Why Religious “Objective Morality” is a Bunch of Balogne

An oft made claim believers make is that, without god, there is no objective morality. Meaning, without a higher power, we are free to make up whatever morality suits us, or the societies we live in.

I call bullshit.

  1. Someone needs to explain how god’s morality can be so hopelessly confusing as to lead to thousands of religions – some of which are in such vehement opposition to one another other (e.g. Islam vs. Christianity). If god’s morality is objective, you’d think it would be easy for religions to agree on what is right, and what is wrong.
  2. Specifically with regard to Christianity, someone needs to explain why there are so many strains of that faith. How is it that a Catholic’s moral code can be so different from a Protestant’s? Why are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalist Baptists so different from every other faith? Also, why are each of these varieties of faith so adamant that their particular brand of Christian morality is the superior one (in answering this question, Christians need to be reminded that each competing sect bases its claim on an interpretation of the same book)? Why isn’t the objective morality of the Bible easier to reconcile within Christian denominations?
  3. With respect to modern/moderate Christian thinking, why has your religion’s moral code changed so drastically over the centuries and decades? Why was it perfectly acceptable to own a slave a couple of years ago and not today? Why was it ok to severely punish (i.e. beat and/or stone to death) wives and children for their disobedience then, but not now? How can objective morality be claimed when it has, in fact, changed over the generations? Is it possible that your Christian morality is already evolving in the same manner you seem to fear it will if god were to be taken out of the equation?

Objective morality that comes down from the heavens seems pretty far from being true. From my perspective, it actually provides evidence that much of what we call morality is subject to change. Further thought on the three questions asked above leads me to think that so-called god-based objective morality is, in fact, relative morality created out of a combination of:

  1. What culture you live in.
  2. What religion you grow up in.
  3. What point in history you are alive in.

Those three points can be wrapped up nicely into one bullet:

  • There is no evidence for god-based objective morality. Rather, evidence seems to point to a high probability that religious moral codes are shaped by us.

Just how morality is developed is a much (much MUCH!) bigger topic for discussion.

Print Friendly
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

Tags: • • • • • •

August 16, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, Finding Meaning, Religion

Comments

10 Responses to “Why Religious “Objective Morality” is a Bunch of Balogne”

  1. Robert Madewell on August 16th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Great post! I’m also a 40-year-old atheist!

  2. Buffy on August 17th, 2009 at 12:09 am

    I’m always amused by that “Objective Morality” nonsense.  Between the 2,850+ gods out there, all of the “holy books” with their many (and fallible) translations, the infinite ways in which they can be interpreted, and the human proclivity to pick and choose there is nothing “objective” about  religion/theology.

  3. A.J. on August 17th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    So,

    What does an atheist do with the currency that says “In God We Trust.” Do you try to scratch it out?

    Is it against the atheists religion to work in a hospital where the name is “Christ Hospital” or “Holy Spirit Hospital?”

    What is your explanation of the history of how B.C. and A.D. came to be?

    he he

    Grace and Peace

  4. stixoffire on August 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 am

    Not too bright are you ? Even a book the Art of War should tell you something why they don’t agree.  If God commanded that all would agree they would. You point out also Humans Picking and Choosing – thus we have burger kinged Gods Word. ALAS the problem is not God BUT Man.

  5. 40 Year Old Atheist on August 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am

    So you are arguing that man creates his own morality because there, in fact, isn’t clarity (commandment) from god?

    Thanks – you just agreed with me.

    You can argue all day long that there is some morality up their floating around – i.e. god’s set of moral rules. However, if god does a shitty job communicating those rules (i.e. all humans interpret them/the Bible/Torah/Koran etc differently) the “objective” claim is invalid.

    Tell you what – my claim is that objective morality comes from pixie’s from Mars and I’m really disappointed that pixie morality hasn’t been properly implemented on earth.

  6. Renshia on August 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 am

    stixoffire says:
    “Not too bright are you ? & If God commanded that all would agree they would.”
    Come on, If you really believe that your the one who is not to bright.
    For starters which god horas, yahweh or allah??
    And which set of ridiculous set of beliefs would that be?
    The one that comes and bombs your house,  or the one that demands human sacrifice,  or the one that will harden your heart so as not to hear, and then condemn you with plagues for not listening, or maybe the one that would cast people into hell for not stroking his ego…..
    Good God Man, give your head a shake and let some light in.

  7. Jon on August 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    I don’t know if “religious objective morality” is a bunch of balogne or not; however, I did have some additional thoughts on the subject while reading through your ‘three bullshit points’. 
    In point 1, you make the assumption that all religions are saving the same object, or God.  Most religious narratives presume a force of supernatural good, and one of evil.  Therefore, it is only logical that various religions would would oppose one another.
    I think your argument in point 2 is much stronger than for point 1.  However, your logic rambles a little outside of the parameters of your premise in point 2.  Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalist Baptists are not two denominations of the same religion — they are part of two different religions.  Secondly, I find it interesting that you believe a Catholic’s moral code is that different than a Protestant.  I believe that Catholocism and Protestantism are actually closely related…but you are correct that their are significant differences.  Which specific differences between Catholocism and Protestantism lead you to doubt the existence of Objective Morality?
    In point 3, you note that it seems the ‘moral code’ has changed over time.  First, why does that mean a lack of objective morality?  If God exists, and if their is objective morality, why would it be perfectly known at the start of time?  If you start dating someone, doesn’t it take time to get to know them?  Doesn’t the way that you treat a friend, relative, or spouse change over time as you get to know them?  Secondly, why is it problematic if God does change over time?

    Your post has created some interesting talking points.  I would be very interested to learn more about your thoughts on this issue!

  8. 40 Year Old Atheist on August 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am

    In point 1, you make the assumption that all religions are saving the same object, or God. Most religious narratives presume a force of supernatural good, and one of evil. Therefore, it is only logical that various religions would would oppose one another.

    If it helps to focus things, let’s talk about the big three: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. All three say they believe in the same god but they all differ in substantial ways that puts them at odds with one another.

    I think your argument in point 2 is much stronger than for point 1. However, your logic rambles a little outside of the parameters of your premise in point 2. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalist Baptists are not two denominations of the same religion — they are part of two different religions.

    I have no idea what you are talking about here. Jehovah’s and Baptists both classify themselves as Christians. If you doubt this, go ask them yourself. The subset of this is that they do not consider alternate forms of Christianity to be Christian. You get this same thing happening between fundamentalists and Catholics.

    Secondly, I find it interesting that you believe a Catholic’s moral code is that different than a Protestant. I believe that Catholocism and Protestantism are actually closely related…but you are correct that their are significant differences. Which specific differences between Catholocism and Protestantism lead you to doubt the existence of Objective Morality?

    I stand corrected here. It is probably unfair to state the the major differences between Catholics and Protestants include major differences in morality. There may be some differences that are moral ones, but I don’t imagine them to be major and I have no interest in investigating them.

    In point 3, you note that it seems the ‘moral code’ has changed over time. First, why does that mean a lack of objective morality? If God exists, and if their is objective morality, why would it be perfectly known at the start of time? If you start dating someone, doesn’t it take time to get to know them? Doesn’t the way that you treat a friend, relative, or spouse change over time as you get to know them? Secondly, why is it problematic if God does change over time?

    In points 2 and 3, the idea I am conveying is based on the claim that the Bible (or the Koran, Torah etc) is the be-all and end-all of morality. The people/religions that claim religious moral objectivity do so while pointing to their own holy books as the culmination of that objectivity. The holy book connection was not mentioned in the post. My apologies for the oversight.

    If your claim is that god’s morality takes millennia to communicate, it just lends support to my claim that the Bible/Koran/whatever is not the source of objective morality people claim it to be. I do not claim that your god changes over time. I claim that morality has changed over time and, because of this fact, no religious person can point to a book that’s been interpreted so many ways as objective. As to your point comparing a friend and god – a friend is not held to the same standard as a god. In fact, the claim religious people often make is that god DOESN’T change. He is constant.

    Based on your questions, it seems to me that you may have a modern/liberal way of approaching religion and morality. My quarrel is not with you. My quarrel is with those who say that the Bible, and whoever wrote it, are where so-called objective morality comes from. If you interpret the Bible differently than those people – saying that it and god are changeable over time – you are doing what Christians have been doing for hundreds of years – creating a morality that works for you in today’s society.

    Thanks.

  9. Jon on August 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Thanks for that response.  I certainly appreciate the clarification.
    Point 1 – What is your source on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism saying they believe in the same God?  The concept of God in Islam does share some similarities to the concept of God in Christianity and the concept of God in Judaism; however, I am not sure why you believe they are the same God.  For instance, in the concept of God in Islam, God has no resemblance to his creations, which is exactly the opposite of the concept of God in Christianity.  The concept of God in Christianity and Judaism is more similar; however, there is still a key distinction –  in Christianity you have a trinitarian God that does not exist in Judaism.
    So, if these three religions do not serve the same God, why wouldn’t they be at odds with one another?

    In regards to point two, I must apologize because in my intial response I focused on a tangential part of your point rather than your main point of the paragraph.  I think the answer to many of the questions in point 2 relate to whether objective morality is based on the bible, or based on the God the bible is about.  If objective morality is based solely on the bible, I would be more inclined to agree with your balogne assesment.  However, if objective morality is a matter of the bible and the God the bible is about, I would ask that we  refer to the commentary regarding point 3.
    The main question for Point 2 seems to be “Why are there so many different ‘Christian’ Denominations?”, followed by “Why are these denominations in conflict with each other?”  Clearly, the reason is because denominations are not supernatural, but man-made.    But that does not indicate that their is not a God or that their isn’t such a thing as objective morality.  To further explore Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists, and Christian denominations, I would draw on evolution and natural selection.  If an entity changes a little, it is still largely the same…but if it changes a little, and a little again, and a little again, it is no longer the same thing.  So, some denominations have only a little difference, but some have a great deal of difference.
    What is the significance of this?

    I would agree completely that the Bible (or Koran or Torah) is not the be-all and end-all of morality.  (Additionally, specific excerpts from any of these documents are not the be-all, end all.)  You have to consider God as well.

    I know that many religious people claim that God doesn’t change over time, but I would suggest reading “God of the Possible” by Gregory A. Boyd.  It may explain some of the concerns you list in point 3.

    I am not saying that God and the bible change over time,(The bible, especially, is pretty much ‘contained’ at this point) and I am glad that we can discuss and not quarrel with one another.

    I am doing (or seeking to anyway) what other Christians have been doing for hundreds of years which is to establish a relationship with God that is based on His word, the Bible, which is one form of communication that He has given to us.

  10. 40 Year Old Atheist on August 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    What is your source on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism saying they believe in the same God?

    Christianity has strong ties to the Old Testament. I’m no Bible scholar but I’m pretty sure Jesus said something like, “If it was good enough for my dad, it’s good enough for me”. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a direct commonality – the same god – between Judaism and Christianity.

    Likewise, Islam pays respect to the teachings before Mohammad. They like Jesus, they just don’t think he was the last profit. In other words, they follow the same god – they just don’t see Jesus as the key connection to that god.

    What is the significance of this?

    To me, the concept of religious moral objectivity can have no validity given this whole line of thinking. If god can’t get his message across consistently, then what does that say about his abilities?

    Religious authority aside, I *do* think there are some objective morals (e.g. killing is bad) that were established far back in our  evolutionary past whereas other moral ideas (e.g. owning a slave is bad) continue to evolve.

  • Why I Blog

    I'm here to help doubting believers let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with fellow non-believers. Welcome!

  • Subscribe/Bookmark

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button Follow 40yroldatheist on Twitter subscribe

  • Navigation


  • On Youtube

  • Great Reads

  • History & Statistics

  • Favorite Articles

  • Meaning of Life Type Stuff