Bad Definitions
Tags: Religion, Atheism, Christian, Debate, Apologetics

“Is murder bad?” It’s a question I’ve been asked by Christian apologists repeatedly. It’s a question I see posed to fellow atheists on the regular. Why do the apologetic love this question? It is because they perceive it as a “gotcha” question that exposes a fundamental flaw in secular philosophy. This article intends to show how they are both right and wrong, depending on definitions.

First, background. Christian apologists believe morality is objective and absolute. It’s not a universal Christian belief, but it is much more uniform than secular beliefs on the topic which can be all over the map. For this reason, the so-call Moral Argument for God is fertile ground for apologists. A popular formation of the argument states:

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.

2. Morality is objective and absolute.

3. Therefore, God must exist.

Christian support for the first premise, that morality is objective and absolute, is rooted in that aforementioned question: “Is murder bad?” The Christian answers confidently, “yes, murder is bad.” Many atheists likewise answer “yes, murder is bad,” to which the Christian responds with something like, “is it really bad, or it that just your opinion?” In other words, is the statement “murder is bad” an objective fact or a subjective judgment making the assessment that murder is bad no more valid than a serial killer’s who might call murder good. It’s also a question that ignores all secular meaning.

Don’t believe this is an “objective bad” versus “subjective bad” problem, it is a “secular bad” versus “apologetic bad” problem.

Atheists and apologists define what’s “right” so differently that one of them might as well be talking about the direction opposite left. How can this be? Because words are invented. There is no reason beyond general acceptance why one set of sounds means this and another string of characters means that. If you call that purring thing on your lap a fish, I can’t stop you. I can only tell you that everyone else calls it a cat and if you don’t want to come across as a crazy person you should get on board.

In the case of moral “bad,” this is how I define it. It seems to roughly match the rest of the secular world.

bad: those who purposefully hurt others or the behavior that hurts others.

In contrast, here is the definition coming from Christian apologists.

bad: that which is apart from God’s nature or that which denies an obligation to God.

If I map my definition onto an apologist’s usage of the word I’d be assuming that they understand “bad” like I understand “bad.” This is normally a reasonable assumption and we do similar all the time for just about everything. It just so happens, in this case, it’s wrong.

If the apologist maps their definition onto me, it’s likewise reasonable…that is, unless they know I’m an atheist. Why? Because it is unreasonable to believe someone would define a word in terms of something else they do not believe. It would be like assuming a Christian hangs a cross in their house to ward off vampires. Knowing that Christians believe in Jesus, not vampires, that is an unreasonable assumption.

This leaves us with the same word with two completely different meanings used in the same debate. Now we must differentiate for clarity’s sake. Secular “bad” will now be referenced as Bad(S) and Christian apologetic “bad” will be Good(C). If you comment on this post, please denote which “bad” you are referring to in the same way.

Now let’s apply this clarity back to the original question.

Apologist: “Is murder Bad(C)?”

The atheist may now clearly answer: “I don’t believe Bad(C) is a real thing. Murder is Bad(S). Do you think murder is Bad(S)?”

I don’t want to put words in a Christian’s mouth, but I like to think they would admit that murder purposefully hurts others and would therefore prompt a “yes.” Common ground, huzzah! The religious and the secular both believe murder is Bad(S), a belief which requires no supernatural third party.

Turns out, this was never about opinions or facts, it’s about definitions. Clearly defined terms are needed for successful discourse. If you go on unwilling to learn what the other side means, you are essentially hiding behind jargon. Keep your meanings, if you must, but at least acknowledge the meanings of others.