A significant failure of natural-materialism is that it not only provides no basis for morality, it replaces the concept of absolute right and wrong with concepts founded only in the changing whims of human opinion. In the godless nature proposed by natural-materialism and its close cousins, such as secular humanism, there is neither good nor evil, no right and no wrong, and neither courage nor cowardice. There is only force.
The godless universe has no free will, no
intent, and no purpose, even though its human creatures experience them. It has
no compassion; it is utterly indifferent to our suffering and to our
fates. It has no moral absolutes; love
and hate are mere conditions of our chemistry, and are neither virtues nor
vices. Likewise, there is no preference in
physics between courage and cowardice.
In that universe, there is neither good nor evil, but only one’s
opinion.
In the godless universe, humanity is
but an unlikely happenstance, the outcome of physical and chemical
processes.
By the exercise of free will, we can
choose between good and evil, truth and falsehood. We can choose to use science to investigate
the laws of nature, and we can choose to use our scientific knowledge for good.
Having free will makes us accountable for
our actions, and responsible for the choices we make. Free will makes us participants in our own
lives, not passive observers.
Free will enables us to break the chain of causation in nature.
[When it comes to] questions of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and
immorality. . . . science cannot answer those without
God. Scientists have opinionated views
on these things, but no mathematical formulas.
Natural-materialism does not address those views.
Is anything truly good or evil? Is there an absolute standard of morality, or
do we just make it up as we go along?
-
No comments:
Post a Comment