Closely related to the natural law argument is the argument from design. Just like we see laws in the universe which direct causes and effects and presuppose a Lawgiver, the argument goes, so we see design in the universe, which presuppose a Designer. The second law of thermodynamics makes this clear as well. While atheists must hold that the universe is increasingly becoming more orderly from an evolutionary standpoint, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is tending toward disorder. Russell argues that this world is not orderly, but instead a makeup of wars, fascism, tragedy, and hate, and to assume that this is the best that omnipotence and omniscience could do is an insult to the idea of a god. He believed and adhered to the second law of thermodynamics and reasoned that since we are moving toward disorder in a social way, nevertheless we are moving toward order from an evolutionary way. Thus, he contradicts himself in adhering to natural selection and the positive evolution of the species and in the same breath adhering to a deterioration of the social order. But still later he thought that a utopia was possible through human knowledge and world government. So which one is it? This author would say that the social and physical order is deteriorating and there is nothing that can be done in a moralistic sense to create heaven on earth without the transforming power of the gospel. That is what living in an imperfect world is all about. But to say that the single simple cell is not complex and orderly is a complete reversal of modern examinations of the entity that is much more complex than a computer. And the idea of order and design being evidence of randomness is hardly a logical construction based upon scientific observations and postulates.
In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason the philosopher states that there would be no right and wrong if God did not exist. Absolute rightness and wrongness would come down to a matter of opinion and thus chaos would result. Obviously what is true and false comes from outside of the individual, otherwise multiple competing standards would be said to be true at the same time, running counter to the Law of Non-Contradiction. In essence, this is the moral argument that Russell attempts to refute next.
Is that difference [between right and wrong] due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say…that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat…[and] that they are logically anterior to God.[1]
Russell does not seem to follow the beliefs of theologians about the nature of God and His law. For while right and wrong differ because of His decree, His decree is based upon His nature, not just a random, whimsical determination. If rightness and wrongness stem from Himself and His nature than it is significant to say that God is good. Thus, rightness is bound up in the Person of God and is not anterior to God. Russell does not examine where moral law comes from in his system but does in a later work mention that we are the ones create value and our desires confirm it. The one absolute that he seems to place above all others is that of love, which is the fulfillment of our desires and the well-wishing of the fulfillment of others. Thus, when is moral if one to the best of one’s ability lives for their own happiness insofar as it promotes and brings about the happiness of others.[2] Ultimately, morality comes down the will of the majority because of the need for self-preservation. Yet, this could lead to problems if a society deems what is best is the killing of those who are of less use to society, say for instance the elderly or the unborn for economic and social reasons. In this case, when everyone has their desires fulfilled, there are nevertheless moral codes that would be in question, to put it mildly. In addition, if living a good life is purely to bring about satisfaction in the real sense while maintaining that physical extinction will inevitably result, one is in a sad state in which living a moral life is ultimately meaningless.
[1]Ibid, 12.
[2] Bertrand Russell. What I Believe (E. P. Dutton and Company: New York, NY), 24-25.
No comments:
Post a Comment