It seems to me that the education system fails to properly relay concepts to students. When a professor teaches his student that God does not exist, he will often neglect to inform the student of the corresponding ideologies which they must adopt. For obvious reasons, the professors omit the depressing outlook which students will be forced to oblige through the course of their life.
If materialism is true, as the secular professor assures us, then there is no immaterial. If there is nothing beyond humanity; if nothing transcends us, then nothing is objective. Everything that we feel, think, and do are merely by-products that we developed through the course of our evolution, each of which is subjective to our specific genetic code. These developmental adaptations are expressed in forms of taste, opinion, and what we refer to as 'morality'.
That is to say that on the classic atheism philosophy, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. There is only our expression of what we consider to be moral, immoral, just, and injust; alas, it is completely subject to our DNA, no less than personal preferences, such as differing opinions.
But atheists often struggle to live in accordance with what their philosophy dictates. So they will travel asunder of these boundaries and affirm the objectivity of moral boundaries despite that they do not have any right to do this. They solve this problem by saying that some things are, in fact, immaterial. They are just abstract immaterial elements. Not necessarily immaterial elements that are founded in a personality.
I find this position overwhelmingly problematic for two reasons. The first being that if morality were not founded in a personality, there is no reason to think that we would have moral duties. For we do not have duties to abstract immaterial elements.
Most mathematicians regard numbers as abstract immaterial elements of our world. However, these abstract immaterial elements have absolutely no bearing on us. We have no obligation to any number. It seems to me that the existence of an abstract immaterial element does not at all entail that such an element would affect us at all.
Further, if we know that these are merely abstract immaterials, I find absolutely no reason, upon this knowledge, that we should continue to do what they tell us to do. Why should I feel compelled to act in a certain way, simply because the number four insists upon it? If morality can be described in this way, then it is just as irrelevant as it would be if it were the by-product of our evolution.
My second objection is as follows: Grasping the immaterial is at logical odds with atheism. Atheist philosophers used to attempt to disprove the existence of God by finding attributes that He must have and identifying them as conflicting. One of these conflictions was that the immaterial would not be able to interact with the material. Since God is immaterial, He could not interact with the material.
Christian philosophers answered this objection with ease. We have an immaterial essence; namely, our soul. This answers the question "How could God interact with the material?" However, it does not answer the question "How could a random immaterial interact with the material?"
If atheism is true, then we have no souls. If we have no souls, then we do not have an immaterial essence. If we do not have an immaterial essence, then it would be impossible for us to grasp immaterial elements, and it would be impossible for immaterial elements to interact with us. If it is impossible for an immaterial element to interact with a material element, then, if atheism is true, it would be impossible for us to know objective morality.
I have been told before that a great vice of mine is that my writing style is a bit confusing and hard to follow. I will attempt to simplify this. Consider the human soul to be a bridge into grasping the immaterial. Atheists do not believe in the soul, so they burn the bridge to the immaterial. If atheism is true, then we have no bridge to immaterial elements.
To conclude I offer the statement that atheists are restricted to moral relativism. Also, 'truth' cannot be objective in this sense either, and it must be relative. (Despite that this position is self-defeating - see my article titled "An Argument Against Materialism From Immaterialism") It seems to me that atheists are restricted to not only moral relativism, but post-modernism.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here