Category Archives: objectivity

Theological (?) Discussions Over The Weekend

This weekend I had an interesting discussion about morality with a Catholic. What was interesting about it wasn’t just the conversation in and of itself; this guy was ironically in the Economics PhD program at UPenn with my ex-girlfriend and knew her, though about three or four years behind her (he didn’t finish the program). Small world!

Anyway, we started talking about morality and stuff: Dialoging about what constitutes morality from a non-theistic and from a Catholic perspective. He even mentioned Leah’s infamous conversion to Catholicism. He claimed that she was never really an atheist and I rejoined that she was an atheist, just not a well informed one (she even admitted this herself in her “about” page on why she started her blog). An atheist is just someone whose actions don’t reflect god-belief; essentially why Nietsche claimed God is dead.

Anyway, the thing I took from the conversation was that, from his Catholic perspective, morality is about self-improvement. The reason you don’t, say, murder people was because this would normalize murder and you’ll do it more and more. From my point of view, morality was about a social contract. Do in Rome as the Romans do. To explain this, I put forth my desert island analogy for where morality comes from:

Say there is a man living alone on a desert island. No other people or animals around. Can we list some things that this person can do that are immoral?

For a secularist, the obvious answer is “no” since there is no one to be immoral to, yet his answer to this was a “yes” since there are still things that he could do that could be considered “immoral” from a Catholic perspective; things that are damaging to the self.

I also likened morality to language, as a sort of cultural language. To take the desert analogy further, if the man had grown up on the island without anyone or any other animals around, would he have developed language? The answer is no if we look at feral children, so analogously I assumed the same would happen with morality.

We agreed that the end results of both of our views of morality lead to the same things, but he took morality itself as a First Principle, much like why Leah converted to Catholicism. Of course, I don’t agree with that First Principle so that is where we diverged. My first principle, I would say, is that I exist.

Why I think the conversation panned out the way it did without any animosity or confusion was because I made a conscious effort to “taboo” any potential conflict words or words with multiple possible interpretations, and I asked him to do the same. It made for a longer conversation, but also a more transparent one. Also, in person, people are much more likely to hold back their more offending views so that probably contributed to it as well. It might have also been some sort of Halo Effect since he really admires/d my ex for her intellect and work ethic.

Of course we didn’t actually finish the conversation (I would have liked to ask him some form of the Euthyphro Dilemma and why not take an empirical approach about self-improvement instead of assertions from Catholicism (Aristotle/Aquinas); we started heading in the direction when I asked him why working out and being healthy isn’t considered moral) because we were at a birthday party. But, at least it was fun to do that IRL and not on the Internet for once. Oddly enough, he never mentioned “god”. Probably because I’m pretty well known in my circle of friends for being an atheist. Though I only “came out” so to say when I started this blog… which was due to situations like this.

Comments Off on Theological (?) Discussions Over The Weekend

Posted by on July 24, 2012 in objective morality, objectivity, rationality


The Paradox of Objective Morality

Here’s a thought experiment.

Let’s say there’s only one person left on the planet. Kinda like that guy in one of the Twilight Zone episodes where he was the only living thing left on the planet so that he had all the time in the world to read. So this one guy is left on the planet – can we list some things that he can do that are immoral?

Of course not.

Morality is all about how we interact with out fellow human beings. Something is “immoral” only if it causes harm to another sentient being, harm being defined by the wronged being. Basically, there has to be an affected “other” in order for morality or immorality to exist. If there was only one person on the planet, then everything is amoral: morality doesn’t exist.

Keep that in mind. Morality can only exist if sentient beings that can be wronged exists.

Now what about objectivity? Here are some definitions:

1. existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena;

So the key component to “objectivity” would be something that exists independent of thought, independent of an observer, independent of emotion and of personal bias. So, grass being green is objective. While the color that we have in our heads when we think of “green” might not be objective (since it’s subject to our perception), grass will always absorb every color of the wavelength except for the wavelength that we’ve deemed “green” – even with no humans around to perceive it and call it “green”.

Now, let’s put these two words together: objective and morality.

This would be a system of morality that’s independent of biases and emotions (objectivity), yet dependent on biases and emotions (morality)! Morality can only exist if there are beings who have biases and emotions, yet objectivity can only exist if all biases and emotions are removed. Morality is subject to any sentient beings’ biases and emotions.

The two can’t possibly coexist; meaning that the phrase “objective morality” is about as meaningful as a square circle.

Some believers might invoke “god” at this point, but if god has emotions and biases then it’s not objectivity. Unless the god being invoked is a non-personal, pantheistic god, it also brings up the immorality of the Sovereign Defense. If “objective morality” is being dogmatically assigned to a being with agency (like the Christian god), then immoral acts are bound to happen.


Posted by on January 29, 2010 in morality, objective morality, objectivity


My Rejection of Christianity

This is a conversation I’m having with a Christian at another forum. My response is a bit long so I’m going to post from about the middle of the conversation:


For example, studying Biblical criticism has led me to the conclusion that the historical Jesus didn’t say almost anything that has been presented in the gospel narratives. The “Jesus” in the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Thomas, John, Peter, etc. is simply the sockpuppet of the gospel authors, using Jesus as a polemical device to further their theological agenda(s). The same thing happened to a lesser degree with Paul and his writing – almost 50% of his writings in the New Testament are “forgeries”, for lack of a better word. The history of early Christianity is wrought with polemics and deception, using and abusing Christian (and Jewish) scripture to further their theological agenda(s). If a Christian in the 2nd century felt that “true” Christianity was a certain way, and they see a Jesus presented that differs from how they felt Jesus should be, they simply changed the scripture. There was no “Christian canon” in the 1st and 2nd centuries other than the Tanakh, so interpolations in not-yet canonical Christian documents was rampant. This is, again, why appealing to subjectivity is a fool’s errand. Faith takes precedence over fact, plain and simply. This inexorably leads to deception. And if subjectivity (faith) takes precedence over objectivity (fact), how can a Christian tell the difference between faith and self-deception?


I just don’t see that as the case, I mean your speculating that the early Christians felt comfortable in not altering OT scripture because it was sacred and yet felt comfortable altering a letter from Paul or a Gospel narrative.. and if they did, then to what possible end. What gain would come to them for such a thing. I mean these people went through round after round of severe persecution for their beliefs. It would stand better to reason that if there was a selfish intent then such a persons would have been better off working with the accepted beliefs that went without such punishments.

Now, I am not saying that there weren’t transmissional and translational discrepences and errors. Nor am I saying that there weren’t intentional interpolations.. the Johannine comma being the most notable. However, I am saying that I do believe that there are other plausible ways of looking at the situation, intents and so forth other than the way you have seemed to present it.

[H]ow can [I] as a Christian tell the difference between faith and self-deception? What methodology would [I] use? Hopefully I answered a bit of this earlier, but I’ll have to go with Ayn Rand on this one. The best answer would likely be to, “Check your premises.” 🙂


I urge you to actually study early Christianity. The most glaring interpolation is the synoptic problem: Luke and Matthew are basically interpolated versions of Mark. While Mark, the first gospel written, is generally seen to have been written around 70 CE, the first Christian document be to elevated to the level of “holy scripture” was Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians around 130 CE by the “heretic” Basilides. But prior to that, the only “holy scripture” was the Tanakh – thus Matthew and Luke had the freedom to change Mark as they saw fit, since Mark wasn’t “canon”. A gospel being canon doesn’t happen until 140 CE. And even so, Christians (like Justin Martyr in 150 CE) accused Jews of removing certain scripture that proof-texted evidence for Jesus’ messiah-hood – yet there’s no evidence of these supposed “deletions” in the oldest Hebrew bible texts.

Another example, the bishop Marcion is the first Christian to compile a “New Testament” in 140 CE and the first Christian to collect “all” of Paul’s letters. But Marcion’s canon only consisted of 10 Pauline epistles and one gospel. Not only that, but our current Pauline corpus is incompatible with Marcion’s Christology – so Marcion’s Pauline epistles couldn’t be the same ones found in our current New Testament. The only explanation is interpolation. Even worse, it’s an odd coincidence that Marcion’s canon didn’t contain the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and those are the three Pauline letters that most NT scholars conclude weren’t written by Paul… so they must not have existed when Marcion compiled his canon. Marcion’s canon consisted of the seven Pauline epistles that are generally agreed to be authentic to Paul and three that have undecided authorship.

Of course, Marcionites accused the proto-Catholics of interpolation, and the proto-Catholics accused the Marcionites of interpolation. But the only reason why we have almost half of the NT made up of Paul’s letters is due to the popularity of Marcionism. The proto-Catholics simply “catholicized” Paul to win over converts from the Marcionites. Hence the post-Marcion creation of Acts of the Apostles and the Pastorals.

And how about the Ebionites? Their name is Hebrew (ebionim means “poor ones” in Hebrew) and they apparently only regarded a Hebrew version of Matthew as sacred scripture along with the Tanakh. But our current Matthew shows no signs of being a translation from Hebrew, and the Ebionites didn’t believe in the virgin birth or Jesus’ status as the literal son of god – so their “Matthew” must have been different from our current Matthew.

And then the gospel of John probably had three different authors.

Of course, Christianity as a whole is one huge abuse of Jewish scripture. Jesus supposedly thought Daniel was a prophet, but prophecy ended upon the deaths of the last prophets like Zechariah and Malachi. Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt of 164 BCE due to the “abomination causing desolation” (a statue of Zeus) that Antiochus set up in the temple. Thus Daniel isn’t a contemporary of any other prophets and lived less than 100 years before Jesus – a long time after prophecy had ended. This is why Daniel is Ketuvim (writings) and not Nevi’im (prophets) (the K and N in TaNaKh). The Psalms, also, are Ketuvim and not prophetic which invalidates all of the supposed “prophecies” about Jesus like Psalm 22, 26, 31, and 110.

There’s obviously a lot more abuse of the Tanakh by Christians who place their faith before fact, but that would probably take this post further into BC&H category.

[As for checking my premises] [t]hough I’m not much of an Objectivist, I do check my premises repeatedly 😉 I think I’ll list them here

1. I exist

2. A world exists independently of my senses (this is unfalsifiable, but the only other option is solipsism)

3. I’m an imperfect human being, thus my senses aren’t 100% reliable

4. Induction is an imperfect epistemology since it relies on the previous premise (and maybe the Problem of Induction).

5. Deduction is more robust than induction, but is reliant on the previous 2 premises.

Following these three premises, there are some conclusions one can draw:

1. Since my senses aren’t 100% reliable, I have to appeal to sources outside myself for reliable information about the world. Hence my constant appeal to objectivity when wanting to deal with objects (i.e. reality).

2. The vast majority of human beings in history have held inaccurate or just flat out wacky beliefs. This is from my undergraduate studies of history, sociology, psychology, and world religions. Thus an inductive argument against religious beliefs.

3. Confirmation bias is a well known psychological phenomenon [where we are quick to accept information that confirms what we already believe and are quick to reject information that doesn’t confirm what we already believe]. Since confirmation bias is ubiquitous, I should be skeptical of my beliefs that simply “feel good” without objective (P2) support. Quite ironically, that “feels right” feeling is a base emotion, just like anger or fear. The feeling of certainty can be stimulated by thoughts, not by logic or reason. Ergo, there’s no necessary correlation between what feels true and what actually is true. This is why I’m consistently trying to be less wrong than I currently am. Selection bias [where we count the hits and ignore the misses so that we erroneously have 100% success] is also a consistent pitfall of induction that many people do not realize they do.

This is really a fleshing out of my third premise above, and what I think constitutes “self-deception”.

4. Religions spread in the same exact way as other sociological beliefs. The reason most Americans are Christians is the same reason most Americans speak English.

These conclusions make me highly skeptical of the claims of the religious. In order for religious beliefs to be true without appealing to objectivity, my third premise has to be rejected. The only way you can trust your “feelings” on things is if you have perfect senses and confirmation/selection bias don’t apply to you because you are a superbeing. Evolutionary psychology basically states that our cognitive and empirical facilities only excel at helping us not end up dead. Beyond that, everything else isn’t really necessary, just surplus. So a person can have inaccurate beliefs but as long as those beliefs don’t kill them, they can be selected for.

And then, I’m of the belief that an interventionist, personal god invalidates my second premise. Miracles, signs, and other supernatural events that only one person can see that cannot be validated by unbiased (i.e. objective) sources means that this god can produce illusions that are only visible to the “believer” for the sole purpose of making them faithful to this god. How then, can we know anything is real? A miracle working god would naturally push me towards solipsism.

This is a basic summary of why I’m skeptical of and ultimately reject modern Christianity.

Comments Off on My Rejection of Christianity

Posted by on October 8, 2009 in Christianity, early Christianity, objectivity, skepticism

NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Slate Star Codex

The Schelling Point for being on the #slatestarcodex IRC channel (see sidebar) is Wednesdays at 10 PM EST


Matthew Ferguson Blogs

The Wandering Scientist

Just another site

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Euangelion Kata Markon

A blog dedicated to the academic study of the "Gospel According to Mark"


My ὑπομνήματα about religion


Understand your mind with the science of psychology -


Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

atheist, polyamorous skeptics

Criticism is not uncivil


My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus