<<JB:
Now, to the matter at hand. You claim a moral system because of "what I know
and feel in my heart." In another post, you say, "Because it does." Can't you
admit that both of those are subjective expressions?
RS: Of course they are. So what?>>
This post answers the "So what?"
Let me first quote one of my favorite current philosophers, Peter Kreeft,
Prof. of Philosophy at Boston College:
"Now, given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does
the picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? The
answer is no. Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance
products of the motion of matter: a motion which is purposeless and blind to
every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask: Given this
picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly
be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.
"Suppose we say it is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire.
In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be
judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate
source--purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation?
According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I
would b stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be
saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that
desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is
really obliged to feed the hungry--that, in fact, no one has any real
obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible
with there being genuine moral obligation." [Kreeft, Handbook of Christian
Apologetics, IVP, pp. 72-73]
I quote another favorite, William Lane Craig:
"[I]f there is no God, then there can be no absolute standards of right and
wrong. All we are confronted with is, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words, the bare,
valueless fact of existence. In a world without God, who is to say which
values are right and which are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf
Hitler are inferior to those of a saint? The concept of morality loses all
meaning in a universe without God. There can be no right and wrong. This means
that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can
one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without
God, good and evil do not exist--there is only the bare valueless fact of
existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong." [Craig,
Apologetics: An Introduction, Moody Press, pp. 42-43]
Now, what are the practical consequences of such a philosophy. Here I think
Craig brilliantly points out the most important one: "It is impossible for an
atheist to live consistently and happily. If he lives consistently, he will
not be happy; if he lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent."
[Craig, p. 46]
Craig explains: "We saw that without God, life has no meaning. Yet
philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning. For example,
Jean-Paul Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely
choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sartre himself chose Marxism.
Now that is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say life is absurd and
then to say one may create meaning for his life....Sartre's program is
actually an exercise in self-delusion. For the universe does not really
acquire meaning just because I give it one. This is easy to see: for suppose I
give the universe one meaning, and you give it another. Who is right? The
answer, of course, is neither one. For the universe without God remains
meaningless, no matter how we regard it. Sartre is really saying, 'Let's
PRETEND the universe has meaning.' And this is just fooling ourselves." [Id.}
But for the materialist it gets worse:
"Turn now to the problem of value. Her is where the most blatant
inconsistencies occur. First of all, atheistic humanists are totally
inconsistent in pushing their values of love and brotherhood. Camus has been
rightly criticized for inconsistently holding to the absurdity of life and the
ethics of human love and brotherhood. The two are logically incompatible...The
point is that if there is no God, then absolute right and wrong cannot exist.
As Dostoevsky said, 'All things are permitted.'
"But Dostoevsky also showed that man cannot live this way. He cannot live as
though it is perfectly all right for soldiers to slaughter innocent children.
He cannot live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a
systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners. He cannot live
as though it is all right for rulers like Idi Amin or Pol Pot to exterminate
millions of their own countrymen. Everything in him cries out to say these
acts are wrong--really wrong. But if there is no God, he cannot. SO HE MAKES A
LEAP OF FAITH AND AFFIRMS VALUES ANYWAY. And when he does, he reveals the
inadequacy of a world without God." [Id.]
Those who hold to materialism say there is no ultimate purpose in life. So how
do they live? "The only way most people who deny purpose in life live happily
is either by making up some purpose, which amounts to self-delusion as we saw
with Sartre, or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusion." [Id.,
p. 50]
This is the predicament Russell Stewart faces with his admission that his
morality is subjective in nature and that he does not believe in supra-natural
origins.
Another favorite of mine is the Jewish thinker Dennis Praeger. In his
wonderful book "Think a Second Time", Praeger has a chapter entitled: "Is This
Life All There Is?" He traces out the major consequences of believing this:
"1. Hedonism. If this life is all one has, then it is quite logical to live a
life devoted to self-gratification. If the physical is the only reality, we
should experience as much physical pleasure as possible [and, I might add, it
doesn't matter if anyone else gets hurt in the process--JB].
2. Utopianism. Idealistic people who believe that this life is all there is
reject hedonism. But they may embrace a far more dangerous
ideology--utopianism, the desire to make heaven on earth. Hence the attraction
of utopianism to so many twentieth-century radicals who have rejected Judaism
and Christianity. In light of the hells on earth that secular utopians have
produced, it is clear just how important the deferring of utopia to a future
world is. Had people like the Bolsheviks and millions of other secular
radicals not tried to create heaven on earth, they would not have created hell
here.
3. Despair. In light of the great physical and emotional pain that so many
people experience, what is more likely to induce despondency than believing
that this life is all there is? The malaise felt by so many people living in
modern Western society is not traceable to material deprivation but, at least
in part, to the despair induced by secularism and its belief that this world
is all there is...." [Id. pp. 236-237]
There is really only one answer to the predicament: one has to turn to God.
Praeger has another essay entitled: "The Only Solution to Evil: Ethical
Monotheism." He states:
"Ethical monotheism means two things:
1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.
2. God's primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one
another.
If all people subscribed to this simple belief--which does not entail leaving,
or joining, any specific religion, or giving up any national identity--the
world would experience far less evil." [Id., p. 202]
I close with a last quote from Praeger, a note that he might have written
directly to Russell, and in a way has through my own humble efforts here:
"Those who wish to believe that this life is all there is are certainly
welcome to do so. But they should be honest enough to acknowledge that this
belief renders the lives of most people little more than a cruel joke." [Id.,
p. 237]
Jim