I’m not asking if the belief is true I’m asking why some people emotionally and mentally prefer subjectivism instead of Christianity ?
there is a serious with your topic, and that is
the word ‘‘subjective’’… what exactly does that mean?
is being subjective the same as being an atheist?
What exactly does the word ‘‘subjective’’ mean in this context?
Kropotkin
A person determining reality based on emotions.
Your question is not quite clear. I will try to address it on how I understand it.
I guess by “Christianity” you refer to revealed truth, an unchanged message through the centuries and absolute moral codes that people need to follow to reach heaven.
On the other hand, “subjectivism” usually describes our human tendency to interprate truth and moral codes in a personal way, leading to large differences in those two between persons, societies etc.
There are several reasons why modern people prefer the second over the first.
- Initially, we need to take into account that fast traveling around the globe bring together people with highly different backgrounds together. When you see people with varying cultures, religions and traditions having “good” qualities (whatever good means for you), you realize that morality and truth cannot be restrained in a single source.
- There is of course the increase of knowledge spread for the general public in the last 100-150 years on various fields. Contrary to several centuries ago, when the advanced knowledge was privilege of the rich oligarchy, today even poor people can obtain it. Thus, the average citizen has access to other sources of knowledge than the Bible and what the priests are teaching in churches.
- Lastly, the absence of persuasive miracles in modern times drives people away from religion. 500 years ago, being sick or having any type of misfortune was easily attributed to evil spirits, the devil, etc. The development of science has demonstrated that such superstitions are unfounded. Natural explanations give not only satisfying answers, but can also provide possible solutions (cures for sickness through medicine, etc.). The holy books now are not the only way to address the fears of people.
1 Like
Christianity is subjectivism. They believe the universe is a product of a mind, that this mind can alter reality on command, and maintains reality by conscious will. You can’t get more subjective than that.
1 Like
In Ethics, subjectivism means you make the rules based on “I want what I want; who cares what everybody else wants?“. It is voluntarism.
The golden rule is better because it respects (recognizes and acknowledges in one’s thoughts, values, and behaviors) the personhood of every subject (person). This means we gotta care what everybody else wants (who ALSO care about what everybody else wants) when we think about what we want.
The only worldview that believes there is someone(s) described by the golden rule [meaning the rule is not only prescriptive, but descriptive/true… IF that someone(s) exists/behaves as original personhood/being] … is Christianity.
With regard to religious based absolute rules related to morality, Dawkins summarizes it quite well:
I think the parts of Scripture he cherrypicks as the acceptable parts are the ones on absolute morality (versus the ones on civil or ceremonial administration, which even Jesus critiqued…like the allowance Moses made for divorce… and where he & Dawkins agree regarding the Sabbath… not sure where Dawkins stands on divorce). Just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean it has God’s endorsement (of course… Dawkins wouldn’t acknowledge God’s “endorsement” as real, anyway … at least … not that I’m currently aware). (Sounds goofy: “Yes, I endorse my goodness.” Anyway.)
If he sees development in religious contexts, he calls it cherrypicking rather than philosophy/reasoning… it’s not cherrypicking when he does it. He’s the ultimate arbiter of reason. Totally buy it.
Except he wouldn’t call “absolute” what he finds acceptable. Even though he absolutely thinks religion is evil without qualification. I dunno, maybe he’s relaxed his position on that since his endorsement of The Moral Landscape (nature knows & cares now… sorta not really).
The God of the Old Testament organized genocide by killing everyone except Noah and his family in the flood (including also animals), punished kings who slept with Sarah while they were tricked to believe that they were Abraham’s sister, burned to the ground Sodoma and Gomorra, killed first born babies in the Exodus of Isralites from Egypt. All these only in the first chapters. They were done by God, not humans, so clearly He endorsed them.
The God of the New Testament is not better either: He demanded a human sucrifice (his Son in human nature) in order to “save” the humans. For those people before Jesus He gives no clue if they are saved or not, it remains a speculation debated among theologians.
In addition, the only moral rule that the New Testament accepts is: repend in front of the God and you will be forgiven. Not in front of those you harmed, but in front of the God. You can commit all sorts of crimes and still reach heaven after rependance.
That is Christian absolute morality.
1 Like
Too many things to address. All very addressable (some flat out false).
Let’s cut to the chase.
If God is not good, God is not God and good does not describe anything (is not true)—so no room to critique any being/action/value as good or evil. Examine everything in that light.
Is it possible a good being exists that grounds your moral intuition, and that nothing in your critique accurately describes who they are, how they behave, or why they value?
“All addressable” and yet nothing is addressed. Not bother to explain either what was false.
Since you do not provide a proper definition of good, it clearly does not describe anything concrete. Good and bad are subjective terms, even for Christianity. It took more than 17 centuries for the church to condemn slavery as evil. I guess before it was good.
Of course I can make critique on values, actions, good and evil. It is called subjective critique, that is why it varies from person to person. And that is why what is considered good by some it is considered evil by others and vice versa.
There are still societies in which parents hitting kids is a good way to discipline them. In my society however, this is considered evil. Plenty of room for subjective interpretations.
Instead of speculating “a good being”, let’s see what we actually have: I was born and raised in a society, by my parents. All my moral standards have been developed in this environment and I am accustomed with its rules. When I travel to other places I find people with certain (sometimes large) differences in moral codes.
I guess your “good being” has a rather random way to distribute “moral intuition”.
loled
the fact that i can “prefer” christianity in and of itself means that its subjective because its a choice
I prefer the truth, and truth is that we interpret the world around us in a subjective manner, person by person, experience by experience, life by life.
You basically asked why people prefer fact over fiction.
That’s just, like, your factual opinion, man.
Jk.
Replying to OP:
I’ma just put this right here:
The “golden rule”:
Do not do to others what you do not want others do to you,
Is so basic for survival purposes that it makes sense to appear in many cultures. You do not need special “moral intuition” to realize that if you start killing people uncontrolably, someone is going to kill you eventually. And any intelligent person can realize that strealing from others go both ways.
Yet, murderers and thieves still exist. For those the golden rule is broken? Or it is more reasonable to consider that they probably do not care about the consequences, or they believe that they can avoid them?
Every “rule” you can think of is or has been violated by some people. This clearly demonstrates subjectivism. The fact that many people agree with a rule does not make it inspired by higher beings, it just makes it popular.
It demonstrates free will, although a truly free will would not violate it.
If you imply that free will requires the existence of God, you knock the wrong door.
In my first post on this forum I was discussing how a form of free will can be compatible with a materialistic framework, without envoking any God. I have argued repeatedly in favor of a non-deterministic world, in which free motion and causality co-exist.
The physical possibility of giving one’s life for another who does mostly evil … which goes above and beyond the break-even of mere reciprocity … very few realize it in their actions. Especially rising again from the dead (life being a positive—not just a thing one avoids doing to others). Kinda miraculous, if the whole creation isn’t a bigger miracle we’re just habituated to. I mean… given the existence of a good, loving God… Jesus’ death & resurrection aren’t quite so improbable, but rather … what you’d expect (as if your own existence wasn’t enough).
This seems like a weird couple of things to compare. Like they’re not in the same category as each other. Why do some people prefer chocolate ice cream to Islam?
1 Like
Many ancient religions include miracles and rising from the dead. One more making similar claims is not something impressive.
Jesus was not the only one with claims to be risen from the dead. He is though the most popular, I give you that.
If you want to argue in terms of the number of ancient texts declaring his miracles, we should count also the miracles testified in ancient texts of other religions. These texts would have been many many more if the followers of the “true religion” had made an effort to preserve them (or, at least, to not destroy them).