The Inconsistency of the Secular Environmentalist

The goal of this post will be to show that the secular environmentalist who holds his moral convictions to be objectively true and therefore universally binding on all of humanity, is living inconsistently with his own professed world view. If we presuppose an atheistic world view, all grounds for objectively true moral judgments are lost. Let me explain why.

Within the atheistic world view, we are a cosmic accident. Our entire solar system is an unimaginably minute speck in a undesigned and meaningless universe. We are minute specs on a planet in that minute solar system in that meaningless universe. The universe is expanding at such a speed that gravity will not be able to pull it back together, thus sealing the fate of the universe. The universe will continue expanding at an ever increasing rate only to eventually burn through all the available fuel, go completely dark and then go through a process called the "big rip", where even the cold dark chunks of matter that remain will be pulled apart at the sub atomic level. Nothing will survive this. All memory and record of all the events that ever happened in this cosmos will be permanently erased. As if it had never happened. What would be the difference if it never really had?

Within this framework, on what basis do we think we can make moral claims that are objectively true? By what standard? Our own? Wouldn't that be the hight of arrogance to believe that our personal judgement is the source for objective morality that is binding on all people? Of course it would. But beyond being arrogant it is a downright nonsensical notion. It is nonsensical because you are an accidental collection of atoms. You are meaningless. You are purposeless. You are without value. A cosmic accident. So how could from this non-value, objective moral value be derived? It can't. Your moral pronouncements are meaningless syllables coming from an insignificant spec in a meaningless universe. And it doesn't matter how many of these specks you add together in a collective (0xN=0) you cannot create a source from which objective morality could be based.

There is no basis from which to label anything "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". You can have a bad television because a television has a designer and a purpose. We on the other hand have no designer, no purpose and no way we are supposed to be. So we are more like a pile of leaves that have blown together on the ground. You can't say that is a "good" or "bad" pile of leaves, because there isn't any way that pile of leaves is supposed to be. It is just a cosmic accident like we are. These are the clear unavoidable implications of the atheist's world view.

Given these implication you can see why it is completely inconsistent for those who are atheists to believe that their moral opinions on the issue of the environment (or any other issue) are objectively true and should be binding on everyone else. Within their world view, moral pronouncements would be a falsehood that they would have to pretend were true. Much like a child pretending to have a tea party pretends to have tea in her pot. The only difference is that a child never uses the threat of force to make others sit with her and sip the imaginary tea.

In conclusion I just want to clarify what I am not saying. I am obviously not saying that there is no basis for objective morality. There is. The basis is God's nature. And God's law that flows from His nature. I am also not saying that atheists cannot recognize what is or isn't objectively morally true. Most do, for example, know that it really is wrong to torture a child. All I am sating is that their world view cannot account for this truth that they know in their heart. The have to borrow from the Theistic world view to believe it is "really" i.e., objectively wrong to torture a child.

So, Mr or Ms. professing atheist. If you believe in objective morality, you need to wrestle with the fact that there is no basis for it within your world view. Be honest with yourself. Face the fact that you world view cannot account for the way you know in your heart the world to be.