@HolySin,
From what I've read, there is no consensus for secular moral absolutism. The reason being is that context matters. Though the questions raised by the debate between Harris and Craig are important regarding objective moral values, their justifications for moral realism I think is wrong.
Craig thinks objective moral values
require the existence of God. He seems to think objective moral values
must be quote: "wholly independent of man". Obviously then, he thinks the obvious answer is God, if he exists, can ground them. Since we should think objective moral values exist, we should also accept the previous premise.
Craig then says that secular ethics as summed up by Harris has quote: a "value problem". We have problems explaining the grounding of the well being of animals, humans etc since the values which justify theories of well being should be "wholly independent of man".
Harris thinks we don't need to insert an Abrahamic God to justify objective moral values. Instead, if we redefine "goodness" as meaning the same thing as the "evolutionary adaptation of conscious animals", we can explain the "ought" or value implied in moral thinking as being the same thing as an "is".
While I definitely disagree with Craig and am sympathetic to Harris, both are mistaken in my mind. We don't need God, and we don't need
just science to explain objective moral values. Pain, for example, is a good candidate as having objective moral value. We know what pain is, meaning we can experience it, we understand what it feels like in others (thus it is a part of the world), and that it matters, that is, it is bad for me, bad for us. I think because pain explains our moral reasoning gives us good reason to accept that pain isn't merely a preference or psychological disposition. The fact that it matters in the sense that it has value no matter who experiences means it constitutes a reason, in and of itself. This certainly isn't a proof, but rather a good reason combined with evidence for it.
Returning to absolutism, pain has intrinsic moral value, but we don't think it is always wrong to cause pain. Sometimes causing pain is necessary in order to achieve other ends. It depends on context. So that is why I reject the absolutist position.