Keith Burgess-Jackson puts out some excellent discussion about the topics of Morality and Religion, however, while I find him mostly correct, he and Richard Nikoley at Uncommon Sense both forget.

I will state that I believe Richard to be a bit closer to the issue and at least takes a near hit at the topic.

Richard states:

The central point here is that God is not the source of morality and the State is not the source of security. The source of both is to be found in the nature of the human animal.

In this assumption, Richard follows the correct assessment that conscience is a human device which can be assumed to regulate morality. At least to this point, animals without a human conscience that I come across do not have the least bit of knowledge about the moral nature of their actions, they are just fearful of what my response is about. I could easily make the statement that animals do not have morality from my definition of morality. I do not believe that just because animals fear mankind, that they “know” evil.

However, animals have their own instinctual coding about what is correct. If I hold a kitten on its back, it knows that this is not correct. This does not mean that the animal who knows right and wrong positions, has any basis of knowledge of good and evil, just right and wrong.

So let us make sure we are discussing the same thing. Morality is not a question of what is right and wrong, but a question of good and evil.

It is my understanding that human beings received this knowledge of good and evil by a choice that was made. A choice that changed the fundamental attributes of the human race. No longer would we be blinded by the fact that good and evil existed. It is my belief that this is the core of morality, the knowledge of good and evil.

As Keith states:

Perhaps the readers are saying that morality without religion has no authority.

and

I hope the readers aren’t suggesting that unless God exists, anything goes.

and

Is the suggestion that, without the threat of supernatural punishment, morality has no “bite”?

Each of these statements he asserts correctly and I believe he is right in each of these not being the reason that religion and morality are connected. Each of these statements are incorrect, and while I know some religious who might claim the above, I believe they are just not founded enough to know the difference.

He makes the postulate that:

Nobody disputes the fact that morality and religion are connected.

Which I think is an error in superlatives. Many people DO make that assumption, but I think what he means is that there seems to exist a connection between belief and morality.

The connection I find is that without a supreme being who foreknew good and evil creating the boundary and definition. Then we have mankind experiencing the boundary. Without this test and a pre-existing being who new the definition to apply it, we would not know good and evil, just right and wrong.

The other point that is totally missed has to do with the unsteady nature of the human conscience. The assumption is that most everyone's conscience is correct and remains correct throughout their life. I believe that comes from a post-modern belief that "there is no good or evil, I make my own rules. What is good for me may be evil to you, but so long as my good does not become your evil, we are okay."

The reality I find is one where there are very flawed people whose conscience is seared so hard that it does not matter what is moral and what is not. The leftist culture is enamored with these people. Just look at how they defended Sadam Hussein, and it becomes clear.

To define what is right and wrong does not take a deity, but to define good and evil, there must be a standard that exists beyond me. I cannot be the arbiter of this decision.

If I make an assumption that what is good for me is to serve Allah and what is good for you is to die for Allah, I am evil. I have arbitrated what is good for me and I am doing what is good for you, but it is still evil. Nor can society decide these things or the Islamic republics are correct.

Human morality is flawed. It depends upon the lonely existence of a mentally unstable creature. We are just not right, or the need for an overmedicated society would not exist.

See humans need God to FIX our morality, not to provide authority, not to be free, and most defiantly not because of punishment (for if you know God, he solved that issue as well with his Son).

The manufacturer declared a defect in the product, and issued a patch.

As Richard states:

He's just created God and the State in order to cope the two most profound issues of his life.

It reminds me of a saying I use, "In the beginning, God created man, and ever since then, we have been trying to recreate him."

We need the State, we just need the boundaries on the state like the Constitution provides. We need the State, because there are evil people out there.

We need God to fix that evil both in us and in others. Not to judge us, but to forgive us and change us. The problem is that most people seek to change religion, rather than letting their belief transform them. This is why there are so many “religious” but very few true believers.

I still have fundamental issues with atheists, which have never been answered, "What do you care if God exists? How about leaving him alone?" You cannot prove he doesn't exist, and without taking a step of faith, you cannot prove to yourself that he does. So what?

Be content to ignore him and all those around you who have discovered him.

I believe the problem you face, is that if you look deep inside, you might just find him and feel responsible for something for which you don't want to be responsible. That is the fear that needs to be answered. These are the chains that shackle our souls. “I believe that I’m okay. After all I don’t, kill, steal, etc., etc.”

Richard concludes:

Someday, the human animal will grow to learn that he needs neither fantasy in order to ensure his happiness and well-being.

The human animal already is trying to believe this but the human being enjoys the company of their deity.