Avoiding a "softening of the brain"

In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton has a quote that I thought worth sharing, "Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot.  Every man who will not have a softening of the heart must at last have a softening of the brain."  (p. 34)  At that point he was referring to the willingness of Nietzsche, and countless others like him since, to doubt everything.  Yet those who doubt everything in the end doubt themselves.  On what basis can you doubt everything?  There must be some standard, some truth, that is beyond doubt or all expressions of doubt become meaningless.  "By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." (p. 34)  In the same way, those who say that all paths are true are equally stuck in a quagmire.  If every path is equally valid, how can any choice be made?  If no outcome is more desirable than any other, what is the point of choosing at all?  Thus the rebel who rejects everything, and the man of tolerance who accepts everything find themselves sitting at the same crossroad.  Chesterton pictured Nietzsche and Tolstoy sitting there together, our world today isn't short of others willing to join them.  "They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads.  The result is - well, some things are not hard to calculate.  They stand at the crossroads." (p. 34-35)
It is amazing that in 1908 Chesterton clearly saw that these two forces in philosophy/morality/government were on a collision course that would leave both without anything meaningful left to say.  In the last hundred years his prediction has certainly proven true.  Today our world is convulsed by rebels who hate everything and everyone and idealists who profess to love everything and everyone.  In the end neither of them is leaving that crossroad.

The End of Morality?

There has been much speculation in recent history about the possibility of mankind's "liberation" (as Karl Marx put it) from religion.  If mankind were to unshackle himself from the bondage of the superstitions of our ancestors, so the theory goes, a new age of freedom would dawn.  For many, the father of modern agnosticism and atheism was the critic of Christianity, Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nietzsche was himself the son of a Lutheran pastor, but he rebelled against his father's beliefs to find, as he thought, freedom in the "death of God".  Yet Nietzsche himself was aware that to rid mankind of religion must by necessity in a Darwinian worldview bring about the end of morality as well.  With an odd sense of hope, Nietzsche wrote, "morality will gradually perish". (Genealogy of Morals, III, p. 27)
The irony of the post-modern revelry in the "death of God" is not that it has, or will ever, led to the liberation of mankind, but rather it simply confirmed mankind's enslavement to a survival of the fittest world where morality has no meaning or purpose.  Without God in the equation, as C.S. Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, morality will cease to exist.  If there is no life after death, only this life matters.  If there is no ultimate judge of mankind, only my own opinion matters, and if there is no ultimate value to each and every human life, none of them really matter when being weighed against the self-interest of each individual.
If this seems like a bleak analysis you understand the point.  Without God, and specifically the morality taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ, all other attempts to impose an arbitrary morality upon society are doomed to failure.  The Soviet Union committed countless horrors upon its own people in the name of God-less Communism, but were left in the end with a bankrupt society where self-interest could not be overcome by endless propaganda espousing the joys of collective goals.  The world could see that the Soviet Union had become an "evil empire", the phrase Ronald Reagan made famous, long before the system itself collapsed of its own decrepit inertia.
Am I advocating clinging to religion, Christianity in particular, regardless of the evidence simply as a bulwark against an amoral society?  If I was, this effort of whistling past the graveyard would ultimately end in failure.  If the claims of Jesus Christ are not true, then nothing built upon his foundation will long endure.  On the contrary, I am simply pointing out that the alternative to God's redemption is not the liberty that is advertised, but a form of enslavement with no more hope than the pagan religions of the ancient world.  Friedrich Nietzsche may have smiled at the "death of God" and dreamed of a world free from Christian morality, but the horrors of Nazi Germany forever dispelled the myth that mankind released from Judeo-Christian ethics would be anything but a monster.