Re: Hitchens and the Moral Law
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve banged on and on and on in blog posts about the point that morality (as opposed to prudence dressed up as morality) strikes me as absurd in a purely naturalistic universe.
Here’s another example. Steven Weinberg (Nobelist in physics) says this in the recent essay “Without God” in the New York Review of Books:
[T]he worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions.
Really – why not?