Premise one and Premise two And the Conclusion that Follows…..

Posted: April 19, 2017 in Uncategorized


By Aubrey Moeketsi


Premise One – “God Doesn’t Exist….”

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted & permissible. This whole idea of [1]objective morality is therefore totally nonsensical, let objective morality be eradicated and replaced with subjective morality. If God doesn’t exit, it therefore behooves us the people to come up with the definition of what it really means to be good or evil, right or wrong. Meaning if there is no God to give divine orders, then there is no real objective standard measure of morality, all we’re left with is moral [2]relativism, and we the people automatically become self-referencing points for what is right and what is wrong.  Moral relativism is by definition ‘self-government’, this means that in the absence of God, Right and wrong remains in the eyes of the beholder. Relativism holds that’s there is no life after death, that Death and life are nothing but natural life processes, therefore we shouldn’t be spooked by ‘silly’ Christians who claim that there is judgment after this life. All that matters is here and now. The main thrust of this premise is that there can never be Objective morality simply because if the God- equation is done away with, there remains no standard measure for morality. we do not have such thing as called right or wrong, all we have is relativism, or simply put, morality from within or morals according to ‘me’ and not from a religious book. I decide what is right and acceptable.

Premise Two“Science is The Ultimate Truth”

In the absence of a creator – the natural question that’s follows becomes the inquiry about the beginner; who or what gave us the beginning; if it’s not the Judeo-Christian God then who or what did. What do we substitute the hypotheses of God with, in the place of God, who do we crown and credit for this magnificent and brilliant work of creation.

Well, if you ask the scientific community, the answer is simple and there’s no ambiguity about it; science did. Science, and not God, gave us both the universe and subsequent human species that emerged thereafter. The main thrust of the scientific position is that what we call God is actually a process they affectionately refer to as the “beautiful cosmic accident” that brought about the creation of the entire globe. This is then followed by the hypothesis that human beings came by means of a [3]Darwinian process called Evolution. Simply put, it was a series of metamorphic change and alteration from one state of being to the next; popular case study being a move from a chimpanzee to the current state of human beings. If science is right, or perhaps more specifically, if Darwinian scientism is correct, then God is not the originator of the world as was supposed; the silly Christian claim that God created the universe has no basis in science (Darwinian science to be specific). We are here by means of a purely unplanned, and uncaused Cambrian explosion called the “Big Bang” theory. If all this is correct then we need to consider the inevitable conclusion that follows…….”

The Conclusion That Follows 

“Everything is Permitted…”

I believe it was [4]Ivan Karamazov who once exclaimed that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted and permissible. The conclusion that follows therefore is that since we live in a circular world devoid of God, Why should people pursue morality? Why should I not steal, I mean all I have to do is to make sure that I do not get caught; why refrain from adultery or fornication? Why deprive yourself of the pleasures of the flesh? We are highly evolved animals after all, right? Why not immense ourselves in carnal pleasures? What’s wrong with doing that?

If scientific theories are correct, then religious beliefs must be false. If this is the case, it follows therefore that there is no ultimate meaning to life, after all, we came by a purely unplanned cosmic accident called the ‘Big Bang’, There is no all loving, all knowing, all powerful and highly intelligent being who created us in his own image. In the philosophy of science, inferences of God or gods are all relegated into folklore, all these become mere legends. Within the confines of this understanding life loses significance and intrinsic value; we human beings are nothing but highly evolved animals. Our nature and attitude rapidly takes on the animalistic disposition, we are driven by our natural self-instincts and desires, nothing or no one has the moral authority to stop us from exploring our animalistic nature, there is no God after all…right?

In the absence of God or religion, there is really no rational need to be good because both Good and evil are merely relative. Traditionally, the baseline for ethics and morality has always been God, so since science has supposedly overthrown God, there remains therefore no rational basis for good moral behavior. In a circular materialistic world, a world where God doesn’t exist, one cannot make a moral judgment or demand others to be good as there is really not pressing reason why people should be good. If there is no God, then moral endeavors are all in vain as because there is no God to reward good behavior after this life, Therefore:

  • Let a man marry his own dog – who is to say that this is wrong?
  • Let the state force churches to officiate marriage between Tom and Tommy, I mean how dare they refuse to celebrate ‘love’ between two consenting hairy adult-men who ‘love’ each other?
  • Let a man marry his own mother, if its consensual is ohk, right?
  • Let weak nations be exterminated without mercy – why should we be good to them, after all there is no rational reason for good behavior?
  • While at it, why not assume superiority over weak races? Why not decimate the feeble nations and take their land and resources? Why hold back from annihilating them seeing that they cannot fight back and that there is no God to judge you after this life.
  • Why not legalize [5]Eugenics across the globe, get rid of the weak medically and leave only the strong and healthy. This will perhaps lead to the utopian world as was supposed by Adolf Hitler who by the way never believed in God, who only believed in the superiority the German race as the chosen and pure race.

And finally, let’s Break all moral compasses available, lets reject all religious inferences of righteous living, why be righteous? For who? For what? Why not be riotous instead of righteous, what’s wrong with that, if it’s wrong who has the moral authority to make that kind of judgment seeing that science got rid of God?


My closing remarks:

 I just have one question though; can we really say as society that we can live with this kind of ideology? Can we really say that removing God from all social institutions will lead to a utopian and ideal society where people are free and thriving? Is moral relativism as espoused by the circular western world ideal for Africa and generally for the rest of the world, will this kind of philosophy sustain and preserve the sacredness of human life 50 to 100 years from now?

[1] Objective morality, divine rule or law as dictated by God versus Subjective morality, personal, not binding,

[2] Moral relativism – also known as subjective morality, is morality as determined by self.

[3] Charles Darwin(1809–1882)the theory of evolution

[4] Ivan Karamazov The Russian Messenger from January 1879 to November 1880

[5] Eugenics – medical extermination of the weak and feeble


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s