painting of a tree, isn’t a tree. It’s an artistic interpretation, and more than likely isn’t identical to the tree they’ve observed to create the painting. So the painting of the tree is subjective, as a different person would paint it a different way. Another example is Christianity isn’t just one strain, there are many variants of the disease. Some are more infectious than another, and some are more powerful and influential, but none of them 100% share the same views or opinions. So how could Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox both claim objective morality, when despite having the same god, they have distinct differences, be them geographical, political, and/or cultural differences, and this is especially noticeable when the great schism of 1054 happened which completely split eastern and western Christianity in half. The west’s theology continued to work mainly using Roman law, where the east had its roots firmly based in the Greek philosophies, so both grew as complete opposites and have completely different views on the gospels, and interpretations of the Bible. So, they both have to be subjective in the field of morality, and it’s impossible to claim objective morality if the doctrines aren’t universal. I used these two examples as Roman Catholicism is the largest denomination of Christianity with over a billion followers worldwide, and Eastern Orthodox is the second largest with over quarter of a billion followers.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s