The role of religion in morality is to codify what the founders of a religion consider moral. It's sometimes an improvement on the general morals of the time and place the religion was birthed in. However, the codified morality necessarily becomes stagnant in the face of new moral discovery. In the broadest sense, our morality tends to advance. We came to realize that it's wrong to own another human being in hereditary bondage, for instance. This is a problem for people trying to base their morality on what codified over a thousand years before, if they treated their scriptures as the beginning and end of morality and they don't say anything against slavery.
If there is a Creator, the only work we can be sure it is the direct author of (by definition) is the universe. If you hold to scripture in the face of scientific discovery, an error has been made. If there is a Creator, scientists are the only ones truly studying what it is the author of. Scriptures are written by people, and demonstrably influenced by human bias, copy errors, and mistranslation; even if they really divinely inspired in the first place. The consistent theistic position would be to always trust the original manuscript (the universe) over information transmitted over centuries by humans for which all original manuscripts have been lost.
If there is a Creator, the only work we can be sure it is the direct author of (by definition) is the universe. If you hold to scripture in the face of scientific discovery, an error has been made. If there is a Creator, scientists are the only ones truly studying what it is the author of. Scriptures are written by people, and demonstrably influenced by human bias, copy errors, and mistranslation; even if they really divinely inspired in the first place. The consistent theistic position would be to always trust the original manuscript (the universe) over information transmitted over centuries by humans for which all original manuscripts have been lost.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.