Is secularism capable of maintaining moral objectivity?

Nietzsche is the prophet who foresaw and foretold the coming of the modern age of lack of moral objectivity. Indeed, he proclaimed the greatest commandment which created a society of savages when he said, “the time has come to oppose morality with immorality, to call what priests call good, evil and what they call evil, good. The time has come for the transvaluation of all values.” In a less revolutionary tone, Jean Paul Satre the French philosopher accredited for the use the term existentialism, said “…the existentialist on the contrary finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men.”

The godless world has left us with no sense of objectivity for morality to answer the question “why”. This is because, in its attempt to solidify its stake within the social nerve, secularism celebrates pluralism or inclusiveness as the greatest virtue of life. It was Dostoievsky who said, “If God does not exist, everything would be permitted.” But wait a minute; don’t be fooled by the sheer tolerance attribute of the words pluralism and inclusiveness. For us to understand the dimension of this discussion on pluralism there is the need to explain the forms that pluralism has taken. This paper does not focus on cultural diversity. In fact, cultural diversity or pluralism is much celebrated and really is one of the beauties of creation. What is in focus here is moral pluralism which is to be understood against a broad cultural backdrop with three major components.

Firstly we can take it on the strand of intellectualism, in which case the focus of its expression would be relevant to postmodernism. Here the assertion is that there is no objective truth. Plurality of beliefs is inevitable and there is the need to encourage it. Hence any suggestion to the claim that a group of people or an individual believes in truth presents irritating suspicion and disgust. This is however a false claim and an intellectual dishonesty. By essence the word truth ascribes to itself exclusivity and absoluteness. Hence the claim that there are many truths is a contradiction in term.

On the other hand pluralism can be viewed in the religious sense where the consideration of many religions are said to be of equal valid expression of an ultimate reality. By extension, all religious values or ethical beliefs associated with the religion are acceptable and hence the need to celebrate them. Here again, Christianity will find itself falling of the trail because Jesus said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). Christianity has no shame claiming exclusivity in its beliefs and we stand by distinguishing ourselves from the others.

Finally, pluralism can be express as a prevailing liberal political ideology which encourages plurality of beliefs and actions, and points to an emphasis on individuality with regards to freedom of action – in other words self determination. Yet we know that we are not of ourselves entirely whether we are people of God or of the devil. The spiritual politics has not made provision for a demilitarized zone where refuges are kept. You either are hot or cold. There is nothing like absolute freedom and there shall never be. Anytime we make choices, we surrender our will to the benefits and dictates of that thing or person.

The rather clandestine nature of the concept of moral pluralism has left no one responsible for the provision of an answer to why there is so much human evil. There is indifference in dealing with the root cause of evil rather than the consequence. Children are being deprived of knowing a single truth except the truth that there is nothing like an absolute truth. So the hearts and minds of the younger generation have become laboratories for the manufacture of dreadful acts of evil. Talk to any young person and ask about any moral question if it is right or wrong. The very likely answer will be “it depends on the situation and the individual”. Why? Because, the basic training in school is to privatize morality as long as you deem it fit to your developed set of values. G.K. Chesterton said it this way, “The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not that a person ends up believing nothing; alas, it is much worse. A person may end up believing in anything.” This is our world today as a result of the forces of atheism and agnostics manifesting in secularism.

When we speak of right and wrong based on a set of objective values, we are seen to be intolerant with other people’s views and beliefs. Christianity has become one such bad faith because of its claim to moral exclusiveness. The only reason why Christianity has a place in this age of humanity is because it is considered one of the many truths and must be accommodated as long as it does not impose its teachings on other religions and persons who do not share the same moral values.

So when I stand at one point of civilization and try to draw a meaning to life, I find nothing to measure and nothing to hold on to as the bench mark. In his reflection Nietzsche asked, “who gave us as humanity the sponge to wipe the horizon? What sacred games will we need to invent? Is there any up or down left? Must we light lanterns in the morning hours?” obviously we have wiped every form of reference to an objective moral truth. We have slipped suddenly and our pride urges us to consider the slip as an emerging fun. Where are the people with a heart to correct this menace? Then the ‘Job syndrome’ rings in my ears, “are we godless because we are sinful or we are sinful because we are godless?” Our civilization is an advertisement of meaninglessness of our evil enterprising hearts. The pulpit has unfortunately become a decorated shrine with no potency to rescue an ailing generation. If God does not start the course of life; does not define the course of life; and does not call the end of the course of life; all is meaningless because no one will take the responsibility anyway. It is then that existentialism reigns on the back of its upheld philosophy of absurdity.

Written by  L. W. Annobi (E-mail: annobi.nathan@gmail.com)