A problem that arises, in the rejection of the divine, is it forces the atheist to explain everything in reality using only materialism. It is true, that there are aspects of life, that are knowable, brute facts that can be known through the five senses. However does that mean, then that unless we can either touch it, and or smell it, and or see it, and or taste it, and or hear it, it is not a knowable fact? Of course not! However attempting to explain morality through a naturalistic method is akin to trying to race a legless racehorse; you loose the race as soon as it starts. This is how:
Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace argues that "[describing] moral truth as a brute fact of the universe serves to identify and affirm moral truths without explaining why there are moral obligations."
[i] It would be wrong, to say that atheism disallows the atheist to have moral convictions as everyone, irregardless of their religious views, have moral convictions, as they are human beings. Moral convictions is akin to the human navel: 1) everyone has one, 2) everyone's moral worldview undergoes changes in ones life in various ways and 3) while there is common ground in many people's moral convictions, everyone's moral convictions are unique. Where atheism fails the atheist, is to adequately explain why their moral convictions, are what they are.
Wallace states that "[those] who describe the existence of objective moral truth claims as brute facts of the universe have only taken the first step in explaining their existence."
[ii] As stated above, everyone irregardless of their religious persuasion has moral convictions. However atheism fails to explain, where the atheist's moral convictions come from. Trying to explain morals as facets of this natural world is akin to trying to explain the existence of your umbilicus, using your own body, as its origin.
Moreover, if morality is materialistic, then you should be abel to hold, smell, taste, hear and see morality; and it should be discoverable like a new species of fish.
If morality is a mere natural entity, then just as everybody's navel is different in its shape and unique features but no better or worse than another's, then everyone's uniquely shaped moral view is no better or worse than any others, just merely different. This means that ISIS' moral outlook is just different than the moral outlook than that of The West; it is neither bad nor good. If morality is natural then people will act in accordance with how their morality is shaped. ISIS acts the way they do because their morality is shaped a certain way, and it dictates how they are to behave. What conceived their morality? A wiring of their brain which was a nurtured through experiences and teachings on life and God. In sum just as rodents are fidgety creatures, because that is simply the way they are, people act the way they do, because that is simply how they are.
Therefore, if morality is natural, like the the weather is natural, then there is no justification for judgements. This earth is not doing anything wrong, when it's skies brew a hurricane and destroy villages. In the same way, when ISIS sweeps through a city, captures its citizens and beheads them, they are not doing anything wrong; as they are just working in accordance with their natural wiring.
It is true, that morality does play out in the physical world; a positive moral code (charity, helping people in need, etc.) pushes society forward in a positive way, and a negative moral code (murder, theft, etc.), hinders that positive progression. However it fails to explain two things: 1) why do we want a positive progression through life, and 2) what makes, what a society considers a positive progression, a positive progression? The answer to the first question, seems obvious: because people generally want to have a good quality of life. However, the likes of ISIS, would argue that eradicating anyone who rejects Islam, is working towards a positive quality of life; yet, many people in The West would argue, that a 'live and let live' philosophy, leads to a positive life. A quickly developing society, doesn't answer why a way of life, is morally right, as a quickly growing society, doesn't make such a determination.
Furthermore, it could be argued, that the society, where there is happiness, is in most of its members, has the best moral code. This again fails to explain objective morality because there are, happy people who live in societies with conflicting moral codes: there are plenty of happy ISIS members, just as there are happy Westerners. Someone's happiness, does not determine, what makes them happy, morally right.
So in the end, if morality is a natural like the moon is natural, it's my uniquely shaped morality verses how your morality is uniquely shaped. Neither of our views are better or worse than each others, and so it doesn't matter if which one of us wins. The loosing party, should just shrug their shoulders and accept life, as is, and be happy, or at least be content, with the way things are. We of course, could look within ourselves, and attempt to denominate our views, over the view of others, if we cannot simply stand by and be content with how things are. This however, is Darwinistic, in that the winning moral outlook, does not win, because it is morally superior, but only because the beholder of the moral view, was more effective in implementing their view, over the view of others; it doesn't say anything about the moral outlook itself.
However, if morality is immaterially discovered, and is outside of the natural reality, but is in unison with it, then the rules change. What is the nature of morality? Morality is a mental construct. Although it cannot be discovered in the same way as one discovered a new species of insect, morally is discoverable through the medium of what is natural; the reality that is physically touchable, observable, tastable, auditory and smellable. This gives birth to the plains of good, evil, and morally-neutral, and it necessarily requires a prerequisite mind, to determine how to slot moral issues, and behaviours, into either of those three categories. This mind, can determine how the antics of ISIS should be judged, that is as either good or evil. However why can't humans make their own moral codes? Are not humans intellectual beings? If morality is left up to the human intelligence, then as discussed above, Darwinism kicks in and the dominating view wins on virtue of its beholder's abilities to fight for what they believe in, and not because what they believe in is morally right. Something can only be a moral issue, when there is a external ruler that it can be measured to. Constructing morality, by the exclusion of the external mind, or in accordance with ones own mind is parallel to excluding your parent's intellectual choice to have sexual intercourse so to conceive you, thus necessarily giving you your navel; and just as your parent's physical sexual-intercourse, brought your physical umbilicus into existence, an immaterial origin will bring an immaterial item, like a moral construct, into existence. You need to evoke something outside this natural world in order to explain the origin of morality.
Morality is knowable, through common-sense. Although the flourishing of the love of life, is not the moral standard, it is evidence of the true moral standard. What is this moral standard? God; but whose God? In brief: The worldview, is best explains reality is the right worldview, and thus its God, is the true God, and His moral construct, is the standard for our moral constructs.
_____________________
[i] - http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/are-moral-truths-simply-brute-facts-about-the-universe/ - accessed September 4, 2015
[ii] - Ibid,.
