To be clear:
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all acknowledge the righteous pagans, who know the moral law through reason alone, rather than revelation. So, of course, do philosophical theists. That is the basis for the claim that morality need not derive from religion.
It is true of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, that God is beyond any representation. This is also true of philosophical theists, and of Hindus, who regard Brahm as the ultimate nature of the Deity. That covers the bulk of theists currently perambulating the planet.
Since, as cited, the Rabbis understood there to be righteous non- Jews, and St. Paul understood there to be those non- Jews who had the moral law "written in the heart", the idea that morality is not specific to a particular revelation is widespread.
I am merely saying that, since for theists the moral law is inherent in the nature of things, it is discoverable through observation and inference, just as are the laws of gravity or thermodynamics, without reference to ultimate philosophical issues.
Since ideas like that of the Noahides, or "the law written in the heart", could not exist without the distinction between the rules of the cult, and the general rules of morality, one should take to heart the seriousness of the distinction. Matters like sacrifice are cultic.
Beyond the diversity of custom, which is compatible with substantially similar moral rules governing conduct in society (don't steal, tell the truth, be loyal and brave), there are indeed some differences in valuation which are significant. The assertion is not, however, that the full extent of moral reasoning is developed among all people at all times, but that moral insight is available through reason, without recourse to revelation. |
