And i want to add something to this
I have much more respect for coherence, even when it leads someone wholly into error, than for a muddled inconsistency that happens to preserve a few fragments of truth while also generating serious confusion. At least the former follows its own principles to their logical conclusion, while the latter, by contrast, survives only by refusing to think through what it actually implies.
A materialist, for example, who affirms the wholly material nature of consciousness and then still wants to speak of genuinely free will is trying to retain two positions that sit in deep tension with one another. And likewise, a Christian who thinks that the doctrines of sin, free will, and man’s free response to God could remain intact within a thoroughly materialist framework of the consciousness is just preserving Christian language while hollowing out all of its metaphysical substance.
For my part, I think one of the most overlooked points in this whole discussion is just how radically against nature Christian morality becomes once it is detached from its proper metaphysical foundation.
Within a materialist framework, the human being is ultimately nothing more than a highly complex biological organism, the contingent product of blind forces, driven by survival, self-interest, competition, desire, and the struggle to persist, but Christian morality asks for something profoundly at odds with that picture: the love of enemies, the blessing of those who curse you, the moral primacy of the weak, the dignity of the useless, the sanctity of suffering borne in love, the equal worth of every human being regardless of their “mundane” greatness etc etc etc, I could go on and on for 30 minutes.
That moral vision makes full sense only within a non-materialist metaphysical order, one in which the human person is not reducible to matter, but is made in the image of God and therefore possesses an intrinsic and immeasurable dignity. Only on that basis does it become intelligible why the weak should matter as much as the strong, why the vulnerable should not be discarded, why self-sacrifice should be higher than self-assertion, and why love should stand above domination, instinct, and advantage; remove that framework, and Christian morality begins to look less like truth and more like an astonishingly unnatural demand imposed upon creatures whose underlying reality no longer supports it.
Tha’s why I find it deeply incoherent when someone embraces thoroughgoing materialism and yet still wants to retain a broadly Christian ethic: what is being preserved, in that case, is not a morality that flows naturally from materialist premises, but a moral inheritance that becomes increasingly unintelligible once its metaphysical roots have been cut away.
In other words, Christian morality is not merely somewhat difficult to justify within materialism; in many of its central affirmations, it becomes radically counter-natural within a materialist view of man.
For that reason, I respect the nihilist materialist more than the “mainstream” one (who adopts materialism while at the same time retains a basic Christian morality on many things).
The former is more gravely mistaken, but also immensely more consistent. And I strongly suspect that if more people grasped what materialism really implies (and I have made my case also here Understanding atheist perspective - #407 by 1Cor15.54 ) many fewer would adopt it with the superficial ease with which it is so often embraced today. Because when one looks at one’s own children, spouse, parents, or friends, after having REALLY grasped what materialism actually implies ( without any foolish irenicism standing in the way, an irenicism often embraced by modern Christians who, feeling defeated by the spirit of the age, seem to imagine that continually retreating and conceding ground to the materialist worldview will somehow help them blend in or even evangelize) materialism reveals itself in all its horrific meaninglessness, and its farcical, dehumanizing nature becomes painfully self-evident.
And the rather happy-go-lucky way in which many “modern” Christians seem to approach materialism * (while failing to acknowledge, or even flatly denying, its implications for free will, as well as its moral and metaphysical implications) does not help matters either.
*Not materialists as individuals; I am speaking properly of materialism itself. For while it’s certainly right to love materialists as persons and not condemn them, materialism as a worldview must be opposed, refuted, and rejected as thoroughly as possible. It certainly should not be granted the prominence, plausibility, and cultural authority it enjoys today.
As Sister Calderon said to Arthur Morgan: “take the gamble that love exists, and do a loving act”.
But love is nothing more than a biochemical reaction, a complex neurobiological, psychological, and social phenomenon shaped by evolution and devoid of any intrinsic value, in the materialist framework.