Absolutes

I have been thinking about the nature of absolutes. My central concern about this issue is whether absolutes can exist in a materialistic universe. As in, can a naturalist explain the existence of moral, logical, ethical, scientific, absolutes?



I would like to focus on the idea of moral and ethical absolutes. It seems to me that the core doctrine of a naturalist is that we are created in a series of gradual processes from a single ancestry. So basically, everything in existence is explained only in the terms of natural things. The soul and spirit do not exist. These are actually made up and detrimental to mental health, according to fascist Darwinists of Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. Humans are simply chemical beings who are no different from the ant or a dog at the most basic level. Although, Sam Harris would say that we are different and disagrees with Hitchens, Peter Singer, and Dawkins about the nature of PETA and animal rights. In general though, humans do not have any special status.



So, moving on from this point, my main disagreement with naturalists is how can they make absolute statements? Think about what worldview they present. If life is the product of purely random processes, then what is there to appeal to make a moral and ethical absolute statement?

My position is that these people operate under the presupposition that God does exist. The only way to make a statement of truth and claim it is absolute is to appeal to something constant and everlasting. The absolute statement by itself is suppose to exist for all-time. The only thing or idea that a naturalist could appeal to is the idea of evolution. Macro Evolution does not fit the requirements of a good authority. First, it is not directed. Those who argue that evolution has purpose or a plan is ignorant of the original theory. This is addition to the idea of a purely RANDOM process. To claim Evolution has a direction is to claim their is a ultimate purpose to life or goal to life. Then you have to ask, what is this goal? Who placed this goal or plan because ideas or plans have to have author or mind? Ideas do not appear from nothing, then again evolutionary theory is a self-contradictory statement because there has to be a ultimate cause and plus they have NO answer for how life began, unless you believe in directed panspermia (which is laughable).

Secondly, it is not consistent or predictable. Thirdly, only immaterial concepts or beings can actually be considered valid absolute authorities. The reason is absolutes are supposed to be transcendental and true for all known times. It does not change per person or a change per location. So appealing to a naturalism authority is no authority of any significance at all. There is no consistency what so ever, so thus you would be claiming it is not absolute but can in some ways be self-refuting, a internally inconsistent truth, which is not truth at all.

On a more graduated level, speaking in absolutes requires a presupposition that a transcendental idea or mind exists. The only possible way for universal statements to make any sort of sense is for immateriality to exist as well, unless we all want to be incoherent beings. Naturalism fails to explain the existence of immateriality and fails to account for the idea of universalism.

Certainly, a Darwinist came make a absolute statement, like there is no god and evolution is the answer to all of our problems. I think there statement really has no authority to support it because it is not based on any significant idea that is considered universal in nature. They are making a leap from the natural world to the universal world. Darwinists cannot give in moral or ethical guidance (well in actually there is no morals or ethics to them in the first place) and cannot make any supportable absolute claim about life. Eventually, if you believe in a naturalism, you reach a cross hair. You reach the worldview that truth does not exist and nothing is absolute. You also reach the point of no morals or intrinsic value to anything at all. So does this even remotely compare to how we live our life? NO! A naturalistic worldview is completely irrational and removed from the reality of human life. So ultimately, this worldview fails on one the best tests for a validity of a worldview: how does it compare to real life. Although naturalists speak as though they have universal and exclusive truth, they really do not have the philosophical support to make such claims. The existence of God is implied in their logic.