Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Esquilax]

I guess we have a different understanding of the word "nature". For me, it is kind of like the "leopard cannot change his spots" thing. A natural condition is something that just is. also we have a disagreement about the word "objective". For me, truth and reality are objective. Since I believe the evidence of the eye witness accounts of prophets as recorded in scripture; those things represent truth to me and indicate the reality of God.

The problem is that appealing to god's nature in no way answers the question being asked, or advances the discussion even a little. It just pushes the problem back one level: why is god's nature to be considered good? Is god's nature good because god has defined good as those things that compose his nature? If so, morality is little more than fiat assertion based around the personal preferences of a subject, not an objective source. If god's nature is good because it conforms to standards of goodness, then moral goodness is a set of qualities external to god's nature, that god's nature just happens to adhere to. In that case, god himself is unnecessary for morality: he just happens to be an authoritative mouthpiece for a moral standard that he doesn't control, and does not require him.

This is the Euthyphro Dilemma, and it's something that theists have never been able to satisfactorily answer, in centuries.

So secular morality can come from any secular source, such as in China where parents kill their newborn daughters because society deems the boys to be the family heirs. And also because the secular government decides it's a good to only allow its citizens to have one child.

Do you think there's a rational justification for killing newborn daughters, Lek? Or for laws commanding that you only have one child? If not, then clearly this isn't a justifiable secular moral ideal, is it?

Like religious laws, secular moral laws can be either good, or bad. They aren't all one category because you can find one bad example. The difference is that secular morality allows for us to investigate and rationally examine morality and come to better conclusions over time, based in reason and empathy. By contrast, religious morality never allows for this, as it has staked its ideas in a purportedly ultimate authority that cannot be changed; it is exactly as good or as bad today as it was when it was written. There's nothing vital or capable of changing according to circumstances in it.

Please, don't then claim that christian morality is just good, now. Don't insult us both by doing that.