One of the most common appeals of religion is the sense of certainty it offers. Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews each profess that their faith is the one and only absolute truth. They assert that their ancient holy books are impeccable sources of objective morality, from which they can judge and legislate the rest of the world. Countless articles, books, and videos on this subject have been published, and especially in recent years it is trumpeted that atheism cannot offer the absolute truth or objective morality that theism can. This is not altogether fallacious reasoning, as I explain in my article "The Ethics of Atheism", but the implication that a religion exclusively provides higher or transcendent values is grossly lacking in evidence.

I. Absolute Truth

The greatest philosophical question of the gospels does not come from Jesus Christ, but from Pontius Pilate, in a conversation he has with Christ before he is sentenced for crucifixion. "What is truth?" Pilate asks in John 18:38, when Jesus claims that all who value truth are on his side. What makes a person so sure that their vision of truth is accurate? Christians balk at the denial of absolute truth, stating that it is itself an absolute truth to say there is no absolute truth, but they often miss the greater point behind the denial. An absolute truth is an unalterable or permanent fact that exists and acts regardless of our intervention/understanding. But since our own perception is largely inescapable, how can any of us lay claim to some transcendent truth?

In an article on absolute truth written for the Christian apologetics website GotQuestions.org, the author explains that "all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, we cannot logically make absolute negative statements" (1). But by this rationale, one cannot matter-of-factly claim that absolute truth exists either, since we do not possess exhaustive knowledge of all reality and existence. However, most people do not embrace such a dogmatic view, they simply believe there may be absolute truth or there may not. Here it might be useful to differentiate between material or natural truth and epistemic or conceptual truth.

Material/natural truths are those dealing with reality as separate from us. Science and mathematics apparently describe real, functioning processes of our universe and our existence that seem to be absolute. Now this does not mean that these disciplines exist in some metaphysical realm, like Platonic forms. They are absolute or universal in the sense that we define and comprehend them to be such for practical purposes. Our idea of 2+2=4 is absolute because we define 2 as a representation of two objects and 4 is broken down conceptually into two sets of two objects. Our attachment of physically existing entities to these numbers gives the appearance of universal truth, but it mostly depends on how we define or understand the principles of mathematics.

Epistemic/conceptual truth is where most religious believers attempt to take the absolute truth claim, as it deals in abstract ideas, thoughts, knowledge, etc. Concepts like God, unconditional love, the three omnis, good, evil, and other elements of faith reside here. These kinds of truth cannot be absolute or universal in the interpretive sense because unlike 2+2=4 or the theory of gravity, they are highly disputed and have multitudes of different definitions and applications. Conceptual truths are not clearly absolute in any manner, because there is usually little to no evidence that they exist. They are hypothetical, not universal.

What would evidence for absolute truth look like? Christians love to assert that there is absolute truth while providing vague and unverifiable examples of it, such as 'the resurrection' or 'God's love'. We can point out the scientific inaccuracies and morally dubious teachings of the bible that show how it is not an example of absolute truth, but Christians will then argue that God defines truth, not us. Those who state that there is absolute truth do not seem to know an example or evidence of what it would be. But even if we simply look for facts that appear to be consistent under numerous factors, our perception still clouds our observations, and there are too many other avenues or possibilities to exhaustively investigate before we could responsibly draw a conclusion that the fact would be an absolute truth.

II. Objective Morality

Morality has long been an issue of debate among philosophers, theologians, and others who wish to know what is good, what is bad, and what motivates us to behave accordingly to one or the other. Next to absolute truth, objective morality is one of the primary 'comfortable certainties' that religious believers pretend to possess and that they also deny can exist apart from belief in their specific deity. The Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias loudly proclaims this view from every mountaintop he can climb. One of his ministry's associates, J.M. Njoroge, writes the following in an article hosted on Zacharias' website:

Many apologists misrepresent the atheist's views on morality as a simple concession to DNA or natural biological behavior, yet many evolutionists and atheists flat out reject this. A naturalist does believe that this natural universe is all that exists, but it does not follow that he believes nature is a good example by which to judge human behavior. The presence of a particular gene in our biological make-up, like a predisposition to alcoholism, does not mean we are helplessly afflicted, nor does it mean we should just give in to our genetics. Our species has evolved enough to have this advantage of consciousness and critical thinking which we would do well to exercise. The very ability to think and evaluate our moral behavior is beyond the rest of the animal kingdom, so we would be remiss to consider our moral obligations to be on par with other animals.

Instead of just letting our genes guide us, we make use of our highly-evolved brains to consider and employ a number of different ethical paradigms. Contractarianism, for example, is a paradigm that explains how we humans engage in social contracts with one another and go behind a 'veil of ignorance' (putting oneself in another's shoes basically) in order to form moral judgments which are as benefitial as possible to all parties involved. In addition to Contractarianism, there is Utilitarianism, Deontological ethics, ethical egoism, ethical altruism, and many other paradigms that function fine without the need for a god, and do not demand objective standards.

What is so great about having an objective standard for morality anyway? Christians, Muslims, and Jews almost all believe that their god is the source of moral behavior, even for non-believers. Yet there is no real assurance that God himself is objective, unbiased or infallible, not to mention the fact that all supposed revelation of God has been transmitted to us through imperfect human beings who are often prone to error. Why should something need to be objective for it to matter? The atheist author Austin Cline raises several noteworthy issues on this:

An objective standard can be a very useful goal in many respects, but calling your own values - or the values of any religion - an absolute and objective moral compass demands a lot of supporting evidence. Although science strives to be as unbiased and objective as it can, it also reminds us that it is still subject to alteration and change as we discover newer theories or improve on existing ones. This does not mean science is unworthy of trust or vested interest. Would you walk across a sturdy-looking bridge with only a few cracks in it, or choose to go across the one that appears completely intact yet is structurally weak?

III. The Subjectivity of Objective Morality

Without making unverifiable appeals to God or religious dogmas, there is no way of justifying the claim that Christianity, Islam, or Judaism possess objective morality. The holy books of all three religions contain some disturbing and reprehensible teachings, such as the stoning of disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), the ability for Christians to drink poison and not experience any harm (Mark 16:18), and the provision of Muslims to beat their disobedient wives into submission (Surah 4:34). Therefore, it cannot be reasonably argued that these books offer objective morality on the evidential basis of their own contents. Neither can it be argued that the books have access to some higher, 'miraculous' knowledge, with scientific errors which assert that the sun sets in a swamp (Surah 18:86), that the sky is a flat expanse called the 'firmament' (Genesis 1:14, this concept is found in ancient astrology and many other religions of antiquity), and that the earth is apparently flat, as Jesus is able to see "all the kingdoms of the world" from a very tall mountain (Matthew 4:8).

A study conducted in 2005 noticed a correlation between the predominance of religious faith in several countries and higher rates of crime and immorality (4). Everyone should already know that religion does not generally make people behave any better, but some still act surprised to hear the news. If objective morality is not evident from the holy books or the believers themselves, what else might lead some people to conclude that a religion provides an objective moral source? The only honest answer is that they believe it because they read it in their holy book or heard it from a pastor or apologist. The bible never directly mentions that it is a source of objective, absolute or universal morality, but verses like Psalm 119:89-91, 1 Peter 1:24-25, and others talk of the eternal, unchanging nature of 'God's word'.

Objective moral laws are applicable to all peoples, and they are standards of behavior that are the final word in good and bad, right and wrong. Attempting to impose your personal/religious morals or convictions onto others by calling it objective morality requires far more evidence and validation than the word of a 2,000 year old book. Religious believers who embrace moral absolutes assume that their holy book is of divine origin and that its moral teachings are truly moral, though they rarely even try to establish these concepts by any kind of argument or evidence. Many Christians also disregard (intentionally or unintentionally) loads of commandments, rules, and teachings in the bible, except for the ones that they like. They then will declare that their interpretation is objective morality, but it merely exalts their own subjective sense of morality which they constructed from bits and pieces of scripture, as well as warm and fuzzy feelings about right and wrong. There is no indication that theistic morality is any less subjective than 'non-theistic morality'.

It is not altogether unimagineable why a person might find comfort or safety in religion's promises of absolute truth or objective morality. In lots of scenarios, certainty is definitely preferable to uncertainty. Some people also fail to understand how moral relativists can make any value judgments, like condemning the Holocaust. Moral relativism actually does allow for intervention and moral judgments, but expects us to remember the context of the traditions, convictions, and customs of the culture or group at issue. It is not an inconsistent argument for a relativist to state that the Holocaust was wrong because it deprived many men, women and children of their lives, since it is specifically indicating values that are of interest to the human race as a whole. The Nazis did not share those values, but the culture (of the world) at the time did, and it was doubtlessly clear to the Nazis that their actions would be seen as criminal by many others.

The theist might not find such reasoning to be all that romantic, but it has held true throughout history. If the majority rules that something is undesirable, there is not much one can do if they are in the unfortunate position of violating the majority's rule... that is, until paradigms shift and the majority adopts new rules. Animals do not merely kill for survival, they kill for sport as well, as a cat plays with a mouse before it becomes dinner. How different then are we, when we execute serial killers to ensure the survival of other potential victims, or hunt other species for sport? Humanity has evolved to the point that it can transcend its primitive, biological impulses, and so we have set up societies and civilizations with laws and ethics, because we realize the fruitlessness of the old ways and how harmful they were/are both to the individual and the collective in the long run.

IV. The Danger of Absolutes

Cold and emotionless as those explanations may sound, they are at least practical and referential explanations, unlike those that are offered by moral absolutists. I have proposed that the Holocaust was unethical because it violated many innocent human lives, lives that are valuable because it is in my/our best interests to allow each individual to live out life on their own terms and to prohibit actions that are detrimental to the rest of the world [reciprocal altruism is discussed more at length in my article, The Problem with the Golden Rule]. How would a Christian absolutist explain that the Holocaust was unethical? A Christian apologist elaborates for us...

I cannot deny that it would be nice to make such concrete declarative statements, but surely the Nazis must have thought the exact same thing, convinced that what they were doing was right. Inevitably, you hit a snag with objective morality when you have to consider who decides what is objectively right or wrong? Obviously the Christian will say that God decides, but this is problematic as I mentioned above. If God decides what is right and wrong, Christians merely follow orders and observe moral laws that cannot be amended. God's 'objective' commandment that murder is forbidden may serve to convict the Nazis, but if taken literally, it also prohibits murder as self-defense. Furthermore, it is hardly admirable or practical to claim that the Holocaust was wrong just because of the sixth commandment or because God does not approve of murder.

God-given absolutes are dangerous because they do not provide real justification, they are the equivalent of a parent telling a child, 'just obey because I say so'. While such an explanation might suffice for someone who is too young to understand justice and morality, it does not suffice for human adults who need clearly comprehensible reason and logic in making their choices, and simultaneously have the potential to be irrational and destructive. The promises of objective morality and absolute truth have led many suicide bombers and crusaders on their missions of bloodshed and terror. A Christian might declare that murder is forever and always immoral in God's sight, but that will not stop a Muslim extremist - who is equally convinced that his god sanctions his belief that murder of infidels is demanded - from murdering him/her in cold blood.

The kicker of it all is that God does not enact retribution or justice on such extremists until after death, which obviously no one alive on this earth can verify. Perhaps this is why some Christians are so attached to objective morality, because they want to have the illusion of an absolute authority to judge the behavior of others, since God seems to be doing such a crummy job. Their sense of objective morality tells them that homosexual marriage is sinful and must remain illegal, it tells them that a rape victim 'murdering' the unconscious composite of fetal tissue inside her is unethical, and also informs some of them that it is better for the AIDS epidemic to ravage the African continent than for contraception to violate God's design. Objective morality is not revisable in light of such circumstances.

Religious believers just can't seem to leave justice up to God, despite the fact that both Christians and Muslims believe that non-believers and the immoral will be tortured for all eternity after death. Even though Christian fundamentalists pretend they have absolute authority to judge others by, they neglect the lessons of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11), the reminder not to judge in Luke 6:37, and many other passages that appear to instruct Christians that they are not to make moral judgments of others! Absolute truth and objective morality are concepts that give a false sense of security and certainty. From them can come no respectable or logical arguments, and they only foster egocentricism, irrationality and violence. They may focus on the perceived difficulty a relativist has in judging the atrocities of history, but such an issue pales in comparison to the number of absolutists who have committed the atrocities of history.

1. Anonymous. Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?. GotQuestions.org. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2009.
2. Njoroge, J.M. The New Atheism and Morality. RZIM.org. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2009.
3. Cline, A. Myth: Only Objective Moral Standards Allow for Moral Behavior. About.com. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2009.
4. Gledhill, R. (2005) Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'. Timesonline.co.uk. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2009.
5. Bryant, D. (2006) Moral Argument for the Existence of God. Clouds of Heaven. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2009.