Ethics
and moral norms die within modern evolution culture. It is amusing to
consider how far the demise of morality and ethics go, for there is
no basis for preferring one moral order over another on the basis of
necessity, except as one believes in a natural law and necessary
moral order inferred fro that. Logicians and ethicists might argue
however that any ethics of evolution based on natural law is forced
by circumstance and without coherent or compelling necessity.
Some
evolutionary scientists that are militant atheists have argued that
the sole moral value or imperative is passing on genes. Of course
they are entirely wrong about that. It is not at all necessary to
pass on genes, and one outcome of evolution is as valid in its
entire, complete meaninglessness as any other. Life is itself
meaningless and nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing
as Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet.
If
contemporary evolution ethics is less meaningful if possible than
that of Buddhism, it is interesting to consider some of the
formulations possible with the meaninglessness.
If
we give symbols for various ethical systems and consequences, moral
orders and etc and put them into a mathematical logic expression the
results return 0 for meaning. * equals multiplication or process of
regard by Evolution...
i.e.
Evo * morality = 0
Evo
* moral system 1to infinity= 0
Evo
* political ethics = 0
Evo
* environmental conservation = 0
etc.
Assuredly
people can make moral systems and orders themselves and sometimes
even collectively yet the result is still meaningless. Power may be
meaningful yet the end result of power and politics is
meanninglessness. As a Christian I believe in a coherent divine
ethics and grace of God yet for evolutionary atheists that is a non
sequitur. Athiests have David Attenbororo (I like Mr. Attenboro’s
work incidentally) as their defender that they will not be summoned
to a Day of Judgment...ahem.
I
was motivated to note the meaninglessness of evolution in its own
logic wherein everything that exist is phenomenal and a fluke,
godless and a kind of joke upon itself after noting a Scientific
American blog article taking an indirect shot at Christians via
environmentalism. Actually the most important role of Christians is
to talk about the Lord Jesus Christ. Scientists should be concerned
more with science instead of religion yet as they generally have the
polarizing filter of atheism that moves them to view religion as a
sociological phenomenon it is irresistible for contemporary
scientific evolution based atheists not to try to rid the world of
Christians and their ethics as if it would be a better place.
Evolution
is however completely godless in the scientific atheist point of
view, even though some Christian philosophers regard God as quite
capable of evolving anything he deems worth evolving at any time
before or after any given Universe he [plans to actually mortal human
life in at some point. Scientific evolutionist-atheists today believe
the entire concern is one of a requirement that all be atheists
because evolution is true and evolution requires a world without God,
and that is not logically valid either.
I
would suggest that the value of meaningfulness in nature and
meaningfulness in words and ideas have some natural validity. Words
and ideas have meaning in communication. Valid communication isn’t
meaningless and neither is the truth or falsity of expression or
words representing ideas. In fact it is challenging to prove the
meaninglessness of the Universe and everything in it when sentient
beings finding meaning in things, and it becomes churlish to deny in
theory the existence of any being greater than humanity or other
biologically based life. Evolution-atheists cannot tolerate any sort
of immaterial nature of meaning and thought, spirit or values based
on spirit though there are some intellectual hazards in attempting to
do so. Semiotics must leads to quarks or strings ultimately and
meaning must vanish into meaninglessness as a Universe must too even
if only to reappear in a cyclic tree of infinite Universe blossoming.
Modern
science while being technologically strong is also morally
indefensible. That is it hasn’t a shred of ethical validity within
its own logic, and that’s the way they want it.
