Objective Morality and the Bible

Objective Morality and the Bible 02/04/10

A new UP.net user briefly discusses whether or not the Bible poses a problem for morality within the Abrahamic traditions.

Authored by: .


This article and its arguments, while using the Judeo-Chrisitan God as described in the Bible as it’s template for God, and the attributes described to Him, should, to my limited understanding, extend to all abrahamic God’s, including that of the Muslim faith, et. al.

While not always in the form of an argument for the existence of a supreme being, sometimes merely pointed out as a “problem” for atheists, or at least something to ponder, many theists of all stripes point out lack of a moral compass for atheists to follow. In the argumentative form of this statement, it is often pointed out that their exists an, on the surface of it, objective moral order in the world. Regardless of whether or not this is true (I would contend it is not); this is then followed with the conclusion that the only explanation is the existence of a deity.

The argumentative form of the above statement is as follows.

  1. God is necessary for the existence of a set of objective ethical facts.
  2. An objective set of objective ethical facts exists.
  3. God exists.

As stated, I will not contest either 1 or 2, but will presuppose them to be true. My problem, however, is how the Abrahamic God can be compatible with the moral code presented in the Bible. The argument (which I will elaborate on and explain) is as follows.

  1. The Judeo-Christian God has revealed to human beings a perfect, objective moral set of ethical facts, contained in the Bible. (Ten commandments, Jesus, et. al)
  2. An objective set of ethical facts must be followed by all beings. Human beings and God must adhere to the same set of perfect, objective, ethical facts.
  3. God must follow any objective and perfect set of ethical facts.
  4. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Bible, does not adhere to ethical facts humans find to be true.
  5. Given [2-4], either God or Humans must follow an erroneous set of ethical facts.
  6. Given 3, Humans must follow an erroneous set of ethical facts.
  7. From [1-7], the Judeo-Christian God cannot have revealed to Human beings a true, objective, perfect, set of ethical facts.

It does not seem, to me, that many of these steps require explaining, save for (4).  Premises [1-3] seem obvious, and once (4) is explained, [5 - 7] follow logically. 3 follows from God being a perfect being, and a perfect being must adhere to the objective and perfect set of ethical facts.

In the Bible, God does many things which all sane Humans consider to be immoral. In any modern society, the expectation of a parent is not to require a sacrifice from their children after a wrong doing (Jesus). The problem is compounded wen God is given attributes which Humans do not possess, such as infinite love. A parent who left their children in the street because they did not make a sacrifice to them after a wrong-doing would be considered, by any court in the land, clinically insane. A similar verdict would be cast upon anyone who did the same, but not for the individuals wrong doing, but for their great-great-great grandfathers (Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve).

One may simply maintain that the Garden of Eden story was metaphorical, in which case it seems that Jesus’ sacrifice was unnecessary. If Jesus was simply taking on the sin which is/was present in every being simply due to the imperfect nature of human beings, the same problem arises. People in modern society are expected to forgive and forget, which God seems incapable of doing in the Bible in numerous situations. (The Flood, etc.)

Another ethical law which God does not adhere to is the usage of people as a means to an end. Take for example, the Book of Job, which I will assume you will have read. Any parents, for example, who, in trying to prove whose children were “tougher” had them take turns cutting off fingers to see who could last the longest, would be considered insane. And if, in the end, it turned out to be a “test” and the parents said “It’s ok, but, you still are losing a finger,” they would not gain an ounce of respect.

These are ethical laws which are set in stone to modern societies, and yet, God violates them both. How can an objective set of ethical laws, revealed by God, remain objective and yet be violated by the very person who revealed them?


You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Fedora

    Note : Typo – "4a.-6" should read "5-7." Formatting changed before publishing, I neglected to edit that portion. Sorry for the confusion!

  • Fedora

    Note : Typo – "4a.-6" should read "5-7." Formatting changed before publishing, I neglected to edit that portion. Sorry for the confusion!

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Objective Morality and the Bible | Urban Philosophy -- Topsy.com

  • noen

    Personally I deny #1, assert #2 and am agnostic about #3.
    –
    I don't see how your #3 "God must follow any objective and perfect set of ethical facts." must be so. Why must the Judeo-Christian God follow any objective morals? He isn't human. You also seem to be judging God's actions based on modern morals. To the best of my knowledge God's behavior in the Bible is consistent with the morals of those who were alive at the time.

    • Fedora

      An objective set of morals is, by definition, followed by any entity. If God can chose not to obey them, then he is essentially a "king," and we become his "subjects." In this scenario, the morals he reveals are not objective, as they can change as he wills them to.

      I personally deny #1 as well, but as I stated, I am assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. This is designed to be a counter argument to the argument from morality posited by William Lane Craig and the like.

      • noen

        I think that you are confusing "objective" with "necessary". I think there are objective morals and yet many do not choose to abide by them.

        • Fedora

          I agree. But God, as a perfectly moral being, MUST follow them, and I contend he does not.

          • noen

            Well, I don't understand absolutes. I never can understand what is meant when people claim god is omnipotent etc. What does it mean to be a "perfectly moral being"? I've no clue.

  • noen

    Personally I deny #1, assert #2 and am agnostic about #3.
    –
    I don't see how your #3 "God must follow any objective and perfect set of ethical facts." must be so. Why must the Judeo-Christian God follow any objective morals? He isn't human. You also seem to be judging God's actions based on modern morals. To the best of my knowledge God's behavior in the Bible is consistent with the morals of those who were alive at the time.

    • Fedora

      An objective set of morals is, by definition, followed by any entity. If God can chose not to obey them, then he is essentially a "king," and we become his "subjects." In this scenario, the morals he reveals are not objective, as they can change as he wills them to.

      I personally deny #1 as well, but as I stated, I am assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. This is designed to be a counter argument to the argument from morality posited by William Lane Craig and the like.

      • noen

        I think that you are confusing "objective" with "necessary". I think there are objective morals and yet many do not choose to abide by them.

        • Fedora

          I agree. But God, as a perfectly moral being, MUST follow them, and I contend he does not.

          • noen

            Well, I don't understand absolutes. I never can understand what is meant when people claim god is omnipotent etc. What does it mean to be a "perfectly moral being"? I've no clue.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    You write, “In any modern society, the expectation of a parent is not to require a sacrifice from their children after a wrong doing (Jesus).” Jesus never did anything wrong.

    You write, “The problem is compounded wen God is given attributes which Humans do not possess, such as infinite love.” Where does the Bible say that God has infinite love? Why is the “problem” “compounded”?

    You write, “One may simply maintain that the Garden of Eden story was metaphorical, in which case it seems that Jesus’ sacrifice was unnecessary.” One may not “simply maintain” this at all nor do you give any reason for maintaining it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/MitchLeBlanc MitchLeBlanc

      I think I agree with you on most of your points here. I'd just like to add that even if one does take the Garden of Eden to be metaphorical, it doesn't seem to follow that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary since while it may not be the case that two people, specifically Adam and Eve in a certain place committed sin against God, it could still be true that in some fashion sin was committed against God which would require some atonement, etc.

    • Fedora

      I never said Jesus did anything wrong. It is, to my understanding after many discussions with theists, the case that Jesus was crucified to "pay for," so to speak, the sins of Human beings.

      I have never met a Christian who said that God is not infinitely loving.

      And, many do maintain the genesis story is a metaphor, this is the case for theistic evolutionists, etc. etc.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    You write that, “In the Bible, God does many things which all sane Humans consider to be immoral.” Yet you had already written, “[I]t is often pointed out that their exists an, on the surface of it, objective moral order in the world. Regardless of whether or not this is true (I would contend it is not).” The conclusion to be drawn from your own words is that you are insane.

    You also write, “Human beings and God must adhere to the same set of perfect, objective, ethical facts.” Not even all human beings must adhere to the same set of moral laws. I am not justified in cutting someone open whereas a surgeon is. God does not have to adhere to laws that humans are to follow. You need to take into account the Creator/creature distinction.

    • Fedora

      May I ask where the contradiction is in those two statements? I presuppose that there IS an objective set of ethical facts, for the sake of argument. If there is NOT, then the argument which this is a response to has no weight.

      So, the creator of an object or being is justified in doing whatever they like with it? A parent can do whatever they like with their child, simply as they created it?

      • noen

        Parents do not create their children, they give birth to them but are not their makers. DNA does as it pleases with us and has the right to do so. That is Dawkins' selfish gene in a nutshell. DNA is amoral, just like God.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    You write, “If Jesus was simply taking on the sin which is/was present in every being simply due to the imperfect nature of human beings, the same problem arises.” Human beings in and of themselves are not imperfect in nature.

    You write, “People in modern society are expected to forgive and forget, which God seems incapable of doing in the Bible in numerous situations. (The Flood, etc.)” People are not expected to forgive and forget without repentance. God also expects repentance and the people killed in the flood did not repent.

    • Fedora

      And, it was my understanding that humans were considered imperfect after the fall. Could you explain this in more detail?

      Does not the Bible speak of forgiving and forgetting? "Turn the other cheek," among others. And, in the parent/child relationship, they most certainly are, typically. My son could do drugs, etc. and I would be considered wrong in shunning him and simply ignoring him, even if he didn't explicitly come to me and apologize.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    You write that, “In the Bible, God does many things which all sane Humans consider to be immoral.” Yet you had already written, “[I]t is often pointed out that their exists an, on the surface of it, objective moral order in the world. Regardless of whether or not this is true (I would contend it is not).” The conclusion to be drawn from your own words is that you are insane.

    You also write, “Human beings and God must adhere to the same set of perfect, objective, ethical facts.” Not even all human beings must adhere to the same set of moral laws. I am not justified in cutting someone open whereas a surgeon is. God does not have to adhere to laws that humans are to follow. You need to take into account the Creator/creature distinction.

    • Fedora

      May I ask where the contradiction is in those two statements? I presuppose that there IS an objective set of ethical facts, for the sake of argument. If there is NOT, then the argument which this is a response to has no weight.

      So, the creator of an object or being is justified in doing whatever they like with it? A parent can do whatever they like with their child, simply as they created it?

      • noen

        Parents do not create their children, they give birth to them but are not their makers. DNA does as it pleases with us and has the right to do so. That is Dawkins' selfish gene in a nutshell. DNA is amoral, just like God.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    You write, “In any modern society, the expectation of a parent is not to require a sacrifice from their children after a wrong doing (Jesus).” Jesus never did anything wrong.

    You write, “The problem is compounded wen God is given attributes which Humans do not possess, such as infinite love.” Where does the Bible say that God has infinite love? Why is the “problem” “compounded”?

    You write, “One may simply maintain that the Garden of Eden story was metaphorical, in which case it seems that Jesus’ sacrifice was unnecessary.” One may not “simply maintain” this at all nor do you give any reason for maintaining it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/MitchLeBlanc MitchLeBlanc

      I think I agree with you on most of your points here. I'd just like to add that even if one does take the Garden of Eden to be metaphorical, it doesn't seem to follow that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary since while it may not be the case that two people, specifically Adam and Eve in a certain place committed sin against God, it could still be true that in some fashion sin was committed against God which would require some atonement, etc.

    • Fedora

      I never said Jesus did anything wrong. It is, to my understanding after many discussions with theists, the case that Jesus was crucified to "pay for," so to speak, the sins of Human beings.

      I have never met a Christian who said that God is not infinitely loving.

      And, many do maintain the genesis story is a metaphor, this is the case for theistic evolutionists, etc. etc.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    You write, “If Jesus was simply taking on the sin which is/was present in every being simply due to the imperfect nature of human beings, the same problem arises.” Human beings in and of themselves are not imperfect in nature.

    You write, “People in modern society are expected to forgive and forget, which God seems incapable of doing in the Bible in numerous situations. (The Flood, etc.)” People are not expected to forgive and forget without repentance. God also expects repentance and the people killed in the flood did not repent.

    • Fedora

      And, it was my understanding that humans were considered imperfect after the fall. Could you explain this in more detail?

      Does not the Bible speak of forgiving and forgetting? "Turn the other cheek," among others. And, in the parent/child relationship, they most certainly are, typically. My son could do drugs, etc. and I would be considered wrong in shunning him and simply ignoring him, even if he didn't explicitly come to me and apologize.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    You write, “Another ethical law which God does not adhere to is the usage of people as a means to an end.” Where is this “ethical law” found in the Bible?

    You write, “These are ethical laws which are set in stone to modern societies” but denied that there were such things earlier.

    There are a lot of problems with this post. :/

    • Fedora

      The idea that morals are drawn from the Bible is the bedrock of the argument that this article is a response to. If humans hold a moral belief, then it has come from the Bible.

      I said that there are no objective morals. Things can be considered to be "set in stone" within a society. They need not to be objective for this to be the case.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    You write, “Another ethical law which God does not adhere to is the usage of people as a means to an end.” Where is this “ethical law” found in the Bible?

    You write, “These are ethical laws which are set in stone to modern societies” but denied that there were such things earlier.

    There are a lot of problems with this post. :/

    • Fedora

      The idea that morals are drawn from the Bible is the bedrock of the argument that this article is a response to. If humans hold a moral belief, then it has come from the Bible.

      I said that there are no objective morals. Things can be considered to be "set in stone" within a society. They need not to be objective for this to be the case.

  • Pingback: Response to Fedora on Objective Morality and the Bible | Urban Philosophy

  • Pingback: Bravus » A Little Philosophy Around God, morality and the Bible

  • Juan Flores7777

    The points make sense… But that is only to our own wisdom and knowledge. There are things in this life that are better unknown. God as the bible says is sovereign, we are sovereign as well but only as God allows. As in if we wanted to do something and we get success, it’s not because you are such a badass but because either:

    A. God gave you the skills to do that action.
    B. God allowed the action to be successful and a good consequence came of it.

    (Example A doesn’t always happen because even if you possessed the skill to do a successful action, it was God alone who’s capable of blessing the action.)

    When you read the 10 commandments and analyze them the first 4 are in regards as to how loyal you are to God, and the last 6 pertain to your loyalty to other human beings. Jesus fulfills the commandments by saying “love God with all your heart, might and soul, and love your neighbor as your self.” But as I was saying God is sovereign and the laws he placed on us do not affect them because 1. He created the law 2. He created us and everything in existence. The reason God breaks his own laws is because he has too. When he destroys an entire city through war or a straight up miracle is because its either:

    A. Beneficial to the person,place or thing the actions are being used on.
    B. Beneficial to someone else or something else.
    C. Beneficial to Society in General
    D. Beneficial to the entire Creation as a whole

    There is one example of God knowing that what He did was wrong in his eyes. The bible says that after God had sent the flood he had repented of what he did. Hence the rainbow and the promise to never completely flood the earth again. But I don’t believe that he repented of killing 99% of the human population for the sake of the evil they committed against Him and his creation. But I think He repented of the way he did it which was by flood.

    In the bible most of the reasons and entire city or society was destroyed was for there rebellion against God and his people. In Genesis Canaanite cities were destroyed because of their rebellion against God in the most fruitful land in the desert and God was willing to destroy those cities because of the promise he gave to the patriarchs because of Abraham’s willingness to obey God.

    God has the right to create and destroy anything and everything in His creation. Just as you have the right to destroy your T.V. because you paid for it.

    But there is one thing God cannot do and that is LIE. Lying is one of the best examples of morality based on reality. Like lying to your boss so you won’t get in trouble.

    God cannot lie because what worth is it to worship a liar who makes promises.

    So objective morals can only rightfully pertain to God and as to us we can pertain to absolute morality. Not only that the reason God doesn’t want us to sin is because breaking one commandment will lead to breaking more of them. Such as coveting can lead to stealing, and stealing could lead to lying and lying could lead you to be being killed by the person who you committed the said actions against. That can’t happen with God because God cannot sin as sin is breaking the commandments that God gave to humans, and since God is the first and the last as in being the first conscience entity in existence and being the everlasting spirit he is makes him eternal for ever. So that being said no one was there before God to give Him commandments to follow so he can follow his own perfect morality. God has a moral code but it is his own and he can do as he pleases. But another thing God does not do is change so we will never get an excuse for our sins and God will never change his moral code because He is sovereign and all-mighty.

    If you want the best morality to live by it is the morality of Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh. You want the perfect example of how God wants us to live, then pray for forgiveness, repent of your sins, read your bible and live your life as Jesus did in the bible. Think about it this way God the father is all spirit so the commandments do not affect him, but Jesus is God in the sinful flesh of a human body as in he felt the same pain and struggles we did but he lived a life that was sinless and never broke a commandment especially knowing that he had the power of God the father.

    Turn to Jesus Christ the one REAL person in your life who you have never met but loved you enough to die on the cross because we sin. God loves you soo much and does not want you to perish because you follow your own moral code. Turn to Jesus who will give you the strength to avoid breaking the commandments he gave you. So you can have perfect everlasting life with the God who created you.

    God bless

  • Daniel N.

    The premise #2 is false. It’s not even false, it’s impossible to know. It’s a wrong assumption that if most people share same set of moral beliefs, those beliefs are objective.

    And it’s quite easy to show that moral beliefs common to people are contradictory.

  • Pingback: sant maskeen singh

WordPress主题