The divine elephant in the room
Consider:
How morally righteous would all these tweets seem if they were aimed at a policy regarding pedophilia instead of homosexuality? The substitution makes them quite ludicrous, no? And why? Because most of us recognize that pedophilia is child abuse and child abuse is objectively wrong.
But what if homosexual behavior is objectively wrong as well? “Now wait a minute,” some may interject, “are you saying that two men who love each other as a married couple are as evil as a man who seduces young children for sex?” No. Here’s what I am saying:
- The orthodox Christian position is, and always has been, that homosexual behavior is prohibited by God and therefore a sin. When a Christian group or school establishes and enforces a policy excluding active homosexuals as employees it is because they are trying to live out their faith in obedience to him. They exist to glorify God and draw others into a relationship with him, so naturally they will be concerned with the beliefs and character of those who agree to be part of their mission.
- It is therefore grossly unfair to condemn as “hateful” Christians who take such a stand on homosexuality, as Ellen Page did in her celebrated spiel on Stephen Colbert’s show, and as many on the left routinely do. True Christians living out their faith do not hate gays but instead love them by wanting their good, which is ultimately knowing and obeying God. How we best demonstrate that love is a topic for debate, but to assume a motivation of hatred based solely on a policy that requires conformity to Christian principles is unjust, not to mention intolerant.
- The irrationality of concluding hatred from opposition is demonstrated by hypothetically replacing homosexuality with a different sexual proclivity still considered prohibited. Switch out five letters…LGBTQ…for one…a perverted P.
- So because we, for the time being anyway, consider pedophilia to be a perversion, we would fully support a school’s policy against it. And there’d be no talk of “pedophobia” and bigoted hatred.
- The issue then is the moral status of homosexual behavior, about which there is much disagreement.
The funny thing is, many if not most of those who advocate for the legitimacy, normalcy, and morality of homosexuality also reject God as a moral lawgiver. So they have no objective standard by which to judge its moral status. And without an objective, transcendent standard, they likewise cannot judge the morality of opposing homosexuality.
Theism and Christianity in particular, on the other hand, do have a foundation upon which to stake our claim that homosexual behavior is morally wrong…along with greed, lust, adultery, lying, arrogance, etc. etc. The foundation is God himself…his character and his commands. God has the lead role in the drama being played out every day over homosexuality, but half the cast ignores him. He’s the divine elephant in the room.
If those condemning, chastising, and ridiculing Christians for our stand on homosexuality would at least acknowledge that our sincere faith in God demands that we take such a stand, even if they believe our faith is unwarranted, maybe they’d be a little less quick to judge us hateful, homophobic bigots. But I suspect that most will continue to walk around the divine elephant, even as they deny that he’s there, so that they can continue in their smug self-righteousness.
Excellent logical argument, Caroline. Thanks for taking the time to carefully craft these important messages.
LikeLike
And thank you for taking the time to read and comment, David.
LikeLike
Pingback: god’s problem | Random thoughts
The funny thing is, many if not most of those who advocate for the legitimacy, normalcy, and morality of homosexuality also reject God as a moral lawgiver. So they have no objective standard by which to judge its moral status. And without an objective, transcendent standard, they likewise cannot judge the morality of opposing homosexuality.
I take issue with this claim here for several reasons, not the least of which is that you have no evidence that those who reject God as a moral lawgiver have no objective standards. Of course I can give no evidence myself beyond anecdotal experience but I can speak for many people I know who reject God as a moral lawgiver that we do have standards. One of those standards would be measure the behavior by the societal harm it causes. Does a small percentage of the population engaging in homosexuality cause any harm to society or individuals within the society? I would agree that if all people engaged in homosexual relationships only then this would be problematic from a survival standpoint, but clearly this isn’t the case. If the relationships are consenting then there is no harm to individuals. Yes there are non-consensual relationships and the spread of STDs but these are also present in heterosexual relationships so this is a separate problem. I would also add that I put the right of personal self-determination as an important standard as long as that self-determination does no harm to others. Dictating what consensual relationships (providing a person is of an age or ability to give consent) may engage in tends to have an adverse impact on society, so giving people the freedom to choose the loving relationships they participate in seems morally right.
The second problem with your statement here is that you say God an objective standard. I mean what you are really doing is giving God a position of authority and just assuming that everything He says is right and wrong is right and wrong. This is not objective. If we give authority to a dictator that dictator may have unjust laws yet we follow based on the authority given. That doesn’t make the dictator objectively right, just that the dictator has authority. If we look at what God did to Job in the bible, if any human did that to another person we would by any standard say this was morally wrong, but if God does it, well then I guess it’s okay. So again God is given authority, but is not objectively right. In fact God is only subjectively right because you apply a different standard to God then you would to other intelligent and sentient beings.
Finally what is precisely wrong with subjective standards? Certainly this can be bad sometimes, but let’s say my current knowledge of the world leads me to believe there is nothing wrong with the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, but then I come to understand that it does harm to the environment. I would then change my standard because perhaps the long term harm to life by burning fossil fuels is now greater than the harm of not having unlimited availability of energy to power society. Standards can evolve through time to improve human life and well being.
LikeLike
The argument I am making, Swarn, is that apart from God there can be no objective moral values and duties. I don’t have to have personal evidence of what any non-theist believes. The fact that you have standards does not mean they are objective. To be objective they must be true for everyone at any time whether anyone believes them or not. To suppose that there is an objective standard based on “societal harm” is to imagine that we are in a position to determine that, and that’s a claim I don’t think can be sustained.
And it would have to apply in every society. As I’m sure you know, there are cultures that believe female genital mutilation is good for their society. If you disagree, on what basis would you judge them? Humans will not all agree on what harm, if any, a particular deed or behavior does to society, so it basically comes down to opinion, which is subjective.
For example, I disagree with your conclusion that, “Dictating what consensual relationships (providing a person is of an age or ability to give consent) may engage in tends to have an adverse impact on society.” I believe same-sex marriage threatens the traditional family structure and so has “an adverse impact on society.” Same with adultery. Both are characterized by “consensual relationships.” Whichever of us is correct is not important right now. My point is that “societal harm” as a standard for determining objective morality is unworkable.
The claim that God is the objective standard is based on the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. I don’t have to “give” him authority; he has it by virtue of his very being.
According to your hypothetical example concerning fossil fuels, burning them was not wrong when you believed that, and then it suddenly became wrong when you changed your view. Does that even make sense? What’s wrong with morality being subjective is that someone can decide that according to their standard little children are not harmed by sex with adults, and you have no basis to call it immoral.
LikeLike
“To be objective they must be true for everyone at any time whether anyone believes them or not.”
This is true!
This is also the reason why objective morality *cannot* come from God. Because if God is the only source of morality, he could change his mind at any moment (helloooo Abraham and Isaac!), thereby rendering morality not true “for everyone at any time” and hence not objectively true. I’m not sure about you, but I can conceive of a greater being than that…
Unless you want to assert that God does not have free will? I assume the problem with that is self-evident.
LikeLike
God is the source of objective morality because he himself is the standard, and his character does not change. You seem to be suggesting one horn of the Euthyphro dilemma…that something is good only because God wills it…but it’s a false dilemma because there is a third option, that of God himself as the good.
Regarding God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, let me say a few things:
– He was not “chang[ing] his mind” on the moral value of child sacrifice based on at least two truths.
1.Taking innocent life (apart from a justifiable reason) is immoral for us because as created by God ourselves we have no such
right over other human beings. But God as our creator has the right to take our life whenever he wants and for whatever reason.
2.He did not allow Abe to bring the knife down and kill his son, so the actual killing of Isaac was not in God’s plan.
– In the context of this being a test, as the text specifically says, we can conclude that God did have a morally justifiable reason for commanding something that apart from his command would be immoral. He chose Abraham to be the spiritual father of all who would trust in God, and he had told Abe that he would be the father of many nations, through Isaac. Did Abraham believe and trust in God enough to obey such a difficult command that seemed contrary to God’s promise to him? He passed the test and is now considered the father of all who would be saved by trusting faith alone (Romans 4 and Hebrews 11).
– The event is a foreshadowing of Jesus being sacrificed for us, both (I think) in that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his “only son” and that God provided a substitute in the ram caught in the thickets.
Let me know if you discern any inconsistencies. On a side note…do you recall us discussing this very thing on a message board many moons ago?
LikeLike
What’s wrong with morality being subjective is that someone can decide that according to their standard little children are not harmed by sex with adults, and you have no basis to call it immoral.
That’s completely false. We know the harm sex with minor causes to their development and their ability to have healthy emotional and sexual relationships in the future. It is an objective fact. Whether someone believes it is not doesn’t change the fact that we can prove the harm it causes. The idea that we can’t objectively determine societal harm is ridiculous. The fact that we may not have it right at this moment in time is understandable, we do not have perfect knowledge. But human history has been a story of trying minimize harm to people and increase human flourishing.
According to your hypothetical example concerning fossil fuels, burning them was not wrong when you believed that, and then it suddenly became wrong when you changed your view. Does that even make sense?
It absolutely makes sense. Increased knowledge of the consequences of our actions leads us to knew decisions about what moral actions are. If for instance we did not know how to measure carbon levels in the atmosphere or know how the greenhouse effect worked we simply couldn’t know the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels. There are many examples of how increased understanding of how people, society, and the physical world works has led to changes in how we act in it and what we consider moral.
I believe same-sex marriage threatens the traditional family structure and so has “an adverse impact on society.” Same with adultery. Both are characterized by “consensual relationships.” Whichever of us is correct is not important right now. My point is that “societal harm” as a standard for determining objective morality is unworkable.
It absolutely does matter which of us correct because we can demonstrate through evidence which of us is correct. But more important your definition of the importance of the traditional family structure is a subjective standard. Family structures have varied from society and throughout human history. Hunter-gatherer tribes had a much different structure than agrarian ones. To suggest that one family structure is the right one would require you to provide evidence that it is superior. Can you do that?
The claim that God is the objective standard is based on the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. I don’t have to “give” him authority; he has it by virtue of his very being.
Are you able to define God? Who is defining God here? Man? Shouldn’t god define Himself. Most theists when it’s convenient for them like to use the argument that God is beyond our comprehension. But more than that, how do we know He has our best interest at heart? The bible is certainly full of wars, plagues and floods. How do you know God is benevolent? How do you know that your religion is the true one? If you feel there is evidence to support your religion being true, what standards of evidence do you use to make this claim? Is your evidence subjective or objective?
But you will continually paint yourself into a corner if you try to answer this question, because in the end you don’t have evidence, you have belief. And the fact that Christianity is split into as many denominations as it is demonstrate the subjectivity of the interpretation of “God’s word”, just as the translations over many language were subjectively done. There are plenty of Christians who don’t see homosexuality as immoral. There are Christians who don’t interpret the passages in the bible the same way you do that say homosexuality is wrong. So who is right? Surely it comes down to subjectivity. The Bible presents no objective facts about the existence of God or the divine at all. Just stories that are similar to cultures the world over.
And what about the fact that Christianity itself has not stuck to the same set of moral rules over time. Things like rape and slavery used to be no big deal. Now such acts are condemned by most Christians. Now you may say there have always been Christians who didn’t agree with slavery? Were they the true Christians? Who decides this. Can we objectively determine who is following Christianity properly?
To be objective they must be true for everyone at any time whether anyone believes them or not.
I agree, but how do you know we can’t determine that. I certainly don’t think female genital mutilation is moral and I can provide evidence that is causes harm both psychologically and socially. The fact remains is that you have no more idea whether your bible represents an objective standard as mine. Yours depends on the authority of a being you cannot prove or even agree on a definition of with other theists. And whose moral code is written in the book for which different interpretation exist across both geography and history for those who subscribe to it. The fact that I may not have perfect knowledge and this will lead to misunderstandings of which actions cause the least harm, doesn’t mean there isn’t a final objective standard I’m moving towards. Their may be objective moral standards we just haven’t figured them out yet and they simply wait to be discovered like any natural law. To suggest that when subjectivity is used that means one subjective standard is as good as the next is just plain fallacious. Through numerous academic fields when can demonstrate better and worse morality for human flourishing.
LikeLike
“We know the harm sex with minor causes to their development and their ability to have healthy emotional and sexual relationships in the future. It is an objective fact.” My response was to your question, “what is precisely wrong with subjective standards?” That’s what’s wrong. Objectively immoral deeds become subjectively immoral and therefore we can’t judge them. The fact is, there are people who do believe that children aren’t harmed by sex with adults. See here. They would not be persuaded by your evidence of harm.
Increased knowledge of the consequences of our actions leads us to knew decisions about what moral actions are. You’re not understanding my point. Your example of “changing standards” was merely a greater awareness of factors impacting the environment. The moral value of protecting the environment did not change, only your knowledge.
To suggest that one family structure is the right one would require you to provide evidence that it is superior. Can you do that? Again, I simply was making the point that, “‘societal harm’ as a standard for determining objective morality is unworkable” since we disagree on what harms society.
Are you able to define God? I am arguing from the traditional Christian worldview which sees God as the greatest conceivable being. If he is not perfectly good then there is something greater than him, which then would be God. I am not going to take the time here to defend Christianity. I’ve done that in multiple posts, which you can search for at your leisure. Your assertions about the Bible demonstrate a lack of familiarity and honest assessment of it, and I just don’t feel inclined to engage with you on it. I’ve learned enough over the last 7 years to have a pretty good idea when someone is interested in truth or just in debate.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can say this is the traditional Christian worldview, it ain’t. This is a philosophical position advanced by Anselm of Canterbury. And I am sure you have read of Gaunilo’s response and many other critics to the present day, chief argument being you cannot come from idea to reality, the mistake you seem to be making.
LikeLike
Objectively immoral deeds become subjectively immoral and therefore we can’t judge them. The fact is, there are people who do believe that children aren’t harmed by sex with adults. See here. They would not be persuaded by your evidence of harm.
Nor would they be persuaded by your arguments for Christianity for that matter. If I can objectively demonstrate that one practice is more harmful than another, I don’t see what’s not objective about that. Whether you disagree or not about what’s harmful doesn’t make your opinion on the matter correct. Not all opinions are equal. Whether someone “feels” having sex with children is morally right doesn’t make it right whether you want to make that standard God, or whether you want to make that a standard of individual and societal harm. There are concrete arguments that are not subjective to end that debate.
The moral value of protecting the environment did not change, only your knowledge.
In this case you are right, but it does change the morality of the particular action of using fossil fuels as opposed to not using fossil fuels. Certainly there are umbrellas that we might go up for any particular action. But there was clearly a time when we didn’t even think taking care of the environment was all that important. Many Christians today still feel the Earth was given to us by God to use as we please. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma clearly believes God controls the climate and will sustain or punish us as he pleases. The idea of the value of sustainable living has not been a constant throughout human history.
I am arguing from the traditional Christian worldview which sees God as the greatest conceivable being. If he is not perfectly good then there is something greater than him, which then would be God. I am not going to take the time here to defend Christianity. I’ve done that in multiple posts, which you can search for at your leisure. Your assertions about the Bible demonstrate a lack of familiarity and honest assessment of it, and I just don’t feel inclined to engage with you on it. I’ve learned enough over the last 7 years to have a pretty good idea when someone is interested in truth or just in debate.
You’ve completely missed the point. You are arguing for a worldview that you can only, at best, say is subjectively true. There have been many definitions of Gods throughout history. Christianity defines God their way. And even among Christians there is disagreement on the nature of God. Your assumption that I haven’t read the bible is quite errant. And I’ve learned enough over the past 7 years when someone can’t defend their they deflect. You’re doing a great job. You can’t prove the objectivity of your faith. Because it is a faith, and not objective in the least. You simply assert the existence of God and call what your interpretation of what he wants objective truth, when it represents far more subjectivity than my non-theist standards for what is moral and immoral behavior.
LikeLike