(Original post by Guru Jason)
As opposed to the, "listen to god with no critical thinking or burn in hell" approach to moral policy.
I rather go for the secular version or moral policy thanks.
PS all morals are subjective as there all man made. It's only through empathy and scientific discovery do we discover what is harmful to us in what we should and shouldn't do.
It is precisely through critical thinking that one concludes that submitting to the All Knowing, All Wise would provide a basis for objective morality, thus always trumping subjective morals. The only additional area for critical thinking is assertaining whether such a God exists or not (which is a seperate topic).
On the other hand, most irreligious people lack critical thinking when they adopt their subjective moral system, instead just making arbitrary assertions not grounded in reality. For example, you cannot justify why homosexuality should be taught to kids in the first place without appealing to arbitrarily accepted concepts like secular humanism, the harm principle, hedonism, evolved morals etc, which are not grounded in objective reality - it only exists in our heads because we thought of it. These concepts can act as a foundation with which you can attempt
to derive a moral code, but they inevitably conflict with each other, resulting in another arbitrary assertion of parameters to cut off reaching the logical conclusion of any one model. So for example, hedonism is the seeking of pleasure, so if everyone was allowed to seek pleasure in an unrestricted manner, then people would be able to fond pleasure in killing and theft; the harm principle limits our actions to those which cause minimum harm, but minimum harm to who? Society? The individual? Nature? What are the parameters of the social contract each individual has with society? Could the harm principle justify genocide if it was to reduce harm to humanity as a whole or nature? Are actions restricted based on their immediate harm or their potential harm in the future - what are the limits? There is so much more to go into but you get the point - it is just assertion after assertion based on what one blindly thinks is 'best' without it being grounded in anything real.
Going back to objective morality, for the theist, he may not be able to articulate the wisdom behind every moral issue, but it doesn't matter if he knows or not - his actions are grounded on the reality that he will either be punished or rewarded for eternity based on how he lived, so what would it matter if these morals conflicted with any of these concepts mentioned above?
You last statement means nothing or very little - it adds nothing to the discussion. Even with scientific discovery, social studies, etc, things are still considered legal or acceptable in spite of the harms e.g. alcohol, and (eventually) weed, and so on. Humanity is not a good source for its own rule of law and moral code.