The Meaning of Objective and Subjective

What does objective mean? Objective means a mind-independent reality. That is, an objective feature of the universe is something that does not rely on my own – or anyone else’s – personal beliefs or feelings on the matter.

For example, gravity is an objective feature of the universe. It doesn’t matter how much I believe that I can fly, or how passionately I feel about it, when I leap unaided off the to of the building, I will come down. That is an objective fact. The claim that “the world is round” is an objective claim, and would be true even if everyone thought the world was flat. Similarly, If I were standing on a main highway, and you saw a truck speeding towards me, you would perhaps yell out “Get off the road, a big truck is coming!” If I then turned to you and said, “That may be true for you, but its not true for me,” it doesn’t really matter what I think, as the truck is an objective feature of the universe, unless circumstances change, I’ll soon be paste on the road.

So what is meant by objective moral virtues and duties is this: That it is bad and wrong to kill Jews and homosexuals, and even if Hitler had won the war, and succeeded in killing off or brainwashing all his opposition so that the whole world believed it was right, it would still be wrong. No matter what you personally believed about the matter, it would be wrong in that objective sense. Likewise, there are some things that are genuinely good and right, like loving your neighbour as yourself, caring for people who are suffering, generosity to those who are in need, and justice for the down-trodden, and these are all true in the objective sense.

Subjective, is precisely the opposite of objective. That is subjective belief relies on the individual. It is mind-dependant. For example, the statement “I am a man,” is an objective fact. The statement “I am here,” is a subjective fact as it’s truth relies on my own perspective. When morality is subjective, moral values and duties like “you should treat people with dignity and respect” become simply preferences of taste, equivalent to “I like chocolate over vanilla,” or “I hate television ads.”

It is clear then that subjectivism is an inadequate ethical system, not only practically but in truth as well. But that is for another time.

Source and Norms

So far we’ve explored some key terms, method, and the issue of diversity and unity within Christian belief. Today I’ll be looking at where we discover theological information and how we evaluate it. To illustrate I’ll be using the four-legged chair you are sitting on.


Sources for Christian belief are those things that deliver information about God and act as vehicles for what he reveals. Norms are standards by which any information is tested to be accurate and true. Evangelist, revivalist and founder of the Methodist movement, Charles Wesley described four other sources and norms for Christian belief. Although he was not the first, what he articulated came to be known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Like a four-legged stool each source and norm acts as a prop to uphold the Christian who sits down to develop his theology. The first leg we need to consider is Scripture.

Jesus declared to his disciples the Holy Spirit will “teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:25) Very early the writings of those apostles and their associates came to be considered by the churches as possessing the same authority as the Law and Prophets (what we call now the Old Testament). Thus the Bible is for Christianity the most authoritative and respected source directly available for correct theological information. It acts as a norming norm – a standard by which none can contradict. Just as it would be unthinkable for a U.S. Supreme Court judge to say, “The constitution says all Americans should have the freedom of speech, but I disagree!” so it would be unthinkable for a Christian to deny the explicit teaching of Scripture. To remain faithful to Christian doctrine one must remain faithful to the scripture, and if on some point you think differently, it is there you cease to think Christianly.

Our second leg is Tradition. Everyone who starts a church that runs it for more than a week has tradition – even if the goal is to avoid all tradition. The two thousand year history of the church provides a wealth of theological information – some good, some bad – that has arisen and been affirmed by what is called the Great Tradition. It is very difficult to maintain that this history is not in some way influencing a person’s theology. The Reformers, especially Luther, who affirmed Sola Scriptura, which rightly expresses the idea that scripture alone is the final word, nonetheless accepted that scripture was always interpreted in the light of the Rule of Faith, which effectively became the four ecumenical creeds (the Apostolic, Nicean, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian). Tradition is a normed norm (a standard which itself is held accountable to another standard), which holds within it the compass of scripture.

I have in the past been critical of the role of Tradition as a source for Christian belief. That has only been when I have been evaluating what good theology is. Good theology, I take it, is that which is objectively true. This principle is the primary condition from which I choose to build. Tradition then becomes at most a useful guide, as it generally has been through the ages faithfully responsive to the instruction and guiding of the Holy Spirit. Vanhoozer says, “Canon may be the cradle of Christian doctrine, but tradition is its wet nurse.”[1]

The third leg of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is Reason, or the deliverances of the cognitive faculties. It includes wider disciplines such as philosophy, science, history and especially logic. It is with reason we delineate premises and evaluate arguments. Reason helps us to explore the internal consistency of an individual’s theology (or the internal structural soundness and aesthetic harmony of a theological castle). Reason is essential in communicating the gospel and is vital for that branch of Christian theology that seeks to defend Christian truth-claims, i.e., apologetics.

The final leg of our chair is Experience. Theological castles are not constructed in a vacuum. We naturally look to the world that God created to inform us about him. Against the background of our experiences in this world our theology will inevitably be influenced. One example is the Swiss-born, Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth, who abandoned Liberal theology because of all the evil he saw perpetrated in the Germany during World War One. Another example of experience acting as a source and norm within Christian belief is the once popular position called Cessationism. A Cessationist holds that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer operative today, but ceased to function sometime after the passing of the first or second generation after Christ. Due to the overwhelming amount of miracles today preformed in the name of Jesus, especially in Asia and Africa, and the availability of testimonies of witnesses to these miracles, this doctrine has largely been renounced.

Some theologians suggest another leg be included. Creation, it is argued, is also a source and a norm. We shall speak more of this next time when we exit our Prolegomena and begin with the Doctrine of Revelation, but for myself I do not see how creation constitutes anything substantively different than what is already covered by Reason and Experience.

Precisely how these four legs are ordered in terms of importance is disputable. Different tradition-communities lean more heavily on certain legs. It is how we order these sources and norms that create most of the variety we see in theology. For instance the many differences between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches from Protestant churches stem from the different emphasis placed upon the role of Tradition as a source and norm. Let me suggest however that scripture should be considered the most authoritative, directly available source and norm for Christian belief – a norming norm – for all who seek to build their castles. The reason for this I hope should be made clear in our next section.

But a stool, of course, is more than its legs. The supreme source for all Christian belief is Jesus Christ himself. As the incarnate Word of God he is the most authoritative and reliable special revelation possible. The disciple declares Christ as “the true light that gives light to every man.” (John 1:9) Luther described Christ as the “canon within the canon.”

These are the Scriptures that testify about me,

John 5:39

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Hebrews 1:1-3

If we want to know of God, we must ultimately look to God himself, revealed specially in the person of Jesus Christ. Our clearest picture we receive of Him is through the scriptures.

Next time we begin on the Doctrine of Revelation.

Footnotes:

1. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The drama of doctrine: a canonical-linguistic approach to Christian theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) p. 234.

Michael Ruse on why the New Atheists are a "bloody disaster"

Michael Ruse, the atheist philosopher of biology, has written an interesting post about the extremism and intellectual failures of the “New Atheists”. Ruse teaches at the Florida State University and is himself an ardent critic of Creationism and Intelligent Design, authoring numerous books on the topic and in the philosophy of science (“Darwinism defended: a guide to the evolution controversies”, “Taking Darwin seriously: a naturalistic approach to philosophy”, “Biology and the foundation of ethics”, etc). But in his guest post on BeliefNet, Ruse argues that the New Atheists are doing “political damage to the cause of Creationism fighting” and even a “grave disservice” to science. In their campaign to keep Creationism out of schools, Ruse says “the new atheists have lamentably failed to prove their point, and excoriating people like me who show the failure is (again) not very helpful”.

Ruse is particularly critical of Richard Dawkins, proclaiming that “The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist”:

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.

Read the whole thing here (HT: JT)

The Definition Game!

Modern Western Science is an enterprise that was heavily motivated and influenced by Christian thinkers at the time of its birth. However, the initial success of science soon led to scientism where nonbelievers and even many naive Christians tried to explain everything, material as well as immaterial, by physical sciences and physical sciences alone.

Read more