The Inherent Subjectivity in Theistic Sexual Ethics

 

(Note: What follows is a transcript of the above video)

I believe I’ve discovered a conflict between the moral argument for the existence of god and both the contingency argument and the design argument that results in a tangible way to demonstrate how parts of theistic ethical systems are inherently and inescapably subjective.

I’ve made videos countering the moral argument in the past pointing out that theistic grounding of moral values in god’s nature is inherently subjective by definition. This is because philosophers and apologists define objectivity as being “mind independent”, and if god’s nature grounds moral values, and god is understood to be a disembodied mind – then the nature of a mind is by definition dependent on a mind.

I still think that objection works and is useful, but it’s still semantic in nature. Atheists can do better to show how a number of moral obligations that theists want to impose on society are inherently and inescapably subjective, not objective in nature.

Comments on Atheists I Respect Becoming Agnostics

 

Note: What follows is a transcription of the video.

Recently two atheists who I respect have announced that they are now agnostics. I’m speaking of Emerson Green and Matthew Adelstein who have put out a video and blog post respectively about their journey from atheism to agnosticism. If you haven’t already, I suggest taking a listen and/or read through of the linked pieces in the description. Both are quite worthwhile.