In my last post, which was about 98% light-hearted, I slipped in a series of serious questions (the ‘other’ 2%) that all inferred the same thing:
It is a logical contradiction/ logically inconsistent to believe in the process of Natural Selection as the basis for who survives and who doesn't and at the same time help the weak to continue surviving. If you really believe that the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection is the tool chance ‘uses’ to allow us to evolve into higher and stronger life forms, then helping those not ‘chanced’ for advancement (the sick, the disabled, the impoverished) only gets in the way of Nature, or the ‘natural order of things.'
Immediately and inevitably, there will be objections from those who are non-religious and yet retain a high regard for human life. Why? I think what Ernie said in her comments on my last post have some strength to them – that even the secular world struggles with the logical conclusions of life without God because something within them rebels at the coldness of life according to Spock (stay tuned for “Part 2”). There is a bleakness to the logical conclusions of Darwinism that is so chilling, most are not brave or honest enough to look them in the eye and live their lives accordingly. Instead, most avert their gaze in search of some feel-good ‘middle ground.’
For example, one of the highest profile secular humanitarian organizations today is “Medecins Sans Frontiers” (MSF), or “Doctors Without Borders,” who have on their official website this statement from a physician: “There is so little care available that the only responsible ethical position to take is action.”
Here is the problem, as simply as I can state it:
1) Without God, there is no basis for any sort of “ultimate,” absolute, universal ‘moral principles.’
2) Without any sort of ultimate, absolute, universal moral law, the basis for any ‘ethical’ behavior boils down to a matter of opinion, emotion or perspective.
Without any sort of universal moral law, there is no ‘Right’ and there is no ‘Wrong.’
By what standard can that physician with “Doctors Without Borders” make the claim, “to take action… is the only responsible ethical position?” None but what seems ‘right’ to him. Without some unchanging and universal definition of what is “ethical,” what is “moral,” what he said is at best his passionate opinion, but not a fact. And if it’s not an objective fact, then the man who kills the sick and weak and old of a village because he passionately believes they are robbing resources from the healthy is in possession of an equally valid, right, “responsible ethical position.” How does that sit with you?
I was listening to a talk about ‘Meaning’ by Dr. Ravi Zacharias when he read this piece by secular English journalist, Steve Turner. See if you can detect Turner’s discomfort…
CREED FOR THE MODERN THINKER
“Here is the creed for the modern thinker ~
We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin
We believe that everything is okay, As long as you don’t hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your definition of knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during and after marriage,
We believe in the therapy of sin,
We believe that adultery is fun,
We believe that sodomy is okay,
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better, Despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated, and you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man, just like Buddha, Muhammad and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher, although we think, basically, his good morals were really bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least all the ones that we read were, they all believe in love and goodness, they only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing, because when you ask the dead what happens, they say nothing. If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsory heaven for all except, perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson, what’s selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors, and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good, it’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of Society, Society is the fault of conditions, and conditions are the fault of Society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly, the universe will readjust, history will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.
P.S. If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear ‘state of emergency, sniper kills 10, troops on rampage, youths go looting, bomb blasts school,’ it is but the sound of man, worshiping his maker.”
This is life without universal moral principles. This is life without God. Christian, are you grateful yet? In his talk, Ravi Z. went on to show how, for those who choose a world without God, there is not only a lack of universal moral law, but there is also no ultimate hope, no overarching meaning, and no recovery if they find out they are wrong after they die. But with God, we already possess all of these things, and can live our lives accordingly! Christian, are you grateful yet? Stay tuned for a more uplifting “Part 2.”
Surrounded By Grace,