>JB: No, it is NOT a transcendent system.
>RS: Thank you. By your own admission, I have met your challenge. I
>have built a moral code that is not based on a transcendent system.
>JB: It is subjective.
>RS: But it obviously works, since I haven't raped or murdered
>anyone, and I have no desire to do so.
>JB: They are mutually exclusive categories. Recognize what
>philosophers for thousands of years have explained: materialism and
>transcendence don't go together. IOW, "you can't get OUGHT from IS."
>You borrow your oughts, and you ought to acknowledge it.
>RS: I have borrowed nothing. The foundation of my morality is
>explained in detail.
Paleontologist Stephen Gould identifies evolution as purposeless, nonprogressive, and
materialistic. He quotes Darwin, "love of the deity effect of
organization, oh you materialist!...Why is thought being a secretion
of the brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It
is our arrogance, our admiration of ourselves." Gould then muses,
"And if mind has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be
anything more than an illusion invented by an illusion?" [S.J.G.
1977. Ever Since Darwin. Norton, New York]
But if thought is no more than a secretion of the brain brought about by purposeless
permutations of matter (wherever that came from) through eons of
time, is there reason to expect a rational universe, or that we are
rational, or that rationality matters? How do you even know what you
claim to know? Being consistent with the presupposition of
materialism certainly destroys any real concept of morality. As a
rhetorical question, why is the secretion in the brain of a thief
stealing your car less moral than the secretion in your brain that
says he shouldn't?
Not realizing you have borrowed moral capital does not mean it is not borrowed.
Many people, including scientists, enjoy the fruit of Christian
assumptions while denying the tree that produces the fruit. You have explained that
morality in a materialistic worldview is completely subjective, based on feelings.
So. What if someone feels like murdering? What if someone feels
like raping? As a materialist, one can certainly say that this
behavior is wrong for oneself, but cannot logically insist that it is
wrong for anyone else - without appealing to a transcendent moral
standard that applies to everyone, Hitler, Freddy Jones down the
street, a would be rapist, and you too. Unfortunately, to appeal to
a standard under which we are all obligated (a transcendent
standard), is to appeal to a non-material reality that cannot be supplied by materialism.
As a practical matter I am glad materialistic evolutionists are
inconsistent in their logic, but I think people should realize the
consequence of their ideas. Heck, from a materialist point of view,
why worry about more complicated moral ills like racism? What is the
real moral difference between putting a bullet through a rock, a
grapefruit, or a human. They are all just collections of atoms. So
what if some are more complicated collections of atoms? Is there a
real moral difference, or is it just a brain reaction making one feel
there is a difference? What if someone else has a different chemical reaction?
Why is that wrong?
On the other hand, it is perfectly consistent for a Christian to say "rape is wrong,"
or "Hitler was wrong," or "hating someone because they have 0.01% different DNA
(racism)," is wrong, because God has created the world in a way that true transcendent
moral categories exist, and tells us as much.
Regards, Paul
Paul D. Brown
Max Planck Institute of Chemical Ecology
c/o Institute of Biological Chemistry
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-6340
e-mail: pdbrown@mail.wsu.edu or pdb@uidaho.edu