Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[Loon]

The reason religionists are screwed up in the head

I thought you were supposed to be nice.

I agree, tanystropheus was unnecessarily offense there. Tanystropheus, there are plenty of great religious people who are also fantastic scientists. A lot of which were some of the greats. Galileo was a devout Catholic, Newton was a a very staunch(if a bit anti-catholic) Christian, Darwin in his early life was a strong Christian(before he became a scientist, he even was study in the seminary). Many of the great scientists of today are "religionists", Francis Sellers Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, Mary Schwitzer, BOB BAKKER, etc. A lack of religious affiliation does not make one better, especially if you target people like that. I'm not religious, but I don't feel superior because of that, so please, be nicer. To paraphrase Galileo, "Religion tells you how to go to heaven, Science tells you how the heavens go."

[Loon]

Fair enough then, I defer to your opinion. I will sit and watch for said science to be offered, before commenting further.....thanks for the heads up.

I think you got me the wrong way, I'm not saying this is science, at least not good science, but even the claims that are just "bible-thumping" are usually presented as scientific fact, even if they are not, they should be dealt with the same as any other presentation.

[Dinoguy2]

@amargasaurus, as interesting as your post is, and I do very much agree, I don't think this is the place to be about the religious views of the Creationists. While I do also believe that Creationism is just religion wearing sciencey words to look smarter, the claims presented are "scientific" in nature. So I say we just stick to that. If anything I just wrote made cohesive sense, it sounded much better in my head.

I think if one is going to defend creationism by referencing a website called Answers in Genesis, any pretense that your arguments are scientific rather than religious in nature get thrown out the window.

[Loon]

@amargasaurus, as interesting as your post is, and I do very much agree, I don't think this is the place to be about the religious views of the Creationists. While I do also believe that Creationism is just religion wearing sciencey words to look smarter, the claims presented are "scientific" in nature. So I say we just stick to that. If anything I just wrote made cohesive sense, it sounded much better in my head.

I think if one is going to defend creationism by referencing a website called Answers in Genesis, any pretense that your arguments are scientific rather than religious in nature get thrown out the window.

Yes, but these argument can be fooling, many people don't know about science as much as the people on this forum, so some sciencey words are easily fooling people who don't know any better, instead of confirming religious beliefs.

[Neosodon]

One thing rarely brought up in these debates is how hopelessly culturally and religiously biased most creationists are. How convenient for you, a western Christian, that the answers are in Genesis, not the Bhagavad Gita! You must feel very lucky to have been born, out of the billions of people on the planet, into the one religion that happens to be right!

This response is one that has always hit me rather solidly....indeed. In the right place, and the right time too. Given the estimates of some 4200 religions and gods to date more or less, I find it indicative that most people follow the belief set within their local area or the one taught them as children, without any exposure or study of outside possibilities.....so if the true god had been followed in Egyptian culture 5,000 years ago or is only observed on a remote island in the pacific...someone has to be wrong...a lot of someones. In fact the implication is if there is one true god, that statistically nearly all are wrong, throughout time and anywhere you might wander. I am not suggesting any one religion is wrong, but how incredibly wonderful for you if you just happened to select the one god over the entire world, and over the past ten thousand years that was correct.

Good point to bring up. This is why I see religion in terms of concepts. Whether you call it God, Allah, the Great Spirit or the Cosmic Brain really makes no difference to me. They all reflect the concept of a higher power. If a religion promotes love, compassion, justice, truth, human decency and makes the world a better place I see it as having some merit. No matter the region, culture or race people belong to we all have a basic sense of right and wrong. Whether or not you choose to adhere to that sense of right is what truly matters. Sorry to get a little preachy and off topic but this is something I felt needed to be addressed.

[Loon]

I think this thread is heading a bit to far into the religion side of creatonism, if there is any thing more to it than that, let's stick to the claims of Creatonism, if we are to continue.

[Simon]

*SNIP*
Good point to bring up. This is why I see religion in terms of concepts. Whether you call it God, Allah, the Great Spirit or the Cosmic Brain really makes no difference to me. They all reflect the concept of a higher power. If a religion promotes love, compassion, justice, truth, human decency and makes the world a better place I see it as having some merit. No matter the region, culture or race people belong to we all have a basic sense of right and wrong. Whether or not you choose to adhere to that sense of right is what truly matters. Sorry to get a little preachy and off topic but this is something I felt needed to be addressed.

What you said. 

For me, the only practical question regarding religion(s) is simply this:  How does it cause its adherents to behave towards other humans?

The answer to that question is the only thing that interests me.

Now I'll get back to searching for new posts about dinosaurs (and their representations in figure form).   

[tanystropheus]

The reason religionists are screwed up in the head

I thought you were supposed to be nice.

Haha   

I actually fall into both camps (with 20+ years of religious and scientific studies), so I feel uniquely qualified to criticize religionists for any perceived shortcomings (and in some cases, the zealous scientists). I'm an evolutionist and a student of Religio Perennis. I do think there is a lot of silliness on both sides of the spectrum. I am also very critical of the climate of Scientism that has pervaded pop culture, as well.

[tanystropheus]

The reason religionists are screwed up in the head

I thought you were supposed to be nice.

I agree, tanystropheus was unnecessarily offense there. Tanystropheus, there are plenty of great religious people who are also fantastic scientists.

How am I being offensive? I am a mystic who happens to believe in Metaphysics. I suppose I am a 'religious person' by some definitions. I've also been studying Science for more than two decades. However, I do NOT advocate non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).

[tanystropheus]

One thing rarely brought up in these debates is how hopelessly culturally and religiously biased most creationists are. How convenient for you, a western Christian, that the answers are in Genesis, not the Bhagavad Gita! You must feel very lucky to have been born, out of the billions of people on the planet, into the one religion that happens to be right!

This response is one that has always hit me rather solidly....indeed. In the right place, and the right time too. Given the estimates of some 4200 religions and gods to date more or less, I find it indicative that most people follow the belief set within their local area or the one taught them as children, without any exposure or study of outside possibilities.....so if the true god had been followed in Egyptian culture 5,000 years ago or is only observed on a remote island in the pacific...someone has to be wrong...a lot of someones. In fact the implication is if there is one true god, that statistically nearly all are wrong, throughout time and anywhere you might wander. I am not suggesting any one religion is wrong, but how incredibly wonderful for you if you just happened to select the one god over the entire world, and over the past ten thousand years that was correct.

Good point to bring up. This is why I see religion in terms of concepts. Whether you call it God, Allah, the Great Spirit or the Cosmic Brain really makes no difference to me. They all reflect the concept of a higher power. If a religion promotes love, compassion, justice, truth, human decency and makes the world a better place I see it as having some merit. No matter the region, culture or race people belong to we all have a basic sense of right and wrong. Whether or not you choose to adhere to that sense of right is what truly matters. Sorry to get a little preachy and off topic but this is something I felt needed to be addressed.

Even linguistically, the name of God points to a common universal origin. For example:

El (Judaism)
Allaha (Aramaic Christianity)
Allah (Islam)
Araha (classical Buddhism)
Ahura (Zoroastrianism)

Also,
Rahman (Islam)
Brahman (Hinduism)

Interestingly enough, there is a 'coincidental' correspondence between the Hindu symbol (OM) and the word, Allah:

https://kahani147.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/63_57a46af63c335.jpeg?w=768

There really should exist an overarching paradigm that ties together all religious philosophies.

"God is in the center; all paths lead to Him." - Frithjof Schuon

[Faelrin]

Honestly this thread has reminded me so much of when I was about 11 years old, and the years after, and I was enrolled in a private school. I hope what I'm about to post is not off topic too much, because quite frankly a good part of growing up for me was quite the conflict, but within my self. It's quite a long story.

An important starting point, was that the school said they were tolerant or accepted other religions or non religious there, but they had a mandatory christian church service, and did bible reading things at breakfast. Like I do now, I had a serious interest in dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures back then, and maybe even science in general. Yet as a child I was pretty naive and influenced pretty easily, so I went with the whole god thing (the whole fear tactic of condemning non-believers to hell was enough to keep me in line for years).

I ended up attending a church service one day and I remember reading this pamphlet thing that got my attention because it was heavily focused on dinosaurs. They had all these examples, such as the Ica stones, Mokele-mbembe, the behemoth and leviathan, and that one carving that looked like a Stegosaurus (Trey the Explainer actually has videos on some of these and debunks them). Pretty sure it was some YEC drivel too, since I'm pretty sure that was the first time I've seen the 6,000 years thing (or was it 10,000?). As a kid it had "proven" my childhood fantasy real, that dinosaurs were still around. Of course everything I read prior to that conflicted heavily with that, since dinosaurs were extinct after the meteor that hit 66 million years ago (although back then it was 65). As you can imagine, I was quite confused. I didn't know what to think was right.

Around the same time I had found a fascinating book series on prehistoric creatures (the English translation is called 'The Development of the Earth') at my school's library. I actually own one of these books now (Life Starts in the Sea). These books told me of creatures more ancient then dinosaurs, telling me how the earth formed, and how the earth was billions of years old. This conflicted with that church pamphlet thing, but not things I've read before (the 65 millions years thing, for example). I ultimately read all the books in the series because it fascinated me so much (mostly because of the non-dinosaur creatures I hadn't known of before). The books also went over this thing called evolution, and at the time I didn't understand it. It showed how creatures led to other creatures, and since I played Pokemon back then, it might have been possible for me to understand it as a really linear process, but I didn't question it either, or at least I don't recall doing so. I think I may have been worried I was sinning by finding evolution and all those creatures fascinating though. I was quite confused and conflicted for a while, but eventually my interests changed, and it all became a thing of the past. My interest in science was going strong still though with my fascination of geology and biology.

Eventually I gave up on the religion thing by the time I was in high school, since I started questioning everything, and I honestly didn't like how controlling it felt (it probably didn't help that my school had some strict rules as well, and because I wasn't so good at doing my chores, I wasn't allowed to do much, so of course I had desire for more freedom). By the time I learned about the whole "natural selection" thing in high school, evolution made more sense then it ever did before. On top of that, plenty of the things I was learning about ended up conflicting with the religious stuff I had learned. For a brief time I was also interested in prehistoric creatures again, but it was short lived, because my interest in fantasy consumed me then. With that interest, I also met some friends of a friend, and they were atheists. I ended up becoming quite the zealous one in those days too, fully convinced there was no god. That got me into quite a lot of fights back then, but as the years went by I've matured and mellowed out. So much that I could care less if there is or isn't, anymore.

While I'm still interested in fanstasy, it has taken a back seat now, since after browsing the net, and reading about a massive titanosaur leg bone discovered, back in 2014 (or 2013), I got my interest in prehistoric creatures back. The announcement of Jurassic World also helped. So here I am now. I stick with the evolution thing because it makes sense to me, what with the fossil record, and phylogeny bracketing, among other things (like genetics). I probably have a very simple understanding of it, but it works for me. In fact I'd go as far and say that it helps me to better understand the world around me. I still don't care if there's a creator or not. I only care to learn more about the natural world around me, with a heavy focus on the animals that existed then, and now, and science is just a tool to help me learn.

Anyways to anyone that reads through this entire thing, thanks. I don't care if you agree or disagree either. I just felt like sharing. Admin, if you see this unfit, then please do what you must.

[Loon]

Really beautiful stuff Faelrin, I enjoyed it and could relate so much.

[tanystropheus]

I find it rather odd that the notion of Evolution has been instrumental in driving so many people out of faith. I was personally drawn to Evolution at a very young age mostly due to my innate obsession with dinosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles and pterosaurs. It is for that reason that I started reading up on these topics while I was still in 3rd grade. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the classical religious texts are actually replete with examples that unabashedly support the concept of speciation. The scholar Al-Jāḥiẓ expounded upon the principles of evolution 1,000 years before Charles Darwin rose to prominence. Alfred Wallace was quite dismayed that theistic language permeated Darwin's "The Origin of Species". In the book, "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science", Sir William Draper referred to Darwin's work as the "Mohammedan Theory of Evolution". The Books of Enoch describe a scenario in which distinct classes of hominids competed with one another in an epic series of struggles until the fittest survived. In the Koran 76:28, there is mention of ongoing modification of the human form with respect to changes in body frame and joints. Moreover, one of the 99 names of God is Al-Bari or "The Evolver".

The historian Tabari mentions a Pre-Adamic civilization called, "Devi and Pari" (literally, "Demons and Angels"), an era marked by prehistoric hominids that were engaged in brutal competition and belligerent warfare. The Angels witnessed these events and were puzzled that God would place a vicegerent on Earth. The Angels stated, "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood?". The Sumerian scriptures suggest that Adam was genetically bioengineered in tandem with a Homo Erectus body plan.

The Buddhist concept of Impermanence or Anitya illustrates one of the fundamental truths of nature; nature's decay as it pertains to the inevitable death of stars (the Cosmos etc. ), the degeneration of all created things (e.g. telomeres, half-life etc.) and the collapse of civilizations and societal constructs. In Sufism, we are told "everything that exists shall perish..."

[Halichoeres]

I find it rather odd that the notion of Evolution has been instrumental in driving so many people out of faith. I was personally drawn to Evolution at a very young age mostly due to my innate obsession with dinosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles and pterosaurs. It is for that reason that I started reading up on these topics while I was still in 3rd grade. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the classical religious texts are actually replete with examples that unabashedly support the concept of speciation. The scholar Al-Jāḥiẓ expounded upon the principles of evolution 1,000 years before Charles Darwin rose to prominence. Alfred Wallace was quite dismayed that theistic language permeated Darwin's "The Origin of Species". In the book, "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science", Sir William Draper referred to Darwin's work as the "Mohammedan Theory of Evolution". The Books of Enoch describe a scenario in which distinct classes of hominids competed with one another in an epic series of struggles until the fittest survived. In the Koran 76:28, there is mention of ongoing modification of the human form with respect to changes in body frame and joints. Moreover, one of the 99 names of God is Al-Bari or "The Evolver".

The historian Tabari mentions a Pre-Adamic civilization called, "Devi and Pari" (literally, "Demons and Angels"), an era marked by prehistoric hominids that were engaged in brutal competition and belligerent warfare. The Angels witnessed these events and were puzzled that God would place a vicegerent on Earth. The Angels stated, "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood?". The Sumerian scriptures suggest that Adam was genetically bioengineered in tandem with a Homo Erectus body plan.

The Buddhist concept of Impermanence or Anitya illustrates one of the fundamental truths of nature; nature's decay as it pertains to the inevitable death of stars (the Cosmos etc. ), the degeneration of all created things (e.g. telomeres, half-life etc.) and the collapse of civilizations and societal constructs. In Sufism, we are told "everything that exists shall perish..."

This entire contribution is wildly off topic, in my opinion. I think the conceit of this thread is evaluating creation as a scientific hypothesis, albeit not a very good one.

But, since you bring it up, I'll tell you why evolution wrecked my faith. The natural world is full of pretty horrifying things, and at the risk of personifying natural selection, it is a ruthless, pitiless process. The only way natural selection can work with any efficiency is if most organisms die without leaving offspring. It also produces things like parasitoid wasps, of which Darwin said,

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars."

Similarly, Cordyceps fungi, which hijack the nervous systems of insects; isopods which feed on fish tongues and then attach themselves to the mouth, replacing the tongue with their own body; malarial plasmodia; Guinea worms and other parasites; all seem to militate against some kinds of theology. The kind of theology I was reared on posited an all-powerful, all-loving god. It's really difficult to square that with the horrors of parasites, when that theology also specifies that the Devil is not capable of creative acts. There are theologies that can accommodate this, of course--namely, ones that posit that God is not all-powerful, or ones that posit that God is not all-good; or ones that posit multiple beings capable of creation. I spent several years examining other religions and found them all wanting, but that had less to with evolution and so that stepwise process of elimination is less pertinent here.

[Neosodon]

But, since you bring it up, I'll tell you why evolution wrecked my faith. The natural world is full of pretty horrifying things, and at the risk of personifying natural selection, it is a ruthless, pitiless process. The only way natural selection can work with any efficiency is if most organisms die without leaving offspring. It also produces things like parasitoid wasps, of which Darwin said,

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars."

Similarly, Cordyceps fungi, which hijack the nervous systems of insects; isopods which feed on fish tongues and then attach themselves to the mouth, replacing the tongue with their own body; malarial plasmodia; Guinea worms and other parasites; all seem to militate against some kinds of theology. The kind of theology I was reared on posited an all-powerful, all-loving god. It's really difficult to square that with the horrors of parasites, when that theology also specifies that the Devil is not capable of creative acts. There are theologies that can accommodate this, of course--namely, ones that posit that God is not all-powerful, or ones that posit that God is not all-good; or ones that posit multiple beings capable of creation. I spent several years examining other religions and found them all wanting, but that had less to with evolution and so that stepwise process of elimination is less pertinent here.

Well that's depressing. Not only evolution and parasites but seldom does nature allow an easy life and a quick passing. That's one of the things WWD taught me as a child. The Postosuchus that died a slow crippling death from a wound gone septic. The Leoplorodon that was washed up on shore to be crushed and suffocate under it's own wait. The Ornithocheirus that flew half way across the world to find a mate only to die on a beach under the blistering sun from exhaustion and old age. And then the ending were the T. rex get's mortally wounded eventually leaving her chicks standing alone, helpless and confused next to her lifeless corpse. It's always puzzled me how something seemingly so beautiful and serene could also be so merciless and unforgiving. I've kind of dismissed it as a "knowledge of good and evil" kind of thing but it's hard to believe millions of years of suffering and death only exist to teach us some sort of lesson.

[danmalcolm]

For me, the fact that we find parasitism, extinction, and death in general "depressing", "horrible", etc. supports the idea of a "good" higher power. Evolution is fueled by an enormous amount of death, and the fact that humans see this in a negative light instead of accepting it as the way things are makes me think that it's not really how things are meant to be. We can say that the morals and values most humans share have been developed by evolutionary processes because they encourage survival and development of society, but then we are making survival the ultimate good, and morals are just a means to that end.

For example, just about everybody (I hope) would agree that every human being has value as a person, regardless of what they can contribute to society. Somebody who was paralyzed in a car accident, or who has a condition like down syndrome, is as deserving of love and kindness and life as anyone else. This doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If the morals telling us that such people are valuable are secondary to survival, then we can justify taking rights away from these people "for the good of human society". Thankfully this is not how most people think, and generally it is accepted that these people deserve rights. Human morals and values are important, more important even than survival, and for me this is evidence of a good God.

[Faelrin]

Honestly, to me nature isn't about good or evil. It just is what it is. It can be brutal or horrific at times, but there's times it isn't either. There's plenty of adorable critters, plenty of beautiful things, etc. It just goes both ways. We on the other hand, with our developed brains have this sense of things, that we call morals, that I'm not quite sure exists in nature. While there have been instances of predators caring for a prey species young, it's not likely they'll stop in the middle of a hunt and contemplate on not killing the prey for food. We as a species, are pretty mostly capable of doing that however. In fact I have to wonder how this whole moral thing came about. Of course different cultures have different sets of rules as well. I'm not too interested in the history of our species, but I have to wonder how this thing evolved over time. If I could take a guess, the survival of our species at first, and then eventually agricultural development might have paved the way to how things generally are now.

I also wonder if the domestication of wolves played a part as well. I know wolves have very tight family bonds. I can't think of too many other examples in the animal kingdom, except maybe gorillas, but mostly just us. Assuming prehistoric people weren't of that sort before, then I have to wonder if the wolves influenced our species for the better. I'd love to give this some more research, but of course I'm not quite sure where to start.

[stargatedalek]

I would argue the opposite, that our moral conscience (and those of other animals) is greater evidence against the archetypal concept of creationism and "a good god" than evolution ever could be, or at least evidence against a literal interpretation of most biblical scriptures.

This is, mind you, operating under the assumptions that those who were writing their interpretations of gods word were actually writing it concisely, and that the contents were not altered either by those persons personal biases or by false presumptions on their part or those of future translators. And those are some pretty big assumptions.

This also gets to the more concise point where I draw issue with taking the bible literally, many versions of the bible contain things that are not compatible with a modern humanitarian code of ethics. Things like the systematic murder or homosexuals, oppression of women, and the promotion of spreading ones own faith as "a master faith" regardless of consequences or morality (IE; Holy Wars, or the abduction of Native American children and placement in religious boarding schools). If our morality is evidence of gods morality why would gods written word be less capable of protecting the innocent than our own free acting thoughts?

Now one could easily make the argument that these are caused by people inserting their own biases of a (thankfully) bygone era, either wittingly or unwittingly, into religious doctrines and don't actually represent the will of god. But if that was misinterpreted who's to say Genesis wasn't also misinterpreted? And at that point you're pretty far from taking the bible literally.

As for animals, many animals actually have what could border on a system of justice. Dolphins and crows will banish group members for serious events like sexual assault or killing a member of their own group. If animals are capable of displaying quantifiable morality doesn't that throw into question the claim that humans are above other animals because of "our godliness"?

Of course all of this is only relevant to a literal interpretation of scripture, and even then is only related to one of hundreds of creation mythologies that exist. I feel like we're straying too far from the intention of the topic and too heavily towards certain faiths, though I'm certainly guilty of trying to get my two cents in before moving on.



For the question earlier "What would it take to convince you of intelligent design?" I would argue I'm already convinced in the plausibility of "intelligent design". I have a little shiny orange fish in my home right now that doesn't exist in nature, it was intelligently designed by humans hundreds of years ago through selective breeding. I acknowledge the plausibility of some intelligent being beyond our comprehension (as we are beyond that of a goldfish) shaping our origins in ways we can't understand fully, even if I don't believe it occurred.

However, the concept of a great flood covering the entire world, or all animal and plant life being placed on Earth practically simultaneously and not evolving together over time, I don't think anything could make me believe it. Not when there is already so much evidence to the contrary. Even if for example someone found an orca skeleton from the Triassic, I just can't ever see myself believing that as the most likely explanation, not when it could be any number of other causes. Unprecedented geological similarity between sections of different dates, convergent evolution, etc. are all plausible explanations.

[danmalcolm]

Yes we may be off topic at this point... I'll gladly stop if told to, but clearly I'm not the only one who finds this sort of discussion interesting, and so far I think we're managing to stay relatively civil.

I won't tell you that the society portrayed in the OT is morally perfect, because it wasn't. A few details tend to go ignored, though:
-The rules in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc., were much closer to our modern code of ethics than those followed by the majority of other societies at the time (and place?). Child sacrifice was common, and virtually every people group had a violent "us vs. them" mentality based on conquest.
-Slavery, likewise, was rampant and Israel was actually revolutionary in that people were told to treat their servants/slaves with kindness.
-Many rules would have reduced/prevented the spread of diseases (i.e. no shellfish).
Though I have always been uncomfortable with the stoning, crusades, general violence portrayed, and freely admit this is difficult to reconcile with the god portrayed.

Details aside, though, I find it hard to write off my repulsion of the unpleasant, amoral bits as my own comparatively progressed values.  Why do homosexuals deserve proper human rights, and why is it so important to us to build a society where they aren't stoned or burnt at the stake? These feelings have to come from somewhere, and in my opinion if they evolved naturally, then that's all they are, feelings. We can follow them or ignore them as we see fit, because they're essentially arbitrary, simply a tool to better ensure our species' survival. If our morals arose from natural selection, then once they've served their purpose they are essentially vestigial. I believe that our feelings of right and wrong come from some other source, and that the reason we feel so strongly that these issues matter is that they do matter. Our ingrained values are some of the most important parts of our human nature. They push us to have compassion for the man in the street. They caused nations to unite in order to beat back the Nazis. I don't see how this can be chalked up to simple, material evolution.

As for the rest of the animal kingdom, I don't think it's logical to applaud good morals unless we condemn bad ones, too. Is it wrong for female chimps to cannibalize other chimps' offspring? Is a dolphin rapist as guilty as a man? Can we condemn a lion for killing a pride full of cubs, or a caiman for killing for fun? Where can we draw the line? They do what they do to survive, not because it's right or wrong. I hope its not ridiculous to view humans as at least a step up from that. I think most would agree that a society based on survival alone would be bad.

[Halichoeres]

The fact that what people consider moral varies so much by time, place, and context suggests that if humans are deriving their morality from a higher power, they're doing so extremely badly. Just 40 years ago, in the United States, as many people thought homosexual behavior should be illegal as legal (http://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx). Now it's more than 3-1 in favor of "legal". Where does this change in attitudes come from? It didn't come from a divine revelation, but from straight people meeting gay and bisexual people and listening to them and recognizing their humanity. It came from reason and compassion. Of course, you can claim that reason and compassion are divine gifts, but why then were so many allowed to suffer from our failure to exercise it?

The Euthyphro dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma) is a really good thought experiment on the provenance of moral goods. To paraphrase: is something moral because a higher power says so, or does a higher power say something is moral because it already intrinsically is moral? This thought experiment suggests to me that we invent higher powers to suit our morality, rather than deriving our morality from a higher power.

Apologies if this tangent is in violation of forum rules, but it had already detoured into theodicy and apologetics, so I figured, in for a penny, in for a pound.