For me one of the most frustrating arguments used by religious supporters and apologetics is the idea that the existence of god(s) or other statements of religious beliefs are subjective. This is usually phrased by comparing religious beliefs to subjective concepts such as having a favorite song or liking a particular type of food.
This is absurd in its nonsense. Let's look at some common religious claims.
- God exists.
- Jesus of Nazareth was the earthly manifestation of God, was God's son, was Mankind's Savior, and was executed via crucifixion by the Romans circa 33 A.D. and rose from the dead 3 days later.
- Mohammad was the last and most perfect of a series of Prophets sent by God to reveal his plan for mankind.
- After death God will judge me based upon my actions in life and either reward me with an eternity in an otherworldly paradise or condemn me to an eternity of punishment in Hell (or temporarily punish me in Purgatory, or allow me to continue my existence in the neutral state of Limbo, depending on the exact belief.)
- After death I will be reincarnated into a higher or lower state of life or social caste, depending upon my actions in this life.
- Siddhārtha Gautama obtained perfect enlightment while meditating under a Bodhi tree and is 9th out of 10 Dashavatara, or Avatars, of Vishnu.
None of these are subjective claims. They are objective statements that either are or are not true. (I guess you could argue that "enlightment" is subjective, but even then you're arguing an objective measure of it to promote it as a religion). None of these can be true for me and not true for you and regardless are almost never argued that way anyway.
"Hotel California by the Eagles is the best album of all time" is a subjective statement. If I make this statement and you go "No Rumors by Fleetwood Mac is the best album of all time" we can both be "right" without breaking any intellectual standards. I say a turkey club on rye taste good, you say it taste bad. Again in that instance we can both be right without breaking any intellectual rules. Both those differences in opinion are based on perceptions of the world and emotional reactions to those differences in perception.
"God exists" is not a matter of perception or an emotional reaction. It is a statement of fact that either does or does not accurately represent reality.
I've been told that asking someone to prove God exists is akin to asking someone to prove their spouse loves them or that they enjoy listening to their favorite album. This is unfair comparison. No I cannot objectively prove my wife loves me or that I enjoy listening to Tom Wait's Heart of Saturday Night but if necessary I can prove objectively that both my wife and an album titled Heart of Saturday Night by an artist named Tom Waits exists.
Even subjective statements are usually dependant on objective facts. Saying something is your favorite album is an almost purely subjective statement, but it's still dependant on the album actually existing. Simply because your opinion of your favorite album is subjective doesn't mean you can claim that your favorite album is the second studio album by Jeff Buckley or the 14th studio album by the Beatles... because they suffer the rather inescapable problem of not existing. My favorite sandwich can't be a unicorn meat on lembas bread club.
So while "God loves me" would possibly be a subjective statement depending on circumstances, it is still dependant on the existence of God, which is an objective statement and using the prior as proof of the later, as I have encoutered on more then a few occassions, is putting the subjective cart ahead of the objective horse.
Subjective means subjective, not random, arbitrary, or meaningless. Even subjective statements still operate under certain rules.
There's also the problem of people using subjectivity as yet another way to confuse the old "Unknown versus Unknowable" falsehood. No right now we can't prove what happens after you die. But just because science hasn't yet invented a cell phone with an afterlife roaming plan doesn't make the statement "Our conscious existence continues after the biological death of our physical body" a subjective statement either.
This is absurd in its nonsense. Let's look at some common religious claims.
- God exists.
- Jesus of Nazareth was the earthly manifestation of God, was God's son, was Mankind's Savior, and was executed via crucifixion by the Romans circa 33 A.D. and rose from the dead 3 days later.
- Mohammad was the last and most perfect of a series of Prophets sent by God to reveal his plan for mankind.
- After death God will judge me based upon my actions in life and either reward me with an eternity in an otherworldly paradise or condemn me to an eternity of punishment in Hell (or temporarily punish me in Purgatory, or allow me to continue my existence in the neutral state of Limbo, depending on the exact belief.)
- After death I will be reincarnated into a higher or lower state of life or social caste, depending upon my actions in this life.
- Siddhārtha Gautama obtained perfect enlightment while meditating under a Bodhi tree and is 9th out of 10 Dashavatara, or Avatars, of Vishnu.
None of these are subjective claims. They are objective statements that either are or are not true. (I guess you could argue that "enlightment" is subjective, but even then you're arguing an objective measure of it to promote it as a religion). None of these can be true for me and not true for you and regardless are almost never argued that way anyway.
"Hotel California by the Eagles is the best album of all time" is a subjective statement. If I make this statement and you go "No Rumors by Fleetwood Mac is the best album of all time" we can both be "right" without breaking any intellectual standards. I say a turkey club on rye taste good, you say it taste bad. Again in that instance we can both be right without breaking any intellectual rules. Both those differences in opinion are based on perceptions of the world and emotional reactions to those differences in perception.
"God exists" is not a matter of perception or an emotional reaction. It is a statement of fact that either does or does not accurately represent reality.
I've been told that asking someone to prove God exists is akin to asking someone to prove their spouse loves them or that they enjoy listening to their favorite album. This is unfair comparison. No I cannot objectively prove my wife loves me or that I enjoy listening to Tom Wait's Heart of Saturday Night but if necessary I can prove objectively that both my wife and an album titled Heart of Saturday Night by an artist named Tom Waits exists.
Even subjective statements are usually dependant on objective facts. Saying something is your favorite album is an almost purely subjective statement, but it's still dependant on the album actually existing. Simply because your opinion of your favorite album is subjective doesn't mean you can claim that your favorite album is the second studio album by Jeff Buckley or the 14th studio album by the Beatles... because they suffer the rather inescapable problem of not existing. My favorite sandwich can't be a unicorn meat on lembas bread club.
So while "God loves me" would possibly be a subjective statement depending on circumstances, it is still dependant on the existence of God, which is an objective statement and using the prior as proof of the later, as I have encoutered on more then a few occassions, is putting the subjective cart ahead of the objective horse.
Subjective means subjective, not random, arbitrary, or meaningless. Even subjective statements still operate under certain rules.
There's also the problem of people using subjectivity as yet another way to confuse the old "Unknown versus Unknowable" falsehood. No right now we can't prove what happens after you die. But just because science hasn't yet invented a cell phone with an afterlife roaming plan doesn't make the statement "Our conscious existence continues after the biological death of our physical body" a subjective statement either.
)