Harsh but true: Science “has relativized morality, enabled political collectivism and despotism, justified genocides and experiments on human life, prioritized environmentalism over human liberty and prosperity and mired modern man in a suicidal malaise of meaninglessness, hedonistic distraction and self-mutilation.”
Science was never meant to be a philosophy about life’s meaning, or rather meaninglessness. But that’s what it became. And I’ve never heard an atheist say that without God anything is permitted—it’s too crude to say out loud. But without God there is no sacred, and then we start to permit anything.
Thanks as always Dave, I'm glad you liked it. Peter Kreeft once said that the goal of philosophical debate is to find the assumption behind someone's argument and point out its logical contradiction. In the "machine gun/mic drop" internet debates nowadays, this can be difficult, especially when very few people are schooled in traditional logic, but most of the claims of atheism and scientism are based in illogical assumptions. One of them is that there can be any morality without God. The problem is that, without God, there is no will or intention behind anything. The world is just matter and energy, without any particular plan or end. As such, there is no natural law and thus no morality for humans to abstract. We cannot give anything meaning outside of our subjective preference, so one value is really no better than another. Atheists seem to think that utilitarianism or human law can make up for this, but both are still only subjective without an objective reference point in God's law, whether natural or divine; as Nietzsche said, morality becomes just a competition between wills vying for power in a meaningless void. Unfortunately, many Christians also fall into this error, compromising on fundamental issues like abortion and transgenderism.
This one is particularly good! I am bookmarking it and will likely reference it in future.
Thanks, Judson, I'm glad you liked it! God bless!
Harsh but true: Science “has relativized morality, enabled political collectivism and despotism, justified genocides and experiments on human life, prioritized environmentalism over human liberty and prosperity and mired modern man in a suicidal malaise of meaninglessness, hedonistic distraction and self-mutilation.”
Science was never meant to be a philosophy about life’s meaning, or rather meaninglessness. But that’s what it became. And I’ve never heard an atheist say that without God anything is permitted—it’s too crude to say out loud. But without God there is no sacred, and then we start to permit anything.
Thanks as always Dave, I'm glad you liked it. Peter Kreeft once said that the goal of philosophical debate is to find the assumption behind someone's argument and point out its logical contradiction. In the "machine gun/mic drop" internet debates nowadays, this can be difficult, especially when very few people are schooled in traditional logic, but most of the claims of atheism and scientism are based in illogical assumptions. One of them is that there can be any morality without God. The problem is that, without God, there is no will or intention behind anything. The world is just matter and energy, without any particular plan or end. As such, there is no natural law and thus no morality for humans to abstract. We cannot give anything meaning outside of our subjective preference, so one value is really no better than another. Atheists seem to think that utilitarianism or human law can make up for this, but both are still only subjective without an objective reference point in God's law, whether natural or divine; as Nietzsche said, morality becomes just a competition between wills vying for power in a meaningless void. Unfortunately, many Christians also fall into this error, compromising on fundamental issues like abortion and transgenderism.