Objection: "Human Flourishing"
Our Objection:
"A transcendent standard is an unnecessary assumption. 'Good' is not a mystical decree from an absolute source; it is a measurable metric of the flourishing and well-being of conscious creatures. In this view, morality is a branch of observable science—a calculation of which actions maximize health and happiness while minimizing pain and suffering."
1. The "Why" Problem
We often mistake a tool for a destination. Science is a shovel—it can find the gold, but it has no way of telling us why the gold is valuable.
Status: VALUELESS PHYSICS
In a purely material universe, "flourishing" is just a specific arrangement of matter and energy. There is no logical reason why a "flourishing" human is better than a "decaying" one. To claim one state is "Better" is to appeal to a Standard that matter alone cannot provide and science cannot observe.
2. The Arbitrary Goal
If flourishing is the only rule, then whoever has the most Power gets to define what "flourishing" looks like for the rest of us.
Status: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT
Without a Law above human opinion, flourishing is whatever the majority (or the dictator) says it is. It is a subjective goalpost used to justify whatever behavior we currently prefer. If we find certain "flourishing" societies in history to be evil, we are admitting that we are measuring them against a different, higher Ruler.
3. The Smiley Face Sticker
This worldview attempts to borrow the results of a moral universe while denying the source. It wants the fruit of objective value without the root of an objective standard.
Ultimate Irrelevancy
Secular Humanism is just a smiley face sticker placed over a void of ultimate insignificance. If we all end up in the same pit—and eventually the pit itself is erased by time—then the difference between a life of joy and a life of agony is zero.
If we know that human value is Real, it cannot be temporary. To be significant, value must be anchored in something that the Void cannot touch.