You give me the impression that you think that believing in a source of objective morality is actually more important than the actual existence of the object of this belief. I don't see how that can help though, considering that religious people disagree on many important points (e.g. capital punishement, gay marriage, etc.).
I did not intend to give that impression but I think a very strong argument does exists for that. The problem is that all other foundations are atrocious.
1. If we actually pattern our behavior on nature across the board then just about any evil can be committed based on a precedent in nature. I for one do not want a Hitler like morality based on natural selection. You would get some benevolent behavior but it would also be swamped by every evil action that nature contains. That is one ridiculous idea.
2. If we used empathy then we have other problems. For one we are going to assume human empathy outweighs all other concerns and we will go right along oppressing other creatures without any foundation for doing so. IOW our first decree from empathy would have nothing to do with empathy and actually contradict it. Second it would come down to which opinion based theory about empathy was best. This would put a lot of power in a few fallible hands which history shows cannot be trusted with that much power. The founding fathers saw the verdict of history on men with power and constructed our government so as to make it very difficult to concentrate power or get anything done with a minority. I do not trust people enough to based my behavior on what they think is empathetic.
3. The same problems are at the root of all competing foundations.
4. But theological foundations are not so much opinion. At least there exists a fact of the matter which we can attempt to identify. No other system even has that. Christianity is composed of billions. Any claim that unless those billions are unanimous it is no foundation for anything moral is ridiculous. 90% of Christians agree on 90% of issues. However Christianity is not designed to run a state. It is designed to run a life. I am not really concerned with society as much as I am with personal morality. People who look at nature to define their actions simply frighten me. I would have no fear of anyone who honestly followed the bible. He may make mistakes but he will be benevolent in general.
So I think God the best foundation for morality. definitely for the individual and going by it's competition I would suggest the same for a society. Though adapting it for a society would be problematic I think it would still be much better than any other.
Nevertheless, this point of view has important consequences for the morality of unbelievers, or how such morality is perceived by believers and needs, therefore, to be addressed.
Ok
I even concede, with many doubts, that there was a time when said belief was useful. Probably that is one of the reasons they invented God: a sort of cosmic baby sitter helping to show the masses how to behave.
No one invents a God which condemns themselves, no one who knows their faith is false will spend their lifetimes suffering for it. Especially not in the case of the apostles which showed a self centered tendency before they were born again. I regard this ridiculous attempt to dismiss faith by revising history and suppressing reason to almost not merit a response. There are simply endless reasons to relegate it to oblivion. Sorry but that theory is just to pathetic to take seriously.
But we grew up, in the meantime, and I don't think that this position is intellectually tenable, anymore. We do not pray to get inspiration from God when we try decide about a new law that has moral implications, at least here.
We grew up how? We are at least as immoral as any historical period ever was and probably worse. God has not gone anywhere. His is as relevant in every way as he always was. He is in the center of philosophical debates, scientific debates, moral debates, the most learned people on earth are people of faith and have been for a very long time, Christianity is growing every year at the rate of the population of Nevada, and divine faith in general has swayed over 2 out of every 3 people alive and is growing. The only thing that has changed is secularism has taken hold of political and academic arenas in many cases and of course we see drastic moral decline in almost every statistic since the secular revolution in the late 50's. Faith has done nothing but increase. I don't know about where you live but our laws were written by men who were 95% praying Christians and 5% theists. Those laws helped create the greatest nation on earth and the most benevolent superpower in human history. We retained that status until the secular revolution and now have lost a little of that status.
When I mention to you the very secular democracies of North Europe and the fact that they enjoy very high quality of living without raping, killing and stealing, you remind me of their Christian history and influence. When I mention the fact that abortion and gay marriage are normal things here, you remind me that this is due to our secularization.
That is far more complex than you indicate. Northern Europe in large part is benefiting mainly from it's untapped energy reserves. It was at one time dominated by Christianity and even if now dominated by secularism it retains the impact Christianity had in building the societies character. And even purely secular people tend to smuggle in necessities that are not even true unless God exists. Secularism borrows heavily from Christianity without even trying. I did not say anything about succeeding despite not killing, raping, etc.... I don't even know what that means. Your laws assume objective criteria's that secularism cannot justify. You should thank Christianity.
Of course, that does not explain anything. It does not explain how our Christian influence failed to prevent adoption of abortion or how our secularization did not allow things like rape as well.
When you quote what I say in one glob and respond in another glob I have trouble getting what the context is for your responses. I do not understand what your trying to show here.
It just shows that you raise Christian influence only when you see a value that you share as well. Period.
My own values contradict most of Christianity. I want to be promiscuous and evolution would justify my being such, I want to hate, I want to be violent at times, etc...... However since I was born again there is a quiet voice that I have learned to listen to which contradicts what I want. I adopted almost no moral from Christianity because it is convenient, I adopted them because I have come to know they are true. If I, the apostles, the prophets, or anyone were to somehow join together despite being separated by thousands of years and cultures to create a false religion it would not look like the bible.
So, I think that it is logical to conclude that we do not need that cosmic baby sitter to find out how to live together. We need Him only if we want to live the way other Christians approve, for reasons that are justified only within their belief system.
I never said you need God to decide that murder is wrong. I said you cannot prove that it is or discover it is wrong in secularism, nature, or any other foundation except God. We can both not murder but only with God are we obeying an objective truth.
see-ya
