When you rely upon "convention" alone, you have lost the idea of truth altogether. You can not claim something is good or bad. You just claim it is conventional or unconventional and you like it or dislike it.
This article illustrates my point:
What basis, morality?
The April 2004 cover of Discover magazine poses the question, ‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article’s author details the work of postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions.
As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, ‘A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.’1
Is Greene right? As the magazine asks, ‘Are right and wrong wired into our brains?’ The inquiry is a false one. Rather than questioning whether or not evolution has hardwired morality into our brains, the researcher should be questioning how the evolutionary hypothesis can claim anything is right or wrong at all.
For an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical ‘soup.’ The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just one’s own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself—who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be.
Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses people’s questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, ‘People sometimes say to me, “If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?”’
Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. ‘Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,’ he says. ‘You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.’2
Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society.
Biblical Christians have a much more satisfying and rational point of view.
In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law. God, the moral lawgiver, also revealed His moral standards more perfectly and directly following creation, by way of the Ten Commandments revealed to the children of Israel and subsequently in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.
Although man’s moral intuition has been severely damaged through the effects of sin (from the Curse of Genesis 3), each human being can see right and wrong; we are all without excuse before God and man for our evil actions.
Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.
But, evolutionary ‘science’ will likely never recognize this simple truth. While continuing in its quest to overturn the existence of God in the mind of society, it is inadvertently revealing the truth regarding the ghastly implications of evolutionary philosophy. With the Discover magazine article, we are witnessing the ‘leading edge’ of evolutionary research drawing towards the inevitable and logical conclusion that in a world without a God there is no objective basis for moral truth. There is only human preference. A frightening, anarchical proposition.
The question is, will society continue to blindly follow this flawed theory of origins and life?
References
Carl Zimmer, Whose Life Would You Save? Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution. Discover, p. 60, April 2004. Return to text.
Ibid, p. 64. Return to text.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0511basis.asp
Driving on the right side of the road is a convention. It was arbitrarily chosen to facilitate the flow of traffic. That is the truth of the matter.
It is neither good, nor bad. The determination of good and bad can only be made in reference to a moral code. Moral codes protect rights. The only thing that can be said about the convention as far as to describe it, is that it was chosen and the details are what they are. It is good, because it facilitates the flow of traffic and thus protects the rights of the citizens to travel without jeopardizing their property and lives to the chaos that would ensue if folks drove wherever they pleased.
"‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article’s author details the work of postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions."
Right and wrong are not hardwired. The brain is a machine that provides for the function of sentience and rational thought. The machine is fully capable of being used in a purely rational fashion, or irrational fashion according to the logic employed by the idividual. Greene is simply pointing at processes that he doesn't even know the function of, let alone understand.
"Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion."
Moral judgements are rationally based on a moral code of rational construction. Emotionally based, or motivatied thought, or action is neither rational, or moral.
"In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law."
There is no sense of right and wrong. There is only free will and rational capacity, both in the image and likeness of Gods. Morality requires a rationally constructed moral code to use as a reference.
"Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God."
No. The moral code was a creation of a rational mind that serves the purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. Good and evil are objective judgements only when they conform to the moral code which protects rights. The first of those rights is the life and sovereignty of will of each individual. The first persons rights to be protected are God's. They were to be protected against infringement by His creation. Note that those individuals created were given the gift of life and sovereignty of will as an act of unconditional love. That is God's grace. His creation is not His property, nor was it ever.
"There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself—who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be."
There sure can be! God came up with the concept of rights and the moral code htat protects them, so can man, because he was made in the image and likeness of God. The principles are universal, because they protect the essence of the sentient rational beings which live. it doesn't matter which sentient being comes up with the truth about what is required to protect the existence of the essence of those beings. What does matter is the logic and perfection of the code's protection of of the life and essence of those beings.
"Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance."
Zimmer understands neither science, or random variables. THe world does not work by chance. It operates by the physics.
"In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society."
The requirement of rationality is that all things be examined in an open and scientific way and that the truth of all matters be known and understood. To that end, honesty, truthfulness and a constant vigil with an open mind apply. Fallibilty only becomes an issue when one fails to examine and make certain of the truth. Like when one stamps a vote as doctrine and maintains it as truth in the face of reality which contradicts it.
" the ghastly implications of evolutionary philosophy."
The evidence contained in reality says that evolution happened and is not a hypothesis.