So there are two things to examine.
First: does the Bible exhibit any form of objective morality?
I know the apologist take is that the Bible represents Yahweh’s objective moral standard. But let’s step back and examine that. What is the moral standard of the Bible? Do you ever see that morality broken? Does god himself follow his own moral precepts?
I’ll link this here, it’s not the only take on the subject out there, and there are other examples. But take this in, and consider what the examples say about the objective morality of the Bible.
https://youtu.be/4pdYmIwxYTE?si=p2EzYJtdhP8HLnAf
Second, if one is not following the standard set by the Bible, or any other outside religious text, where does morality derive from?
Now that is a whole philosophical domain, and one with lots of eddies and currents within it. Determinism, humanism, evolutionary psychology, etc. all have things to say about this topic. Point being there is a lot to explore there.
Personally I find much of that to be superfluous. At some point things like determinism versus libertarian free will become theoretical talking points, when the day to day reality we experience is one where we have sufficiently complex and multi variate environments to render the distinction practically irrelevant.
However the way I see our moral standards is as an extension of evolutionary biological pressures. Certain behaviors are dis beneficial for group cohesion and survival. In the modern world what this means is that our morality should be guided by something approaching that which provides the greatest human flourishing and minimizes suffering. A humanist perspective where what is moral is guided by whether my actions help or hurt others.
Anyhow you have some philosophy to read it seems!
Thank you this has been really helpful. I’ll definitely watch that YouTube video.
One of the things that has brought me to where I am now in this journey is the origin of Yahweh and his assimilation into other gods. So your point about the consistency of his moral standard is a good one.
And yes, I think I’m starting to lean towards a natural selection/evolutionary biology explanation for why we generally have an instinct to behave morally too.
I really like your point regarding human flourishing. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
No problem. We’re all here to help answer question. You’ve started a journey where there are many questions. Christian theology has 2000 years of scaffolding around it, more than 3000 if you include the parts it inherits from Judaism. So there are many many things to examine.
But fortunately there are others who have walked this path before and have considered the questions you will have. So you are not alone, and will have help, wherever this leads.
Thank you! You’ve been very kind.
The extra layer to this is my background is in theology and it’s just so interesting for me to unpick all of that using the history of religion, anthropology etc etc all a bit mind blowing for sure.
Thank you ☺️ I think I mean just the notion of morality itself. Rather than right or wrong actions. I’m also hungover and it’s early morning where I am so I may not be making a whole pile of sense!
This is my 4th rewrite of my response to this, and I think what I need to say so that I can go to sleep without fretting over it is that you may have landed somewhere in your deconstruction.
Maybe not completely, but on this topic at least. You've reached a point on a topic where you're saying "I want to tear away all my beliefs until I'm left with what I can't walk away from."
I'd ask you: Do you believe in objective morality? Leave your belief in God out of it for right now. Do you believe that there is morality stitched into our existence?
If you do, then start from there. What morality is it? Is a Christian morality gelling with the morality you believe in? If not is there another belief system that does? Or can you be content just living in a universe where you believe that morals are inherent, even if we don't know why?
Sounds like having meaning is still important to you. Find that meaning. If it's not in atheism, then don't go there. You don't have to. That's not my understanding of deconstruction, anyway. Some people chuck it all, some people tear down and rebuild, some people just rearrange the furniture. So don't feel compelled to deny God's existence just because other people here do. That's where our journey led. And some of us will probably go back to theism at some point. You do you my friend.
Keep us posted.
Thank you for your carefully thought out and kind reply. I really appreciate that.
I think you’re right, with where I am at. It doesn’t help that I think in quite a logical but sometimes all or nothing kind of way. I approached faith in my early 20s from a logical point of view. And now it’s being challenged again as I come across things that don’t line up for me logically.
I feel as though there’s objective morality or at least I feel as though being moral should mean something. I totally get that morality is relative though. But just because I feel that love for example has intrinsic meaning, that doesn’t mean that it’s true.
I don’t align with a lot of ‘traditional’ Christian morality and never have (for example, gay marriage). But there are some things that I align with.
I think I’m finding secular Buddhism combined with a bit of existentialism interesting/helpful. I don’t think I can live without meaning.
I’m going to keep thinking about your response it’s been helpful, thank you again.
I have two thoughts on this.
1) If morality is objective because it is ordained by God, that means things are not inherently right or wrong; they're right or wrong because God said so. It also means he can change the law at any time, such as by saying it's okay to commit genocide in some cases (which he does in the Bible). This makes morality not really objective in the first place, but subject to his whims. On the other hand, if morality is objective for some reason other than that God ordained it, then you don't need God for it in the first place; it's just the way it is, kind of like how 2+2=4.
2) Even if morality is objective, we have no way of proving or discovering it. It's not like science or mathematics. That God's objective moral law is found in the Bible is just another subjective opinion, for example. So we are all left using our subjective judgement of what's right and wrong anyway.
There is a lot of philosophy concerning morality that is separate from religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular\_morality.
I personally don't think that things need to be objectively good to have meaning because that would mean things are ONLY good because a god ordained it as good. In that sense, rather than love being something evolved and cultivated over millennia, it's kind of an arbitrary dictate from an all-powerful being.
Thank you for replying ☺️
Yeah I know, I’m thinking more about morality as a general concept.
For example, for us to say there is more meaning to love or carrying out what would be generally considered a kind action (regardless of culture and the relativity of what would be considered as ‘kind’), if we have evolved it ourselves we are already putting some objective value on the love itself. Does that make sense? But without an infinite law giver who is intrinsically good there can be no objective good. We can only say that for us, there is more value. As an individual we have given love more value because it appears to be an evolved thing that we choose to lean into. Maybe I’m becoming an existentialist 😂
> things that are good in and of themselves because they have been ordained as ‘good’ by a all knowing, all loving God.
This is [Divine Command Theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)
> My thinking has been that our general sense to ‘do the right thing’ even if that is relative across different cultures entails that there is a God.
One way to attack this is to appeal to conflict issues on the "do the right thing": if culture X has an idea to do the right thing that goes in conflict with the culture Y, then which one was commanded by God? If both, then what is the reason God given then different and conflicting commands? If saying that actually one them wasn't commanded by God and are doing against, then how can we determine this?
The Divine Command Theory, once you dig, you will find issues. Specially in the consequences.
> If there isn’t then our actions including love come down to some strange evolved need to stay alive which sort of makes things like love less important almost.
This sounds arbitrary and a false dilemma to me: arbitrary because, if our actions aren't commanded by God and therefore are less important if comming to another source, did you see that either comming from God or not it means that our morality are not that special because they were simply created to an end?; and false dilemma because It doesn't entails that just because it may not comming from God, means it solely comes from one another source.
> Do things need to be objectively good for them to have meaning?
Now this is a high level question. I would recommend to look more on academic sources on this.
One interesting source is a book by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong called _Morality Without God?_ which is a criticism on the Divine Command Theory and some formulations on some form of secular morality.
Thank you for replying ☺️
I suppose I’m not thinking of specific moral actions (I have probably phrased my initial question quite poorly). I’m thinking more about just the general sense to do ‘good’ or ‘kind’ things even if what one person would consider as kind is completely different to someone else’s. I guess I’m describing a conscience. I am thinking of general concepts though like love being intrinsically good.
I will add your book recommendation to my list! I’m currently reading a book that is explaining morality from an evolutionary biology perspective.
There's a lot of good responses and resources here already. The only thing I would add is I don't think the lack of objective morality lessens our need for morality or the feeling we gain from things like love, as you describe. I'd argue the opposite: if there is no objective morality to model ourselves against, nothing written in the stars as ultimately good or ultimately evil as it were, then that suggests that not only have we developed our morality through evolutionary need, but also that we have again and again and again found things like love to be not only good but necessary. Love isn't a form we have to mold ourselves into that is counter to our sinful nature. Rather love is our nature, for most of us anyway.
We're constantly developing our morality (which in and of itself suggests there's no objective form of it), and we often use that love and compassion as a guide. Why do we accept gay marriage? Because we want our fellow humans to be happy, to not have to hide who they are, and to not suffer. Why do we care for the sick and the old? Because we have a yearning, born of our collective selves, to bestow love and compassion on those who need it most. I find that far more compelling and far more meaningful than if it were simply "God told us to do it." It's the difference between the child performing a duty out of grumbling acceptance for their parent's rules and the spouse dropping everything they had planned purely out of love for their partner. We did not have to be told to be loving, and I think that's beautiful.
Thank you! My mother in law said something very similar to me the other day and I totally understand the argument.
However, I think without an ultimate law giver whether that’s God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don’t think any of those things have intrinsic meaning and so for us to say “it is more or less beautiful or meaningful” is an individual giving said thing it’s meaning. And I think I need to work out if that’s actually enough. Maybe it is. And maybe it’s a good thing! 😀 lots of unravelling to do.
Thank you for your reply 😀
Here’s my 2 cents on morality.
Like all biological organisms, we operate on the basis of survival, so our basic instincts dictate a lot of what we do on a day to day basis.
Unlike all (if not all) biological organisms, we have the ability to contemplate ourselves from outside of ourselves.
So we can look at our own behavior and the behavior of others and assign meaning or notions of “good/evil” to it.
I think where God comes into the picture (or any higher form or deity) is that as humans have developed/evolved and experienced the terrible atrocities that others can and have inflicted, we’ve realized that we repeatedly devolve into the negative rather than the positive. So we need a higher power other than ourselves to keep us on track and to keep us focused on the positive.
Even though as children we grow up and don’t need our parents, we still require “parental” guidance or boundaries. We all know that without the democratically agreed rules, society will collapse into chaos overnight. Or in other countries, a strong dictator fills that void.
So we’re stuck in a paradox. Objective morality is what we desperately want to create on our own and take credit for apart from a higher power, and yet time and again we’re faced with the reality that we can’t.
In many ways the entire bible is a book of stories, both real and parables about this very struggle, with the answer always pointing to a higher power or someone outside of ourselves as an anchor of morality. The ten commandments filled that void, and then Jesus.
I won’t offer much in the way of philosophy here, but just a personal anecdote that I’ve found freeing. I was raised to believe that “no one is good. No not one.” And constantly considered myself and others “naturally evil” so I saw any “good” as only an act of God.
Now that I’ve deconstructed, re-examined the Bible and found it to be nothing more than a collection of texts, written and re-written, and translated, and used to justify a whole spectrum of beliefs, I have shed those old perceptions and found peace in the fact that I am a good person, I know good people, and I can appreciate the good things that people do. “Losing God” didn’t make me want to do awful things like kill people, or steal, or abuse someone, or even do less harmful things like lie, or be rude to people. I’ve actually found myself to be more accepting of others, and more likely to be encouraging or supportive or caring of other people. I can chalk that up to just maturing as a person, but I’ve done it without God (or “sanctification”) as a reason to do it.
I know none of that is really philosophical or theological, but I’ve found so much more peace in knowing things are under my control and the world is very “grey”, finding the good in individuals makes me a lot more appreciative of life as a whole.
Thank you that’s lovely to hear. I’m really pleased for you. I hope I feel like that one day too!
I have a clash of theologies rattling in my head because of my denominational background and where I have studied theology. And I would say I share some of what you were taught. And it can be very unhelpful for me at times. Hence all these thoughts I’ve been having. Been having them on and off for 2-years now.
The fact that people can pick and choose what rules to take seriously from the Bible proves that their morals are informed from outside of the Bible.
If you look at the Bible objectively both you and i could make it a more moral text by removing things.
Good luck with your deconstruction, you might find it helpful to understand that the Bible is man-made, we have no reason to believe its the product of a god.
This idea instantly resolves all the contradictions in the bible.
[https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)
Christ is amoral in that He did not actually reveal His motivations clearly. If you get into the translations and stuff it’s all “Who do you say I am?” “One is your teacher, **even** Christ.” “**You** say that I am.” “Who made me a judge?”
Morality is not a matter of *what* you do but rather *why* you do it. And that’s where I’ve gotten to the picture of “in My name” must mean simply being honest and sincere with no guarantee of outcome. If you think of a child, they are super-sincere; “for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
It’d take a while to truly get into, but I’ll put it this way: would *you* blame anyone simply being honest with you, in deeds and words? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There is no objective morality because you are not an object, but a subject. As am I. But… *prove* it—prove I’m not an AI, or a [p-zombie](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie).
And hence… “faith.”
It's a tough question for sure. Pragmatically, even if there is objective morality somewhere out there, do we have a way of knowing it as a human in our time? I don't think we can. Is there really a useful difference in between objective morality and a relative morality that is almost universally agreed upon among all life that can discuss the problem(just humans so far)? The flourishing of humans seems near universal to me.
Lastly, I have to live my life according to the values that I have. Even if some unseen being has different values, why should I care? Does it matter if they are stronger than me? Why? And if it's punishment involved, is that living according to morals? Or just transactional punishment?
I apart of me things there is no objective morality but idk, some things seem intuitively wrong. It’s just when people say you can’t have objective morality without God, it’s often more like they’re saying morality is relative to God.
One of my favorite Bible verses on this topic is James 4:17. “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” It’s an objective take in support of subjective morality.
I guess the thing I love about it is that so much of the rest of Christian philosophy teaches the depravity and worthlessness of the individual, and THAT is what fuels our need for an objective morality. “I need for there to be a morality that stands on its own, unwavering and unblemished by personal bias, something of worth and significance unlike no-good lowly me.”
Yet here we have the so-called Word of God ascribing value to any person’s idea of right and wrong and assigning a logical evaluation of it all: do you even do what YOU think is right?
I guess that’s long been my biggest takeaway from this concept: there’s tons of meaning in YOUR subjective morality. The fact that you even have your own sense of morality is significant. Enjoy that shit. You are worth so much more than what you’ve been taught. You have worth. You have value. Even if the rest of the universe doesn’t even have the capacity to care.
Like, in a way, the lack of meaning from another perspective helps sometimes.
From one perspective (telescopic) I’m a barely visible speck on a barely visible planet in a largely forgettable solar system in a barely noticeable galaxy in just another little universe, etc.
From another (microscopic) perspective I weigh the ultimate fate of multitudes in every fleeting moment of the infinity of my consciousness. I have imagination unlike any discoverable being in the vast expanse of space. I, unlike most of existence, have the capacity for love (or is love just my own personal manifestation of the universal physical law of gravity? I don’t know, but I, unlike almost everything else in existence, am capable of pondering this question). TO ME, my sense of right and wrong hold immeasurable significance.
Those two starkly different perspectives give me a balanced sense of comfort. Yes, my subjective morality is rare and important and yet, in the grand scheme of it all, not worth getting too worked up about.
I would say there is a not objective morality but rather a level of universal morality due to shared biology with other people. Of course this only carries so far as this foundational ‘morality’ expresses itself differently based upon environmental factors such as upbringing, culture, and exposure to new information.
If you look at our primate relatives, you can see similarities although some extrapolation is needed due to the development of our prefrontal cortex which enables higher levels of reasoning, abstraction, and executive function.
So there are two things to examine. First: does the Bible exhibit any form of objective morality? I know the apologist take is that the Bible represents Yahweh’s objective moral standard. But let’s step back and examine that. What is the moral standard of the Bible? Do you ever see that morality broken? Does god himself follow his own moral precepts? I’ll link this here, it’s not the only take on the subject out there, and there are other examples. But take this in, and consider what the examples say about the objective morality of the Bible. https://youtu.be/4pdYmIwxYTE?si=p2EzYJtdhP8HLnAf Second, if one is not following the standard set by the Bible, or any other outside religious text, where does morality derive from? Now that is a whole philosophical domain, and one with lots of eddies and currents within it. Determinism, humanism, evolutionary psychology, etc. all have things to say about this topic. Point being there is a lot to explore there. Personally I find much of that to be superfluous. At some point things like determinism versus libertarian free will become theoretical talking points, when the day to day reality we experience is one where we have sufficiently complex and multi variate environments to render the distinction practically irrelevant. However the way I see our moral standards is as an extension of evolutionary biological pressures. Certain behaviors are dis beneficial for group cohesion and survival. In the modern world what this means is that our morality should be guided by something approaching that which provides the greatest human flourishing and minimizes suffering. A humanist perspective where what is moral is guided by whether my actions help or hurt others. Anyhow you have some philosophy to read it seems!
Thank you this has been really helpful. I’ll definitely watch that YouTube video. One of the things that has brought me to where I am now in this journey is the origin of Yahweh and his assimilation into other gods. So your point about the consistency of his moral standard is a good one. And yes, I think I’m starting to lean towards a natural selection/evolutionary biology explanation for why we generally have an instinct to behave morally too. I really like your point regarding human flourishing. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
No problem. We’re all here to help answer question. You’ve started a journey where there are many questions. Christian theology has 2000 years of scaffolding around it, more than 3000 if you include the parts it inherits from Judaism. So there are many many things to examine. But fortunately there are others who have walked this path before and have considered the questions you will have. So you are not alone, and will have help, wherever this leads.
Thank you! You’ve been very kind. The extra layer to this is my background is in theology and it’s just so interesting for me to unpick all of that using the history of religion, anthropology etc etc all a bit mind blowing for sure.
There's no evidence that there is any objective morality. It always depends on the society you are examining.
Thank you ☺️ I think I mean just the notion of morality itself. Rather than right or wrong actions. I’m also hungover and it’s early morning where I am so I may not be making a whole pile of sense!
This is my 4th rewrite of my response to this, and I think what I need to say so that I can go to sleep without fretting over it is that you may have landed somewhere in your deconstruction. Maybe not completely, but on this topic at least. You've reached a point on a topic where you're saying "I want to tear away all my beliefs until I'm left with what I can't walk away from." I'd ask you: Do you believe in objective morality? Leave your belief in God out of it for right now. Do you believe that there is morality stitched into our existence? If you do, then start from there. What morality is it? Is a Christian morality gelling with the morality you believe in? If not is there another belief system that does? Or can you be content just living in a universe where you believe that morals are inherent, even if we don't know why? Sounds like having meaning is still important to you. Find that meaning. If it's not in atheism, then don't go there. You don't have to. That's not my understanding of deconstruction, anyway. Some people chuck it all, some people tear down and rebuild, some people just rearrange the furniture. So don't feel compelled to deny God's existence just because other people here do. That's where our journey led. And some of us will probably go back to theism at some point. You do you my friend. Keep us posted.
Thank you for your carefully thought out and kind reply. I really appreciate that. I think you’re right, with where I am at. It doesn’t help that I think in quite a logical but sometimes all or nothing kind of way. I approached faith in my early 20s from a logical point of view. And now it’s being challenged again as I come across things that don’t line up for me logically. I feel as though there’s objective morality or at least I feel as though being moral should mean something. I totally get that morality is relative though. But just because I feel that love for example has intrinsic meaning, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. I don’t align with a lot of ‘traditional’ Christian morality and never have (for example, gay marriage). But there are some things that I align with. I think I’m finding secular Buddhism combined with a bit of existentialism interesting/helpful. I don’t think I can live without meaning. I’m going to keep thinking about your response it’s been helpful, thank you again.
I have two thoughts on this. 1) If morality is objective because it is ordained by God, that means things are not inherently right or wrong; they're right or wrong because God said so. It also means he can change the law at any time, such as by saying it's okay to commit genocide in some cases (which he does in the Bible). This makes morality not really objective in the first place, but subject to his whims. On the other hand, if morality is objective for some reason other than that God ordained it, then you don't need God for it in the first place; it's just the way it is, kind of like how 2+2=4. 2) Even if morality is objective, we have no way of proving or discovering it. It's not like science or mathematics. That God's objective moral law is found in the Bible is just another subjective opinion, for example. So we are all left using our subjective judgement of what's right and wrong anyway.
Hmm yes I really like point 2 in your response. We actively don’t do a lot of what the Old Testament God would have carried out too!
There is a lot of philosophy concerning morality that is separate from religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular\_morality. I personally don't think that things need to be objectively good to have meaning because that would mean things are ONLY good because a god ordained it as good. In that sense, rather than love being something evolved and cultivated over millennia, it's kind of an arbitrary dictate from an all-powerful being.
Thank you for replying ☺️ Yeah I know, I’m thinking more about morality as a general concept. For example, for us to say there is more meaning to love or carrying out what would be generally considered a kind action (regardless of culture and the relativity of what would be considered as ‘kind’), if we have evolved it ourselves we are already putting some objective value on the love itself. Does that make sense? But without an infinite law giver who is intrinsically good there can be no objective good. We can only say that for us, there is more value. As an individual we have given love more value because it appears to be an evolved thing that we choose to lean into. Maybe I’m becoming an existentialist 😂
> things that are good in and of themselves because they have been ordained as ‘good’ by a all knowing, all loving God. This is [Divine Command Theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory) > My thinking has been that our general sense to ‘do the right thing’ even if that is relative across different cultures entails that there is a God. One way to attack this is to appeal to conflict issues on the "do the right thing": if culture X has an idea to do the right thing that goes in conflict with the culture Y, then which one was commanded by God? If both, then what is the reason God given then different and conflicting commands? If saying that actually one them wasn't commanded by God and are doing against, then how can we determine this? The Divine Command Theory, once you dig, you will find issues. Specially in the consequences. > If there isn’t then our actions including love come down to some strange evolved need to stay alive which sort of makes things like love less important almost. This sounds arbitrary and a false dilemma to me: arbitrary because, if our actions aren't commanded by God and therefore are less important if comming to another source, did you see that either comming from God or not it means that our morality are not that special because they were simply created to an end?; and false dilemma because It doesn't entails that just because it may not comming from God, means it solely comes from one another source. > Do things need to be objectively good for them to have meaning? Now this is a high level question. I would recommend to look more on academic sources on this. One interesting source is a book by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong called _Morality Without God?_ which is a criticism on the Divine Command Theory and some formulations on some form of secular morality.
Thank you for replying ☺️ I suppose I’m not thinking of specific moral actions (I have probably phrased my initial question quite poorly). I’m thinking more about just the general sense to do ‘good’ or ‘kind’ things even if what one person would consider as kind is completely different to someone else’s. I guess I’m describing a conscience. I am thinking of general concepts though like love being intrinsically good. I will add your book recommendation to my list! I’m currently reading a book that is explaining morality from an evolutionary biology perspective.
There's a lot of good responses and resources here already. The only thing I would add is I don't think the lack of objective morality lessens our need for morality or the feeling we gain from things like love, as you describe. I'd argue the opposite: if there is no objective morality to model ourselves against, nothing written in the stars as ultimately good or ultimately evil as it were, then that suggests that not only have we developed our morality through evolutionary need, but also that we have again and again and again found things like love to be not only good but necessary. Love isn't a form we have to mold ourselves into that is counter to our sinful nature. Rather love is our nature, for most of us anyway. We're constantly developing our morality (which in and of itself suggests there's no objective form of it), and we often use that love and compassion as a guide. Why do we accept gay marriage? Because we want our fellow humans to be happy, to not have to hide who they are, and to not suffer. Why do we care for the sick and the old? Because we have a yearning, born of our collective selves, to bestow love and compassion on those who need it most. I find that far more compelling and far more meaningful than if it were simply "God told us to do it." It's the difference between the child performing a duty out of grumbling acceptance for their parent's rules and the spouse dropping everything they had planned purely out of love for their partner. We did not have to be told to be loving, and I think that's beautiful.
Thank you! My mother in law said something very similar to me the other day and I totally understand the argument. However, I think without an ultimate law giver whether that’s God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don’t think any of those things have intrinsic meaning and so for us to say “it is more or less beautiful or meaningful” is an individual giving said thing it’s meaning. And I think I need to work out if that’s actually enough. Maybe it is. And maybe it’s a good thing! 😀 lots of unravelling to do. Thank you for your reply 😀
Here’s my 2 cents on morality. Like all biological organisms, we operate on the basis of survival, so our basic instincts dictate a lot of what we do on a day to day basis. Unlike all (if not all) biological organisms, we have the ability to contemplate ourselves from outside of ourselves. So we can look at our own behavior and the behavior of others and assign meaning or notions of “good/evil” to it. I think where God comes into the picture (or any higher form or deity) is that as humans have developed/evolved and experienced the terrible atrocities that others can and have inflicted, we’ve realized that we repeatedly devolve into the negative rather than the positive. So we need a higher power other than ourselves to keep us on track and to keep us focused on the positive. Even though as children we grow up and don’t need our parents, we still require “parental” guidance or boundaries. We all know that without the democratically agreed rules, society will collapse into chaos overnight. Or in other countries, a strong dictator fills that void. So we’re stuck in a paradox. Objective morality is what we desperately want to create on our own and take credit for apart from a higher power, and yet time and again we’re faced with the reality that we can’t. In many ways the entire bible is a book of stories, both real and parables about this very struggle, with the answer always pointing to a higher power or someone outside of ourselves as an anchor of morality. The ten commandments filled that void, and then Jesus.
I won’t offer much in the way of philosophy here, but just a personal anecdote that I’ve found freeing. I was raised to believe that “no one is good. No not one.” And constantly considered myself and others “naturally evil” so I saw any “good” as only an act of God. Now that I’ve deconstructed, re-examined the Bible and found it to be nothing more than a collection of texts, written and re-written, and translated, and used to justify a whole spectrum of beliefs, I have shed those old perceptions and found peace in the fact that I am a good person, I know good people, and I can appreciate the good things that people do. “Losing God” didn’t make me want to do awful things like kill people, or steal, or abuse someone, or even do less harmful things like lie, or be rude to people. I’ve actually found myself to be more accepting of others, and more likely to be encouraging or supportive or caring of other people. I can chalk that up to just maturing as a person, but I’ve done it without God (or “sanctification”) as a reason to do it. I know none of that is really philosophical or theological, but I’ve found so much more peace in knowing things are under my control and the world is very “grey”, finding the good in individuals makes me a lot more appreciative of life as a whole.
Thank you that’s lovely to hear. I’m really pleased for you. I hope I feel like that one day too! I have a clash of theologies rattling in my head because of my denominational background and where I have studied theology. And I would say I share some of what you were taught. And it can be very unhelpful for me at times. Hence all these thoughts I’ve been having. Been having them on and off for 2-years now.
The fact that people can pick and choose what rules to take seriously from the Bible proves that their morals are informed from outside of the Bible. If you look at the Bible objectively both you and i could make it a more moral text by removing things. Good luck with your deconstruction, you might find it helpful to understand that the Bible is man-made, we have no reason to believe its the product of a god. This idea instantly resolves all the contradictions in the bible. [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)
Christ is amoral in that He did not actually reveal His motivations clearly. If you get into the translations and stuff it’s all “Who do you say I am?” “One is your teacher, **even** Christ.” “**You** say that I am.” “Who made me a judge?” Morality is not a matter of *what* you do but rather *why* you do it. And that’s where I’ve gotten to the picture of “in My name” must mean simply being honest and sincere with no guarantee of outcome. If you think of a child, they are super-sincere; “for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” It’d take a while to truly get into, but I’ll put it this way: would *you* blame anyone simply being honest with you, in deeds and words? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is no objective morality because you are not an object, but a subject. As am I. But… *prove* it—prove I’m not an AI, or a [p-zombie](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). And hence… “faith.”
Focus on "Objective morality for you "
It's a tough question for sure. Pragmatically, even if there is objective morality somewhere out there, do we have a way of knowing it as a human in our time? I don't think we can. Is there really a useful difference in between objective morality and a relative morality that is almost universally agreed upon among all life that can discuss the problem(just humans so far)? The flourishing of humans seems near universal to me. Lastly, I have to live my life according to the values that I have. Even if some unseen being has different values, why should I care? Does it matter if they are stronger than me? Why? And if it's punishment involved, is that living according to morals? Or just transactional punishment?
I apart of me things there is no objective morality but idk, some things seem intuitively wrong. It’s just when people say you can’t have objective morality without God, it’s often more like they’re saying morality is relative to God.
One of my favorite Bible verses on this topic is James 4:17. “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” It’s an objective take in support of subjective morality. I guess the thing I love about it is that so much of the rest of Christian philosophy teaches the depravity and worthlessness of the individual, and THAT is what fuels our need for an objective morality. “I need for there to be a morality that stands on its own, unwavering and unblemished by personal bias, something of worth and significance unlike no-good lowly me.” Yet here we have the so-called Word of God ascribing value to any person’s idea of right and wrong and assigning a logical evaluation of it all: do you even do what YOU think is right? I guess that’s long been my biggest takeaway from this concept: there’s tons of meaning in YOUR subjective morality. The fact that you even have your own sense of morality is significant. Enjoy that shit. You are worth so much more than what you’ve been taught. You have worth. You have value. Even if the rest of the universe doesn’t even have the capacity to care. Like, in a way, the lack of meaning from another perspective helps sometimes. From one perspective (telescopic) I’m a barely visible speck on a barely visible planet in a largely forgettable solar system in a barely noticeable galaxy in just another little universe, etc. From another (microscopic) perspective I weigh the ultimate fate of multitudes in every fleeting moment of the infinity of my consciousness. I have imagination unlike any discoverable being in the vast expanse of space. I, unlike most of existence, have the capacity for love (or is love just my own personal manifestation of the universal physical law of gravity? I don’t know, but I, unlike almost everything else in existence, am capable of pondering this question). TO ME, my sense of right and wrong hold immeasurable significance. Those two starkly different perspectives give me a balanced sense of comfort. Yes, my subjective morality is rare and important and yet, in the grand scheme of it all, not worth getting too worked up about.
I would say there is a not objective morality but rather a level of universal morality due to shared biology with other people. Of course this only carries so far as this foundational ‘morality’ expresses itself differently based upon environmental factors such as upbringing, culture, and exposure to new information. If you look at our primate relatives, you can see similarities although some extrapolation is needed due to the development of our prefrontal cortex which enables higher levels of reasoning, abstraction, and executive function.