Naturalism vs. Values

You know what really crumbles my cookie? Naturalists who hold to any value – whatsoever. Values are completely antithetical to pure Naturalism. (I just may break some sort of record for question marks in this post.)

We have all considered the ultimate problem for the naturalist: the origin of morals. What is right and what is wrong? Some hold that the society or community is the authority on what is right and wrong. The problem is then, how does the community decide what is right and what is wrong? Some hold that right behaviors are those which aid in the continuation of the propagation of the human species. Okay. We have arrived at another problem the naturalist cannot sufficiently answer.

Why is the propagation of the human species a good thing?

For a naturalist to say that the human species should even continue is odd. It is odd because they are ascribing value to a merely physical process. They are saying that the physical process of a human being begetting another human being is a good thing. If the universe is merely physical, if everything is just chemical, then who cares if a human organism lives or dies? Who cares if the all the planets in the universe contain life or not? I would challenge a pure Naturalist to give a reason why anyone should live or die.

People generally love their children. Why? Is emotion merely a chemical reaction? Do I love my daughter because she shares a certain chemical I do and those similar chemicals are attracted to each other and the chemicals in our bodies express themselves as what we interpret as love? Why do I love my wife? Do we have similar chemicals? We are not blood-relatives, after all. Would the Naturalist say that since we share a common ancestor way back, that is why we may share a similar chemical? Why then would I hate one member of the human species and love another? Why do some people hate their children or their parents? What about preference? Why does someone like the color red and another like the color blue?

A true naturalist says that everything in the universe is merely physical. Should I care if a rock is moved from place to another? Should I care if water evaporates? I may care about that because I enjoy moisture returning to the sky so it can rain again, water some crops, and ultimately allow food to be put on my table. But why should I care if I eat? What does it truly matter if a person lives or dies, if everything is merely natural? I cannot for a second care whatsoever that Jupiter is constantly blasted by violent storms; it doesn’t affect me. If something affects a human toward a positive benefit, then the human must be valuable. How can anything be valuable in pure Naturalism?

To avoid the argument, a naturalist may quickly say, “It doesn’t really matter.” But deep down, they don’t really believe this. They don’t really believe a random person should be murdered and they wouldn’t be bereft of grief if their mother died. Naturalists are incredibly contradictory to their worldview and they don’t even know it; this is my lament.

Just like the creationist’s argument that there has to be an unmoved mover somewhere upstream, there has to be an author of morality somewhere upstream. We cannot create our own values if Naturalism is correct. In fact, the mere concept of values should be considered ridiculous. Just as spontaneous generation of organic life is impossible, so is spontaneous generation of morality. There really are very few pure Naturalists because those who consider themselves as Naturalists do not understand what that worldview necessitates – a complete lack of values of any kind.

So to reword my assertion – values cannot exist in pure Naturalism. In fact, the existence of values held by humanity is a proof against Naturalism.

Excursus

Keep in mind that most evolutionists seem to assume they are Naturalists.

A member of PETA might go so far as saying that humans should just up and die so the animals can have reign of the earth. But if it would be good for humanity to die, it would also be good for the animal kingdom to die. After all, animals kill far more animals than humans do. I know they would say we are less worthy of life because we are the only species who kills for sport. But this does not get around the problem of pure Naturalism because killing for sport would not be bad at all if everything is merely physical. This same member of PETA would be distraught if a human loved-one of theirs dies. This would be inconsistent with a Naturalist worldview.

A staunch environmentalist might say that the human race should be severely decreased so the earth can be saved from “global warming.” But yet again, what does it matter which climate the earth is saddled with if everything is merely physical?

I ask so many questions in this post because I challenge the pure Naturalist to answer them without being contrary to their own worldview.