Challenge - Scientific reason for being moral.

[radames]

Does there have to be a reason to be moral? Does a child sincerely wish the suffering, death, and torture of another child in order to gain something?

In my opinion, a child would figure out that certain behavior brings about certain consequences in the world and it would be best to consider others when acting or speaking. A child doesn't need an authority figure to alter the perception of something inherent of all of our species by labeling it a "fruit of the spirit."

---

the difference would be the basis for that morality radames. A secular morality seeks to better individual morality by contributing and bettering societal morality. A theistic morality seeks to better individual morality by using a more dogmatic and stable reference depending on their brand of theology.

What is more stable than truth experienced through evidence? An example, a religious person believes the verse, "greater things shall they do because I go to the father" yet try to experience the "truth" of walking on water and what you have is a very unstable assertion. If walking on water is a lackluster ability why is it impossible? Unless the bible left out the idea that people had boats for feet back then.