I'm amused by this quaint notion that concepts of morality centered on God and religion are somehow fixed and immutable, while those based on human experience of what is socially expedient are flexible and thus inferior.
Does God think it moral to eat pork, or have 3 wives, or chop off a thief's hands? It depends on who you ask. A few hundred years ago Christians were burning witches at the stake, and until now the Christian bible tells us (Exodus 22:18) that we should not suffer a witch to live. We have those among us who practice a religion called Wicca; they consider themselves witches. Does God think we should toast 'em? What would their God think of that?
We cannot know, with any certainty, that God exists. Even if we assume that God exists, we cannot know with any certainty which of the many religious sects that claim to speak for God actually does. This makes religion, or any presumptive God, a most malleable and unacceptable basis for a moral code that must, to be of any use at all, bind all members of all religious sects. It isn't even a basis for intelligent discussion, since no religious group can claim any evidence beyond faith for its beliefs.
Our moral codes, IMO, stem from human society's experience of what makes it possible for human beings to live together in something approaching harmony. This experience grows daily, and is - and always will be - subject to revision. This may make it poor source for an absolute and immutable moral code, but do we really need an absolute and immutable moral code? We've certainly never had one. |
