Objecting to Objecting to Objective Morality
If I do another post in this current series, I promise to think of another title. But, let’s face it, it really was a clever title, and coming up with titles is my weakest area as a writer.
I’m writing in response to Jeff Haws, webmaster of The Atheocracy, self-described “irreverent journalist, atheist, political junkie, golfer, outdoors lover, sports fan, beer drinker and movie/music snob, along with many other things.” Hmmm. I’m not a professional journalist, but I’m surely irreverent. I’m not an atheist. I hate politics. My dad is a golfer, and I love the outdoors, sports, beer, and movies. It seems Jeff and I are just the sort of people who could get into a very interesting debate. Jeff commented on a recent post, and I thought I’d take a look at what he has to say.
You’re absolutely right that, without the Bible, morality is left in some part up to the individual. But that’s not what you said in your earlier post. You asked (and this is a paraphrase because I’m, typically, too lazy to go back and get the exact quote) “Without God, what reason would you have to be moral?” Why not just say, “Without God, your life is largely up to you” instead of inferring that Atheists have no reason to be good people? I think this was what caught my eye in your post.
What Jeff has demonstrated here–entirely without realizing it–is the real objection to theism from atheists. He draws an a distinction where I never intended one: between the statements that without God, morality is up to the individual and that without God there is no reason to be moral. I believe both statements are true, but I also believe that they are related to one another. I suppose that is why I fail to make a clear distinction between the two.
From my perspective, the real objection to theism from atheists has nothing to do with rational disproofs of God’s existence, nor with rejection of traditional history, but with the obedience component that necessarily flows from being a created being. In fact, atheists want to live their lives their way with no “invisible daddy” hovering over them and telling them how to live.
There is no argument in this paragraph, so I will leave what I have said thus far alone for now, perhaps expounding on it in a future article. Suffice it to say, I will draw a clearer distinction between the prospects of individualistic morality vs. reasons for morality in future writing. This is why I pay attention to honest critiques: to become a better and clearer writer.
The question that comes up with a lot of this “morality” is who decides it’s wrong. You’re making an invisible man the authority on what you should and shouldn’t do. Why? Why do we need a consistent set of morals across a society? We certainly have laws to regulate much of what you might consider in that realm (no alcohol on Sundays in Georgia, no gay marriage, no beastiality, etc.).
Were you a Christian, you would accept the authority of God to define morality for His creation. So the question of “who decides” isn’t a question at all for the Christian, only for the atheist who rejects God’s authority indirectly by rejecting the very idea that God exists.
Asking why we need a consistent set of morals underpins the point I made above: you want to live life your way, not God’s way. If you want to cheat on your wife, a consistent set of Christian morals says that that is not the right thing to do. If you aren’t attracted to your wife anymore, and want nothing further to do with your kids, the Christian ethic would be to swallow your selfishness and realize that life ain’t always about you.
But, on Planet Relativistic Morality, it’s okay to cheat on your wife and abandon your kids because your wife put on too much weight, your daughter won’t listen to you about the convicted felon she’s dating, and your son just came out of the closet and his boyfriend is coming over for dinner on Friday to meet the family. Forget denying your selfish impulses and dealing with your family crisis; on Planet Relativistic Morality, you need a break from all of that in the arms of a young and slender redhead who “understands you.”
On the flip side of this issue, I’m not saying that the Christian in that situation wouldn’t sleep with the redhead. But the Christian would have the words of the Apostle Paul to guide him:
[H]usbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:28-32)
If that were your guide, an affair is out of the question.
Those laws Jeff mentions, by the way, were written when this country did subscribe to the Bible.
And when I said “I don’t know” what’s considered sexually immoral, I meant I don’t know what he meant as sexually immoral. I know what it means to me, but I have no way of knowing what it means to him without him telling me.
Exactly! You don’t know what he considers sexually immoral, he doesn’t know what you consider sexually immoral. If you’re married, what does your wife consider sexually immoral? Now, the Bible is clear on what matters are moral and immoral. If that is your guide, you eliminate the need to even ask the question.
Thanks again for commenting on my post, Cory. Feel free to visit my site any time. It’s always good to receive some counterpoints rather than it being a big Atheist Hugfest. Have a great weekend.
I’ve subscribed to your feed. The only way to write contrary to something is to understand its positions, which is why I participate on the RRS boards and why I read atheist blogs. I desire to understand atheism, not necessarily to refute it or to convert its adherents, but to further the goals of this ministry in providing reasonable counterpoints to what is out there.
From my perspective, the real objection to theism from atheists has nothing to do with rational disproofs of God’s existence, nor with rejection of traditional history, but with the obedience component that necessarily flows from being a created being. In fact, atheists want to live their lives their way with no “invisible daddy” hovering over them and telling them how to live.
I have never known any atheist to cite this as a reason for being an atheist, including myself. I have seen this put forward by lots of theists as bogus explanations on why atheists are atheists.
Were you a Christian, you would accept the authority of God to define morality for His creation.
Possibly; however, Christians don’t AGREE on how their god defines morality.
Now, the Bible is clear on what matters are moral and immoral.
No, it isn’t. If it was clear, Christians wouldn’t disagree. Are Christians to obey kosher food laws? Most say no, 7th Day Adventists say yes. Is homosexual sex immoral? Some Christians say yes, some say no. Should homosexual sex carry the death penalty as described in Leviticus? Some Christians say yes, some say no. Is divorce allowed? Is remarriage allowed? Is interracial marriage allowed? Should slavery be legal? Christians have disagreed over all these issues and more, many claiming that their arguments are based only on the bible.
My point is that no atheist would cite this as their reason, however it is pretty clear to me from innumerable on- and offline discussions with atheists that the desire to live their own life free of God’s authority is exactly the reason why they are an atheist.
All of these points are clear in the Bible:
Take a look at Matthew 15:11 and Romans 14:13-23, but the clearest is Paul’s correction of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14.
Jesus’ affirmation of the Genesis marriage model (Mat 19:1-12) indicates that God accepts only the union of men and women as lawful. The so-called clobber passages, Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10, and 1 Tim 1:8-11 really don’t get any clearer. The Christians who say that homosexuality isn’t a sin have a spin for all of those cites, an alternate reason (and actually a more plausible scenario) for the destruction of Sodom, and an agenda to boot: they are, themselves, gay!
Really? The only Christians I know who advocate that are the members of Fred Phelps’s Westboro Baptist Church. Aside from their profession of faith in Christ, I can’t think of a single fruit of the Spirit that they have shown. That would put Fred in the false teacher category, an issue I’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog.
Jesus answered that one in Matthew 19:1-12.
I don’t know of any Christians that object to remarrying after the death of a spouse. I also don’t know of any biblical mandate against it.
I include those together, because the same verses would apply here: Galatians 3:28 (cf. Col 3:11). Jesus told Peter in a vision never to regard God’s creation, that is, people, as common or unclean (Acts 10:9-33). The only warning about marriage is about being unevenly yoked to unbelievers; note that these verses proclaim us all one unified body with Christ.
Well, go ahead and delude yourself then; atheists, generally speaking, are atheists because there’s no good reason to believe gods exist.
As to your attempt at showing that the bible is “clear” in its moral teachings, I can easily point to history and other Christian sects that disagree with your assessment.
Good job, Brian. Keep pointing to sinful humans who screw things up as evidence that God’s Word is unclear. People have misread or misinterpreted those passages for a variety of reasons: their own lack of understanding, personal agendas, or just general rebellion against God!
I would like to believe that, as a reasonable person, you can read what I have wrote above and not still conclude that it is because of an unclear Bible.
Keep pointing to sinful humans who screw things up as evidence that God’s Word is unclear.
It IS unclear. If it was clear, by the very definition of “clear”, people would agree on what it means. They DON’T.
When you say that Christians don’t agree on morality, I would have to agree with you if you simply include every person who calls themselves a “Christian.” This would include cultists, liberal Christians, and nominal Christians, among others. Once you begin to narrow it down to those who take the Bible seriously, accept the historic creeds (like the Nicene), and are actually committed to applying and living out their faith, then many of the differences flee. Heck, I don’t even know Cory, but I get the impression that he is a classical Christian, as I describe. I would then lay odds that he and I would agree on every moral position that would be of concern to you.
But, Brian, have I shown you that the Bible is clear? I asked you that; I did not ask you to show me more historical and contemporary examples of misinterpretation, most of which I am already aware. Can you then follow what Paul is saying: that there are liberal Christians (such as the “gay Christian movement” or the Episcopal Church), cultists (like Westboro Baptist Church or Seventh Day Adventists), etc. and all have interpreted the Bible not based on what it says but what they need it to say to fit their own theologies?
Look, it’s stupid to argue whether just the two of us agree on what the bible says; even if we happen to agree on every point, that doesn’t mean it’s clear. If we’re both Americans, we might agree that instructions that say “Go up to the second floor of City Hall” is clear, but giving these instructions to Americans and Britons will have them ending up on different floors.
Large numbers of Christians disagree on what the bible means. That’s obvious. You can try and call every Christian who disagrees with any of your personal interpretations a cultist or whatever, but that doesn’t make the bible any clearer. Sincere and well-informed, intelligent people disagree. That’s pretty much a definition of unclear.
There is only one reality, and it was created by God. We are a part of that creation, blessed with consciousness in His image. The Bible is our “user’s manual”. The instructions are quite clear and simple, written for the uneducated, common man of that time. He expects us to use our God-given conscious minds to honestly and diligently think about His word and apply it to real life. The Bible can be understood by people who read it with an objective and open mind–throwing out all preconceived notions. Even children can understand most of it if they have not been brainwashed by erroneous adults.
For a person’s conscious and eternal soul to live forever with God, that person must mold his entire being to match God’s will. If he refuses to take the honest effort to do that, then He will be eternally rejected.