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.

The pseudoscience of creationism

Creationism is a subject that comes up against Evolution a lot, whilst evidence for Evolution is abundant, the only attempt to provide evidence we ever get from theists is ‘The only explanation has to be God’. If God is perfect, then the suggestion of intelligent design implies perfection. As the song goes ‘He’s got the whole world in his hands’, but has he, and did he ever? I don’t know if God created everything, but it seems highly unlikely due to the multitude of errors with life. Many theists have tried to imply that diseases are man-made due to lifestyle, or pollution, and others say illness and disease is God’s punishment for sin that our ancestors committed. So whenever you’re diagnosed with a disease it’s because someone sinned, or you watch your new born baby on a life support machine because of a heart defect and that’s because someone sinned? Creationism is usually associated with Intelligent Design, but this is a common misconception, as many supporters of ID don’t refute the age of the Earth, and don’t take the Bible literally, they just believe that life is too complex to be a natural phenomena, and it must have had a helping hand. Some even accept natural selection and other processes of evolution, but it’s still ignored by most genuine scientists as merely speculation at best.

As for creationism, and consider that the Earth is 6,000 years old, yet we’ve got such cultural and ethnic diversity in such a short time. Why are there so many natural disasters if god created this perfect Earth? Why are there areas in the world that are totally hostile to life, or areas where civilisation struggles to survive due to the climate, unfit land to farm, and contaminated water supplies. Let’s consider a few illnesses and diseases humans can get: Cancer; Leukaemia; Diabetes; Alzheimer’s; Dementia; Multiple sclerosis; Crohn’s disease; Asthma; Celiac disease; Tuberculosis; Stroke; Heart disease; AIDS; Pneumonic plague; Septicaemia; Rabies; Anthrax; Smallpox; Measles; Chicken Pox; Mumps; Herpes; Meningitis; Ebola; Tetanus; Yellow Fever; Malaria; Typhoid; Whooping cough; Hepatitis; Bronchitis; Influenza

I’ve listed a handful of diseases out of thousands and thousands. Some have a cure, some don’t. Some can be controlled, some can’t. Theists claim everything is balanced, and only a God could create life. My guess is if he is responsible, he’s not very good at it. In 1918 the Earth was subject to the Spanish Flu, and it’s was the most catastrophic event in the twentieth century. It was caused by the H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin, and at the time the population on a earth was approximately 1.5,000,000,000 and a third were infected, and 50,000,000 died as a result.

There are a multitude of birth defects, or defects that can happen over time, which suggests random mutations through Evolution, not a God’s hand, but if he was responsible it begs the question, how can he love us all? Here are some examples: Hair lip; Blindness; Deafness; Spina bifida; Cleft palate; Down syndrome; Conjoined; Motor neurone disease; Eczema; Hives; Arthritis; Club foot; Psoriasis.

There are a great number of people who suffer from mental disorders that include: Personality disorders; Bipolar; Anxiety; Depression; Psychosis; Schizophrenia; Anorexia; Panic attacks; Paranoia; Learning difficulties; Autism; Bulimia.

Not an extensive list by any means, but you get the idea. If god was perfect, then we’d be perfect, but as you can see life is a tightrope and there’s a chance you will fall off. Theists will say it’s punishment for sin, but a dog dying of cancer is that because a descendant stole another dog’s ball? I’ve heard so many times that we are surrounded by miracles, and this is evidence of god’s creation, but they seldom focus on the terrible aspects of life. I saw a pastor write on Twitter once that god created hurricanes to help make us stronger and unite us. What chance have you got reasoning with someone of that ridiculous mindset?

“Intelligent design is a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory. While evolution relies upon detailed, well-defined processes such as mutation and natural selection, ID offers no descriptions of the design process or the designer. In fact, proponents do not even agree among themselves as to which biological phenomena were designed and which were not. Ultimately, this “theory” amounts to nothing more than pointing to holes in evolution and responding with a one-word, unceasingly repeated mantra: “design.” But unless ID advocates fill in the details, there is no way to scientifically test intelligent design or make predictions from it for future research. In short, it is not valid science.” – Source

YHWH vs Satan

Every protagonist needs a antagonist; good vs evil; dark vs light; yin vs yang. Almost every religion has a creator and a destroyer; a light place in the afterlife, and a dark place in the afterlife. In the Bible YHWH allegedly created everything, and it’s highly likely that the serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan, who convinced Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil knowing that despite YHWH’s warning of death, no harm would come to her. Not only was the serpent correct, but the knowledge acquired from the fruit instilled Eve with dignity, and she realised that YHWH had allowed them to be naked and she hastily covered up her sexual organs. Yet YHWH was extremely angry that she’d disobeyed him, and his punishment was to make every human childbirth extremely painful and unpleasant. Not only had YHWH put the tree in the garden to tempt them knowing that if they didn’t understand dignity then they probably didn’t understand temptation, but also lied to them about death. He then charged both of them with origin sin for disobedience, and this became a curse on all humanity afterwards. And we are expected to view YHWH as all things good, and Satan as all things bad, yet it should logically be the other way round, surely?

“If God had destroyed Satan immediately, the angels would have begun to serve Him from fear rather than from love. – BibleInfo

The above quote is in regards to Lucifer’s rebellion against YHWH’s divine government, by trying to overthrow god with an army of angels, but they lost and were banished from Heaven and sent to Hell. Along with the other fallen angels, he is to spend all of eternity there, but the idea that he rules Hell, just as YHWH rules Heaven, probably comes from the poem, The Divine Comedy‬, by ‘Dante Alighieri‘, as the a Bible never mentions that he will reign over Hell. Whilst Christians claim that YHWH loves them, they are also fearful of his retribution if they disobey him, so wouldn’t YHWH have removed sin and evil if he’d destroyed Satan? In the book of Joshua, YHWH orders the Israelites to wipe out the seven Canaan kingdoms because they worshipped false idols, and were considered a damaging influence on the Israelites. Yet, Satan directly opposed YHWH and set about an attempt at mutiny to overthrow YHWH’s reign in Heaven and he was just banished to Hell. Does this mean that YHWH holds angels, even mutinous angels in a higher regard than mankind?

‪”And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword” – Joshua 6:21

The above quote suggests that nothing should be left alive, from babies to the elderly. How can Christians claim to be pro-life, and anti-abortion, if they support a god, who loves everyone, but is prepared to kill innocent babies because they live in a society that don’t worship him. Christians will claim that I’ve taken it out of context, and that the Canaanites sacrificed babies to their gods, but if YHWH is prepared to have them executed by sword, what difference does it make?

YHWH and Christianity need Satan, as they need a scapegoat. They need someone to blame for evil and sin, as if he destroyed Satan, he’d have to be held account for all the wickedness in the world. He should be anyway, if you are to believe in his existence, as Christians claim he’s omnipotent, all powerful; omnipresent, always there and watching; omnibenevolent, always good. So not only does he have the power to see all of the wickedness, he also has the power to intervene, but if he was to intervene then Christians wouldn’t be able to claim that they have free will. So, instead, use Satan as a metaphor for evil, and YHWH gets away free of charge.