True enough, but also in a way that you may not have intended:^);
"Blessed are those who hunger after righteousness, for they shall be filled."
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life."
Yet you have said to r9etb;
...Neither does transcendent morality explain how he can get away with it until the day he dies - it merely suggests that he has interests beyond that day which are not served by doing as he does. And even if we grant that such transcendent morality actually exists, what then are we to make of the countless Pharaohs throughout history who "got away with it" until they finally expired after a long and successful life of tyranny and debauchery? The existence of such transcendent moral proscriptions does not appear to have precluded the existence of Pharaohs....
But unlike physical hunger, there doesn't seem to be any ground, as you note concerning the Pharaohs, for asserting any necessary consequence of ignoring moral impulses, at least in a random, purposeless, impersonal cosmos. What is the explanation for THIS hunger; namely, that hunger and thirst in our hearts for justice against the wicked? The complaint of our hearts that the wicked "get away with it" makes no sense, and is ultimately meaningless anyway, from an atheistic perspective!
But the ancient Psalmist does complain:
"Psalm 73
BOOK III -- Psalms 73-89
1
A psalm of Asaph.
Surely God is good to Israel,
to those who are pure in heart.
2 But as for me, my feet had almost slipped;
I had nearly lost my foothold.
3 For I envied the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong. [1]
5 They are free from the burdens common to man;
they are not plagued by human ills.
6 Therefore pride is their necklace;
they clothe themselves with violence.
7 From their callous hearts comes iniquity [2] ;
the evil conceits of their minds know no limits.
8 They scoff, and speak with malice;
in their arrogance they threaten oppression.
9 Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
and their tongues take possession of the earth.
10 Therefore their people turn to them
and drink up waters in abundance. [3]
11 They say, "How can God know?
Does the Most High have knowledge?"
12 This is what the wicked are like-
always carefree, they increase in wealth.
13 Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
14 All day long I have been plagued;
I have been punished every morning.
15 If I had said, "I will speak thus,"
I would have betrayed your children.
16 When I tried to understand all this,
it was oppressive to me
17 till I entered the sanctuary of God;
then I understood their final destiny.
18 Surely you place them on slippery ground;
you cast them down to ruin.
19 How suddenly are they destroyed,
completely swept away by terrors!
20 As a dream when one awakes,
so when you arise, O Lord,
you will despise them as fantasies.
21 When my heart was grieved
and my spirit embittered,
22 I was senseless and ignorant;
I was a brute beast before you.
23 Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion forever.
27 Those who are far from you will perish;
you destroy all who are unfaithful to you.
28 But as for me, it is good to be near God.
I have made the Sovereign LORD my refuge;
I will tell of all your deeds."
r9etb has referred eloquently to the problem of moral authority. Suppose for example, that a thunderstorm comes though St. Louis tonight and deposits hail on my front lawn which accidentally happens to spell out the words, "Love your wife". Should I feel any obligation to obey the random pattern of hail that gives the appearance of a moral proposition and command? Of course not. If I may extend r9etb's remarks to include the idea that by their nature, moral propositions are not just abstract principles, they must be of personal nature and origin. Moreover, not only must they emanate from only a personal source, but they are COMMANDS. And further, not only are they personal commands, they constitute personal commands from an AUTHORITATIVE source. (I would feel no more compulsion to obey an impersonal, random concatenation of hailstones that accidentally give the appearance of a moral command than I would be to obey a hobo standing in the street issuing traffic directives.)
These roundabout meanderings are meant to illustrate the point that from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, the question of moral "truth or consequences" is ultimately meaningless. I guess what I am focusing on, general, is your statement that the existence of God and transcendent morality only serves to throw a bit more weight against whatever immoral act one is considering, and then only if one accepts some specific premises to begin with, more specific than simply "God and objective morality exist."
Here's my question; in light of the foregoing, what is the atheistic ground for asserting the existence of an "immoral act" in the first place? You yourself have acknowledged that "evil exists", but how does one account for it in a random, purposeless, impersonal cosmos?
Cordially,
Power. What people love most is a consciousness of their own power. And immoral is every power that defies the expansion of it. The self is the atheistic ground for the assertion of anything. In the end, the self is divinized, and all atheists become shifty worshipers of the ego's occasion. If not Darwin, Hobbes is hereby vindicated.
No? As a way of restating my earlier point about the potential lack of transcendent consequences not precluding the existence of more contemporaneous consequences, imagine a society where everyone was free to murder with impunity, where murder was, if not condoned, at least tolerated, and therefore freely practiced on a whim. What would such a society be like? Would the freedom to murder affect the way such a society was organized, the way its members behaved, the social conventions and traditions in force? Wouldn't those effects be fairly labeled as the "consequences" of the freedom to murder at will? Would you want to live in a society that had to deal - indeed, positively embraced them - with those consequences?
What is the explanation for THIS hunger; namely, that hunger and thirst in our hearts for justice against the wicked? The complaint of our hearts that the wicked "get away with it" makes no sense, and is ultimately meaningless anyway, from an atheistic perspective!
We have an instinctive dislike for the consequences of letting the wicked get away with it - consequences which I asked you to envision above. Your heart complains because your heart knows that in a society without rules, your life is very likely to be short, brutal, and nasty. It is precisely because we are selfish that we have rules. A few people will try to selfishly lie, steal, and murder their way to the top, but most of us instinctively know that there can only be one top dog - making the odds rather long of that top dog being you or me, and so we decline to play that game by selfishly opting for self-preservation instead.
Suppose for example, that a thunderstorm comes though St. Louis tonight and deposits hail on my front lawn which accidentally happens to spell out the words, "Love your wife". Should I feel any obligation to obey the random pattern of hail that gives the appearance of a moral proposition and command? Of course not.
Imagine that your glass of water were to suddenly change to wine as you were holding it. Suppose the hailstorm deposited a perfect representation of the Virgin Mary. Suppose you were standing on the beach one day, and the sea parted before you. All of these events are entirely possible without supernatural intervention, albeit highly unlikely to occur. Are these potential events actually more significant than a random hailstone commandment to love your wife, or are they only more significant because of the significance you assign them? Suppose you had a random and accidental set of quantum fluctuations that only appeared to be Christ conversing with you in your living room - again, highly unlikely, but not impossible. Would you feel obligated to obey it? Would you even be able to tell the difference between mere appearance and true reality?
Here's my question; in light of the foregoing, what is the atheistic ground for asserting the existence of an "immoral act" in the first place? You yourself have acknowledged that "evil exists", but how does one account for it in a random, purposeless, impersonal cosmos?
Impersonal, yes. Random, sort of. Purposeless? Not at all - in that case, the field is open for any purpose we desire to create. Will we create a world that tolerates what we might call "evil", or not? What's your preference, if God should turn out to be absent?