Ah, I understand. Sorry, I had to go back and re read the first post in our exchange.
I think we actually agree on the premise. I do not think morals are 'universal truths', and concede that point off the bat.
Then surely you can also see how pointless it is to argue that one set of moral principles is 'better' than another? There are no universal moral truths because there is no true, objective 'good'. If there were, then 'true' moral behaviour would simply be the behaviour that moves you towards that 'good'. If there is no good, there can be no comparing of one set of morals to another to see which is 'better'.
So, in the light of this...
Nor would I wish to make that claim, because It is a false claim (that is what I'm getting at). I can claim mine are true and universal, and then have just as much real authority to that claim...I can just claim it or say I'm a prophet or something. It doesnt change anything practical, its just a lie I can tell ignorant people to get them to do what I say.
And there would be nothing 'wrong' with that because there is no true, universal right and wrong.
Interestingly though, this is not a universal case either. For the most part the 'god as moral commander and definer' is a recent middle eastern concept. The Greeks, for example, did not get their morals by commands from the gods (in most cases in opposition to or learning lessons from how the gods screwed stuff up).
Or Take Confucianism, it was not based on any commandments or such, it was his philosophy that he [Confucius] had emphasizing personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity.
This right there proves the lack of necessity
Why should it matter how recent the concept is? As you have already said, morals are not 'universal truths'. So lots people are making lots of stuff up and then claiming some behaviour is good and some isn't - either with a divine justification or without. So what? Necessity for what? You are again implying some kind of universal goal against which something can be determined as 'necessary'. What would that be?
However, I am not claiming to do what religion does, but think there is a better way.
Which is what I'm promoting.
Claiming, without foundation, based on your personal preferences, is exactly what you are doing. Which, according to you, is just what the prophet does.
Traits that have and still we view as moral are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, kindness to others, and reciprocity, these are all characteristics that helped our ancestors survive. Early man could thrive only in cooperative groups. Good behavior helped these bonds that were essential to survival. Morality is a biological necessity and a consequence of human development.
So 'good' = 'survival'? Is that a universal truth now? Are you contradicting your earlier statement? And who is the 'we' here? Are these universal?
It seems to me that you are simply assuming certain behaviours that you happen to like as 'moral'. Of course, this doesn't constitute a real argument. If there is no 'true' morality then any classification of behaviour into good and bad is simply a figment of your imagination. Full stop.
Using this perspective it allows us to develop our morality and progress, as morality has and does evolve. Saying that the current moral Zeitgeist (of one particular school of thought no less), is the eternal end all truth forever and ever and completely, is both absurd and damaging to our development.
I love how quickly such arguments develop into the 'we' and 'our' as if everyone can simply be co-opted into adopting your particular behavioural preferences. But of course, if there is no true morality, that can be the only approach to moral discussion for there is no rational argument that can be advanced.
There is no true morality, so there is no 'progress' and there is no 'development' which of course imply some kind of true 'goal' - which you have already said does not exist.
Even worst, this addition of the God assigning these morals takes that inherent 'good', and corrupts it with the false morality of religion that has manipulated us with divine carrots and sticks. Under the burden of religion, morality becomes nothing but a response to bribery and fear. We forsake our biological heritage in exchange for coupons to heaven.
Thus, that more devoutly religious countries often suffer more social dysfunction is not only unsurprising but fully expected.
How can you have a 'false' morality when there is no 'true' morality to compare it with? You happen not to like it, others do. And there is no social dysfunction either - how would you know whether something was 'socially functional' or not?
My point of it all being:
Morality does not (and never has) required an authoritarian deity who defines divine absolute truths.
This is demonstrable, from Plato to Confucius to the secular republics of the enlightenment.
That people, in all time and in all places, have made up rules for themselves is obvious. This does nothing to disprove the possible existence of a 'true' set of rules or principles that might apply to all people, everywhere and have its origin with God.
Also, that using intellect tempered with empathy to naturally develop morals we can create better philosophies and principles, than those 'writ in stone' by cavemen and charlatans. It permits critical thinking. You accept things based on reason, not because you have to told you must. You can not accept them if you believe them wrong or misguided, and challenge them (like I said before, not long ago it was a 'absolute universal moral truth' that killing homosexuals was a good thing). You can think and reason your moral principles yourself, instead of by automation.
All answered above. You make up something. Other people make up something else. You prefer what you make up and so call the other people names to make them feel bad about what they make up.
You can 'think and reason' as much as you like. A fantasy is still a fantasy, no matter how complex and involved it is.
My argument is not to do what the 'revealed' religions do....my argument is to throw the 'revealed' religions in the garbage, and do better.
And sadly, 'better' has ended up in the garbage too.
Cheers,
sparky
Topic: Future of religion