Would someone be willing to explain this argument to me?

[quatona]

This is a quote from jmverville (in the "atheist ethics, atheist values" thread), but I have seen similar statements quite a few times here, and on top this argument seems to meander implicitly through a lot of theists´ posts. It´s an argument I have never understood.

In rejecting God, it [atheism] has huge moral ramifications as it requires the person to now essentially determine for themselves what is and what isn't moral.

If I understand it correctly, it points out that someone who doesn´t believe in a god is left with his subjectivity (with the implication "as opposed to a believer").
What I don´t understand: How exactly would subjectively determining which god I believe in (and whose alleged morals to adopt) do away with the problem of subjectivity? Would believing that a god has authored my moral stances make them more objective?

Of course, jmersville has hidden a couple of premises in the introductory description of atheists: "In rejecting God...".
These premises are:
If there is a God
If this God has authored a moral code
If the believers' (that jmersville distinguishes atheists from) god concepts are accurate
If the moral code that believers believe to be authored by the god of their concepts is indeed authored by this God
(Of course these are premises that not only beg the question, but also appear to be a strange argument from consequence - in which the premise from which the consequence is drawn isn´t even correctly identified: It´s not "If you don´t believe in a god" (as the argument suggests), but "If a God exists and you can´t be certain about its existence and the moral code it possibly has edicted". With the latter being our factual condition, even by admission of most believers - else we wouldn´t see all the appeals to faith).

IOW: If there is a God and if this God has authored a moral code, a lot of moral codes (held by theists as well as atheists) are not congruent with this code.
So far this is logical and undisputed.

The part I would like to see explained, though, is how - even if accepting these huge premises for purposes of this discussion - they allow the conclusion that atheists are left with subjectivity more than theists are.

Personally, even if I would agree with the idea that there being God that has edicted a moral code for us, even if I would agree that aligning my moral code with this God´s moral code would be advantageous, even if I would draw the conclusion that it´s time for me to become a theist in order to do that, I have no idea how I could possibly proceed other than by subjectively determining which of the available god concepts (along with their moral codes) to adopt. I fail to see how becoming a theist and adopting a god concept would get me rid of the necessity to determine my beliefs "for myself".

 

[Andreusz]

"What I don´t understand: How exactly would subjectively determining which god I believe in (and whose alleged morals to adopt) do away with the problem of subjectivity? Would believing that a god has authored my moral stances make them more objective?"

A very good point!

 

[BlackSabb]

I had to read the OP a second time to understand the message. But I get it now. Basically, what you are saying is that the choice of religion (and subsequent moral codes) is a subjective matter. So if the initial choice of faith is subjective, so are all the moral codes that follow. Interesting argument, I never really thought about that before.

The major difference between yourself and theists is that theists don't see the choice of their faith as "subjective". To them, their faiths are objective. Hence, all the moral codes are objective.

The answer to your question depends whether the Christian, Islamic, Jewish etc faith is objective or subjective? People will never agree. You see that answer as subjective, and theists see it as objective.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Interesting position in the OP.

A person that has no greater authority than their own opinion on everything, is a person left with a perspective of selfishness, or rather self-centeredness, driving all reason and all resulting action. What is considered by most as choosing the good or bad.

They are person left with only questions and more questions and a search that from its start, had no chance of completion. For the human psyche, this is a form of death before death witnessed even within a mind based on self awareness and self perspective, or the "for myself."

The "myself," is is present in every other person.

I came from this perspective, this lifestyle if you will.

I chose Christ as represented in the Gospel and New Testament. I didn't do it out of intense personal tragedy, or a great feeling of guilt and regret. I sought a higher ground than what my own eyes could see. Maybe that is the most intense position to seek the question of ultimate reality. One things is certain, no human can know everything.

When all of the hysteria of and emotionalism of a flesh-driven quest for fulfillment subsided (my greedy ambitions, my personal gratification became less intense due probably to maturing) and I searched for reality through all of the opinions given to me by so many different and diverse people, I sought a substantial place to find a reason for asking the questions of ultimate reality.

Again, I chose Christ Jesus.

It took listening and it took research. It took quiet and it took intensity. And still there was Jesus and His foundational truth. Not as a common enlightened thinker handing out every desire to all who asked Him, did Jesus walk. But rather as an authority of substance that has proven to be part of human nature from beginning of life until its extinguish. There is a better mind in Jesus than just momentary gain and temporary happiness given. Every human that has the ability to think, knows that todays promises can come crashing down with tomorrows troubles. Time is a measurable substance as one person isn't really that different from another when environment is stripped away.

With the freedom to be able to search without peer pressure, coersion or restrictions, with query and contemplation, the question for me went from "If" there is a God, to, there "is" something at work behind all reality, to searching for this reality. Then, to a final conclusion of Christ Jesus and the path laid out in historical reality of the compilation of the writings known as the Bible. Even discounting the miraculous as evidence, I realized that reality of "universal" substance, existed firmly within the framework of the Jesus expressed in the New Testament.

 

[keith99]

I had to read the OP a second time to understand the message. But I get it now. Basically, what you are saying is that the choice of religion (and subsequent moral codes) is a subjective matter. So if the initial choice of faith is subjective, so are all the moral codes that follow. Interesting argument, I never really thought about that before.

The major difference between yourself and theists is that theists don't see the choice of their faith as "subjective". To them, their faiths are objective. Hence, all the moral codes are objective.

The answer to your question depends whether the Christian, Islamic, Jewish etc faith is objective or subjective? People will never agree. You see that answer as subjective, and theists see it as objective.

Disagree in a way. While technically theists have to see it as objective there is still judgement involved. Intellectually honest theists recognize this. After all the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslems is the same God. (Or arguable something else claiming to be the same God).

But at the core you have hit it dead on. It also means this argument can be turned on its head.

If there is a God in the Christian sense that God works on mens hearts. Through their feelings, thought and examination God shows men what is moral. It does NOT matter if men recognize this. Jew, Gentile or atheist it would still happen. So the morality of atheists still is God inspired (if there is a God). Or perhaps inspired by Satan (if there is a Devil).

The ironic thing is that it is theists (or the kind proposing the original argument) whose hearts are hardened and are unable to respond to the influence of God, for they think they already have all the answers.

 

[Chesterton]

There’s a problem in the OP which makes it difficult to respond to because it contains the faulty premise that there is any such thing as subjectivity. “There is nothing new under the sun” - there is no such thing as an original idea. The atheist has gotten his or her ideas from somewhere outside himself the same as the theist has.

“The modern world is filled with men who hold dogmas so strongly that they do not even know that they are dogmas.” G.K.C.

The religious man practices 10 rituals and knows it. The worldly man practices 100 rituals and doesn’t know it.

 

[cantata]

There’s a problem in the OP which makes it difficult to respond to because it contains the faulty premise that there is any such thing as subjectivity. “There is nothing new under the sun” - there is no such thing as an original idea. The atheist has gotten his or her ideas from somewhere outside himself the same as the theist has.

I'm not sure you understand what "subjectivity" means.

"Subjective" means "based on or influenced by personal opinions". The fact that your personal opinions have been moulded by external factors does not mean that your judgements are not subjective.

In any case, the OP, as I understand it, is saying precisely that both theists' and non-theists' beliefs and moral views are subjective. Theists can have no special claim to objectivity.

 

[BlackSabb]

You just have to remember one thing in this type of discussion regarding morality, beliefs, subjectivity and objectivity. Truth is singular!!

There are many beliefs in this world. There's Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, new age, reincarnation, moral relativity, socialism, atheism, Communism, fascism and Nazism etc etc etc.

However, and surely no one can deny this: that here on earth and out in the universe, there is a singular truth. Whatever that truth may be. I don't believe for a second that those who are atheists will just die and rot in the ground, whilst the Hindus will be reincarnated, the Christians face judgement and be sent to Heaven or Hell, the new agers reincorporated and be at one with the universe, etc etc.

One belief is right and all others wrong. If the Christian God exists and if the Bible is the word of God, then all people will face eternal judgement and be sent to either Heaven or Hell. If the atheists are right, then no one will be punished or rewarded and all will just die and rot in the ground. All of us presently 6 billion people on this earth do not exist in 6 billion parallel universes, where every one of us have our own personal reality. Truth and reality is singular and exists whether you acknowledge it or not.

You may believe, for eg, that you can defy gravity, and subsequently leap off a building, (assuming here no parachute, jet pack etc). But the truth is out there and you will be subjected to it. Everyone one of us will be subjected to the truth when we die. A singular truth. There is no escaping it. There are no different truths for different people. If Jesus, for eg, is the Son of God, then Islam is false. If Jesus was a good prophet only, then Chrisitanity if false.

I suppose what I'm saying is that we all need to really evaluate what we believe and why. Because every person will be subject to that singular truth that exists when they die.

I'm not a religious/fundamentalist/dogmatic person that I once was. I'm rarely dogmatic about anything these days. But I am very dogmatic that what is true for one is true for all, and that truth is well defined, singular and will apply to everyone, regardless of whether people recognise that truth or not.

 

[cantata]

I certainly hold that truth is objective and absolute.

I'm not sure quatona agrees.

But I think the OP is more asking why theists often say they have a special claim to objectivity because they're following God's rules rather than making their own ones up. He needn't deny that there is a fact of the matter about what is and is not moral behaviour (or whether "moral" means anything at all).

 

[BlackSabb]

I certainly hold that truth is objective and absolute.

I'm not sure quatona agrees.

But I think the OP is more asking why theists often say they have a special claim to objectivity because they're following God's rules rather than making their own ones up. He needn't deny that there is a fact of the matter about what is and is not moral behaviour (or whether "moral" means anything at all).

The OP is reacting to popular Christian claims. A popular Christian argument is that Christians get their laws and morals from God, and say to the unbeliever "where do you deride your morals from as you don't believe in God-a higher authority that is a law giver?"

What the OP is saying is that how can the Christians claim that they get their morals from God, when it is a personal, subjective decision what religion or faith a person chooses to follow in the first place.

I suppose the best way to answer that, IMO, is for people to do their own research into ancient history, and see if the claims of religious figures such as Mohammed and Jesus stand up to scrutiny. That is the only way I can see you could state that belief in a religion is no longer subjective but objective.

 

[selfinflikted]

... A popular Christian argument is that Christians get their laws and morals from God....

But this premise is simply untrue. Point one, no one gets anything from god. God doesn't materialise and sit down to tea with people to discuss popular moral opinions. Point two, christianity is as diverse as any other group. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different sects that fall under the umbrella of "christianity", each with it's own differing doctrines and stances on specific moral ideals. Each of those is based on an interpretation of literature written by men, and each is a subjective interpretation.

To claim that christians get their morals from "god" itself is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Washington]

In rejecting God, it [atheism] has huge moral ramifications as it requires the person to now essentially determine for themselves what is and what isn't moral.

First I would question just what these "huge moral ramifications" are. Then I would like to know why choosing a set moral code (that of the Bible) is any less subjective than choosing any other moral code, whether it be one's own or that of another religion. Choosing an already established moral code is simply putting the subjectivity back one step. It still amounts to a subjective act, just a step removed.

 

[Verv]

I am proud to have inspired this thread. Thank you Quatona.

This is a quote from jmverville (in the "atheist ethics, atheist values" thread), but I have seen similar statements quite a few times here, and on top this argument seems to meander implicitly through a lot of theists´ posts. It´s an argument I have never understood.

If I understand it correctly, it points out that someone who doesn´t believe in a god is left with his subjectivity (with the implication "as opposed to a believer").
What I don´t understand: How exactly would subjectively determining which god I believe in (and whose alleged morals to adopt) do away with the problem of subjectivity? Would believing that a god has authored my moral stances make them more objective?

Of course, jmersville has hidden a couple of premises in the introductory description of atheists: "In rejecting God...".
These premises are:
If there is a God
If this God has authored a moral code
If the believers' (that jmersville distinguishes atheists from) god concepts are accurate
If the moral code that believers believe to be authored by the god of their concepts is indeed authored by this God
(Of course these are premises that not only beg the question, but also appear to be a strange argument from consequence - in which the premise from which the consequence is drawn isn´t even correctly identified: It´s not "If you don´t believe in a god" (as the argument suggests), but "If a God exists and you can´t be certain about its existence and the moral code it possibly has edicted". With the latter being our factual condition, even by admission of most believers - else we wouldn´t see all the appeals to faith).

IOW: If there is a God and if this God has authored a moral code, a lot of moral codes (held by theists as well as atheists) are not congruent with this code.
So far this is logical and undisputed.

The part I would like to see explained, though, is how - even if accepting these huge premises for purposes of this discussion - they allow the conclusion that atheists are left with subjectivity more than theists are.

Personally, even if I would agree with the idea that there being God that has edicted a moral code for us, even if I would agree that aligning my moral code with this God´s moral code would be advantageous, even if I would draw the conclusion that it´s time for me to become a theist in order to do that, I have no idea how I could possibly proceed other than by subjectively determining which of the available god concepts (along with their moral codes) to adopt. I fail to see how becoming a theist and adopting a god concept would get me rid of the necessity to determine my beliefs "for myself".

You raise a good point:

Due to the plurality of gods believed in and the moral codes that exist it would seem that those who simply accept their religion spoon fed to themit is rather subjective.

And even if we do choose our own religions wisely this is also 'subjective.'

In the end, since there was not an entire moral code that we can know without Faith that was given to us, we also have moral codes partly subject to our own minds.

You raise a very good point and in a sense you win this one, bro.

However, there is one sense in which you do not entirely win:

I get aspects of my moral code (of course which I have chosen for myself in the sense that I have chosen Christianity) that I would not choose if I were an atheist, and that I would choose not to follow if I could find a way to justify breaking them.

In a sense, the moral code is partly my choice and partly determined by God for me.

The biggest difference between a theist and an atheist is that a true theist has to accept portions of a moral code which are far more rigorous than an atheist.

If I were an atheist, I would not have as rigorous of a moral code.

For instance, there is very little to stop an atheist (from a logical point of view) from doing drugs and alcohol responsibly, having promiscuous sex responsibly and defrauding systems and breaking other small crimes (of course, in a manner that is responsible and keeps them out of trouble).

Largely atheist societies are often full of prostitution, alcoholism, fraudulent businesses (when they can get away with it), abortion, etc.

In China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Russia, Germany, Netherlands and other societies that have substantial atheist populations it seems there is also a large amount of prostitution and irresponsible living.

I know for a fact that in both south Korea and China you can hardly walk down the street without being confronted by sex for sale.

 

[cantata]

So atheists don't have to eschew things they can see no good reason to eschew?

Well, that doesn't seem so bad. Personally I can't see the value of self-denial for its own sake, unless you actually enjoy it.

 

[keith99]

So atheists don't have to eschew things they can see no good reason to eschew?

Well, that doesn't seem so bad. Personally I can't see the value of self-denial for its own sake, unless you actually enjoy it.

C.S. Lewis and I agree with you. Lewis actually found denial for denial's sake and the things that go wtith it a major perversion of Christian thought.

 

[cantata]

C.S. Lewis and I agree with you. Lewis actually found denial for denial's sake and the things that go wtith it a major perversion of Christian thought.

Good!

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

The major difference between yourself and theists is that theists don't see the choice of their faith as "subjective". To them, their faiths are objective. Hence, all the moral codes are objective.

The answer to your question depends whether the Christian, Islamic, Jewish etc faith is objective or subjective? People will never agree. You see that answer as subjective, and theists see it as objective.

Did you at some point choose whether to use a Schofield Bible, or whether to accept predestination?

Did you choose how liberal or Fundamentalist you would be on such things as the creation story / account?

Did you choose whether to obey the Old Testament and if so which bits?

Did you never choose which Bible study to attend, or which church to go to?

Are you sure you didn't make your own moral choices?

 

[eMesreveR]

If I were an atheist, I would not have as rigorous of a moral code.

For instance, there is very little to stop an atheist (from a logical point of view) from doing drugs and alcohol responsibly, having promiscuous sex responsibly and defrauding systems and breaking other small crimes (of course, in a manner that is responsible and keeps them out of trouble).

Largely atheist societies are often full of prostitution, alcoholism, fraudulent businesses (when they can get away with it), abortion, etc.

In China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Russia, Germany, Netherlands and other societies that have substantial atheist populations it seems there is also a large amount of prostitution and irresponsible living.

I know for a fact that in both south Korea and China you can hardly walk down the street without being confronted by sex for sale.

What do you call a "rigorous moral code?" Is a rigorous moral code inherently better than a nonrigorous one? For example, Aztec Priests had pretty rigorous moral codes - do you think they LIKED sacrificing and tearing out the hearts of young girls? Of course not! Murder is a terrible thing, punishable by death under normal circumstances! But they had to do it. It was part of their moral code. Otherwise their crops wouldn't grow. The good of the many over the good of the few.

You're right. Atheist countries have rampant prostitution, alcoholism, fraudulent businesses (when they can get away with it), abortion, etc. But so do theist countries. Except in theist societies, sometimes such things are swept under the rug instead of brought to the open because they are considered shameful. People become willing to hide the gaping wounds in society, for the sake of saving face.

The truth is, many "theists" are behavioral atheists. You might call them "Sunday Christians." Show all the contempt you want for them, but they're the majority. They don't make their daily decisions day to day upon God. They might make certain political or ideological decisions based upon the church community that they're a part of, but for life? Not so much. That's just how it is, even in theist societies.

 

[feral]

I don't honestly believe that anyone adheres to an objective form of morality, and that includes the religious person as well as those without a faith. Take the Christian code of ethics, the Ten Commandments, for example. In general, the lay person follows the one prohibiting murder, although many Christians aren't universally opposed to murder so long as it's the murder of enemies, such as in wartime. As for rules of seemingly lesser importance, like prohibitions against theft, most of as agree with it when we are well fed, but is there anyone who would allow their child or loved one to die for want of food, water, medicine, etc if it was within reach? Meaning, wouldn't you steal if your desperation or a loved one's desperation reached a point of do or die? I believe almost everyone would. The reason for subjective morality is, situations vary and different approaches to morals are taken depending on what is happening. Normally, we are all against murder when we are safe. Let someone break into the home and began to physically attack or sexually assault your spouse, child, elderly relative, etc and most people would take the decisive action to end the problem even if that end came at the barrel of a gun. What is wrong changes in times of need,whether we find that easy to accept or not. It may normally be part of your moral code not to hurt others, but if your life is at stake it becomes very easy to become subjective about that.

 

[cantata]

Feral, I'm not sure whether maybe you're mixing up "situational" and "objective".

You can believe in an objective moral principle (such as something like "Do the most loving thing") which produces different acts in different situations.