The mere fact that you want an objective moral system doesn’t make it so. Certainly there is not evidence for one and certainly many of the greatest evils ever committed were committed by individuals claiming to be upholding god’s law.
There are clues that point toward theism. For instance; All healthy minded people experience a capacity for guilt, which is activated when we are given reason to believe that something about our behavior is immoral. Though it is true that one can be deceived about right and wrong, we all have a basic understanding of it. We universally agree and take for granted that there is such a thing as right, wrong, honor and virtue. Thus the mere fact that we have a moral conscience would suggest that there is such a thing as an objective wrong despite a universal disagreement about what that might be. It seems a rather bizzare coincidence that among the other senses we have a sense of guilt which, like the others, coincides with an objective reality, more specifically with that aspect of reality concerning our “free choices”. It seems to me that we have a “sixth sense”. Its called a “
moral conscience”.
Therefore, simply pointing to social conditioning, does not fully explain our sense of guilt so far as it is a applied to moral law. Since although social environment can be coercive and thus encouraging toward cooperative behavior, many evils are not thwarted in this manner. Many great evils have been thwarted by the personal examination of a guilty conscience in regards to those around us. Guilt is the driving force behind much good in society. Guilt and ones belief that our sense of moral law infers and objective truth about human behavior has stopped many great evils so that you can enjoy an environment in which people infer intrinsic value on people. An environment that you take for granted.
The fact is, most of the freedoms we enjoy is based on a belief in transcendental ethics. If people avoid wrong, they avoid it because they believe that their behavior is truly wrong and thus they cannot stand to be wrong. It is not because people like being nice. The atheist is the same, accept they hold these ethical beliefs irrationally. When they are forced to see the irrationality of it, rather then accept the inference of Gods existence, they choose to disbelieve in moral truth altogether. Now imagine a world where people no longer infer those values on people; such is the danger of promoting naturalism; and even more foolish is such an endeavor when we have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view. I find it quite disturbing that people would want to promote it. Perhaps they believe naturalism provides certain freedoms that they would not have in a strictly moral climate?
What they fail to see is that they enjoy many freedoms because of the influence of Christianity and those belief systems that infer the existence of a transcendent objective good. They will not realize that it is largely our belief in moral truth that supports civilized society, until it is too late.
Neither does evolution explain anything. It explain how qualities are activated by natural events; but natural qualities like mind, emotion, and the like, can only be explained fully by the root cause of all reality. Evolution has little to say about the ultimate origin of feelings, emotion, desire, guilt, love. And when i look at these things, it is hard for me to imagine that the root cause of all being is anything but personal in nature.
