“When evolutionists such as Bloom speak of a moral law, they mean that evolution and culture caused certain molecular arrangements in our heads that induce certain feelings we call “right” and “wrong.” But there is no basis for true “right” and “wrong.” It is all just opinions.”
If we understand the “spirit” and the “self” only as products of the brain, then we get stuck in huge logical problems.
In his critic to the The Mind/Brain Identity Theory, Karl Popper called our attention to the fact that this theory does not have any sense as long as it obeys to its own principles: if my ideas are merely products, i.e., effects of my brain’s chemistry, if follows then that it is not possible even discussing the The Mind/Brain Identity Theory itself — because this theory cannot have any pretension to be true, as any proofs of it are also pure chemistry.
In case someone argues in an opposite sense or against that theory, then he or she is also right, because his or her brain’s chemistry has only reached a different conclusion. Popper called this logical trap as “the nightmare of the physical determinism”: The Mind/Brain Identity Theory leads to the absurd.
It follows, then, that when an Evolution Professor says that “There is No True Morality” allegedly because “morality is a product of the brain evolution”, then we have to infer that even science is a matter of opinion led by our brain’s chemistry, and that there is no truth in science, as my brain’s chemistry may lead me to a different or opposite conclusion in regard to any scientific thesis, and I must even so be right too.
The same principle applies to morality: if mores are merely product of the brain’s chemistry, everybody is right and any moral values, behavior and acts are justified by a science theory that cannot be right by its own principles.