The social rules we live by evolved over eons, and I guess they're still evolving. Allowing murder isn't a good thing for the village, sacrificing all the virgins isn't a practical religious doctrine -- we learn this. By comparison, the moral rules of the western Sistine God are not much to go by. According to him it's ok to get in there and kill all the firstborn.Thinking critical wrote: ↑May 4th, 2018, 2:42 pmThe difference between a religious approach and humane approach to morality gives us a clue as to which is the more reasonable; religion defines morality as objectively true under the dictatorship of god who uses punishment and reward, furthermore there is very little if any accountability of the origin of such morals - where did they come from, how were they communicated and do we know if the answer to those 2 questions is true?
The humane approach is much more complicated but is also more relevant in the sense it evolves as our species gains wisdom. Essentially most humans to a certain degree concur that pain, suffering and the act of intentionally killing someone who does not want to be killed is wrong. It is this common ground which we can build from which will inevitably demonstrate humane morality is far more superior than a gods.
Something is wrong because we feel and believe it's wrong, not because we're told its wrong.
Simply put, humans invent gods then decide what the god they invented commands to be right or wrong, then they argue that we can't know what is right or wrong without the God which they invented.
The argument makes no sense, if you delete the gods the morals are still there and nothing else changes.
It's pretty confused and inconsistent, but decrees from God are used to give weight to the social rules that have naturally evolved. Seems to me.