Disagreement And Subjectivity

It is not uncommon for people to argue that because an issue is disputed that there is no objective truth about that issue.  Arguments adopting this form are especially frequent among moral relativists, who believe that the fact that almost every individual person holds differing moral views proves that there are no universal moral facts.

I will demonstrate the logical form of these arguments with a syllogism:


1. If people disagree on what is beautiful, beauty is subjective and only a matter of opinion.
2. People disagree on what is beautiful.
3. Therefore beauty is subjective and only a matter of opinion.


As you can see, the first premise is severely flawed.  It does not logically follow that because people disagree about beauty that beauty is a matter of subjective opinion and that there is not an objective standard of beauty, even if it is one that no humans can know about.  I want to acknowledge the full range of disagreement on various matters and show that the lack of consensus proves only that people don't agree, nothing more.


Moral Disagreement

A very common position among secular people is that disagreement on moral matters obviously means that ethics are entirely subjective and that what is morally right for one person is not morally right for another.  People can't agree on where to derive morals from--society, tradition, empathy, conscience, consensus, religious texts, or somewhere else.  There are people who believe differing actions are absolutely or always evil, and there are some who think even murder, rape, or extreme abuse can be justified.  There is little if any consensus on ethics.

And even if everyone agreed on what acts or attitudes are objectively right and wrong, we can't even agree on what constitutes those acts or attitudes.  People will argue about what the definitions of malice, generosity, murder, rape, justice, objectification, arrogance, forgiveness, and mercy are.

But just because people disagree about what makes something right or wrong does not mean there are no objective morals or that morality is only a comforting illusion imprinted on us by society, evolution, or personal preference.


Theological Disagreement

People disagree on every theological detail possible.  When it comes to theistic worldviews, some people believe in one deity who possesses more traditional attributes (monotheism; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), some people believe in many gods with one predominant deity (henotheism), some believe in many anthropomorphic gods (like the polytheism found in Greek mythology, for example), some believe in an impersonal creator entity (deism), other people believe humans can become gods, and some think that God is male, others that God is female.

Different manifestations of these positions can overlap with each other or blend elements from various theistic views.  When pressed for verification of their theological bents, some will claim that God exists but cannot be proven or accessed through reason, which is a retreat into fitheism (theological beliefs all or mostly accepted on blind faith), and others will defend God's existence through logical proofs, which is called theistic rationalism.  Even within these more specific branches of theism, people dispute whether or not God is omnipotent or omniscient, whether or not God's sovereignty or human free will controls more of human behavior or any at all, the criterion for entrance into the afterlife if one exists, and the grounds for knowing or learning that a god or gods exist.

I have categorized theological disagreement here separately from scriptural disagreement because theology is broader than merely Christian doctrine.  Polytheists and deists adopt theological stances that have nothing to do with traditional theism or Christianity, yet they still adhere to a particular theology.

But just because all of these people disagree does not mean that there is no God or that nothing about God's existence can be known, verified, or falsified.


Scriptural Disagreement

Christians dispute every possible topic.  Gender roles, the creation narrative, the validity of Mosaic Law, the requirements of salvation, the process of sanctification, the role of reason, God's nature, moral issues, and eschatology (study of end times) are just a very limited sample of the numerous issues Christians disagree about.  Usually Christians haven't thought out a position well and if someone challenges them they will claim that the topic in question doesn't ultimately matter (or matter very much) and that they can all at least agree on the divinity of Christ and the need for his redemption.  Yet Christians normally fail to realize that their agreement means nothing on that matter as well and that, regardless of its central importance in the Christian worldview, people obviously don't even concur on that issue (of Christ's divinity) or we wouldn't have so many splintered church denominations and offshoots and groups that other Christians accuse of being "cults".

Yes, Christians have had and still have major moral disagreements over things like capital punishment, homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, vigilantism, torture, nudity, alcohol use, slavery, and submission to human governments.  Some Christians say that the situation and context legitimize or condemn each of the actions I listed above, while some say these behaviors are always wrong.  Some people think there's not enough information in the Bible to arrive at a legitimate conclusion that has any authority on the subject, and others use primarily emotional or secular reasoning to reach a conclusion on these moral issues and then try to impose their own personal view on Scripture without objectively studying it.  This leads to ridiculous arguments both for and against many things.

But in the end, what Scripture says about these things is not very difficult to decipher when the full spectrum of the Bible is taken into account, nor is it easy to miss if one studies the Bible objectively and without assumptions.

But just because Christians disagree heavily on the meaning of the Bible does not mean that the Bible's words have no meaning or that no one can learn the positions it objectively teaches.


Conclusion

This fallacy of assuming that there is no truth where knowledge remains inaccessible or where humans cannot all concur on an answer is one of the most destructive misuses of logic in our era.  Disagreement does not prove that the subject of the dispute is subjective or unknowable; it just proves that people disagree.  Nothing is true because people agree it is (appeal to popularity), yet a truth is not unknowable or nonexistent just because people cannot agree on it.

There is not a single statement or belief that is not controversial, and this only highlights the mandatory need for reason to illuminate truth and separate facts from errors.  Feelings are malleable and subjective, societal beliefs contradict each other, and anything can be assumed.  But reason remains inflexible, objective, universal, and enlightening, and it can lead us to discover immutable facts about the reality we inhabit.