.
S
ome people would argue that point with you Sp. Those who believe in a deity and I'm guessing you do not. Thank you for your reply! :)
Our understanding changes as we learn more hartfire. What is true today in science is not the same as was true decades ago. So decades hence what is "true" today will have changed as we hopefully learn more about the nature of the universe. Nothing stays the same forever. Thank you for your reply! :)
We do and cannot say if there is any such thing as any god: ancient books stating their authors' and their societies' religious beliefs are not more than that: statements of those beliefs. Those who answer questions like this merely by quoting antique books contribute no more than a selective background to their own case, and this proves nothing.
Earlier posts in this thread point to the problem that mankind has been largely breaking "God''s" (which god, whose god?) laws for millennia, long before the Hebrews invented what became the Torah, Bible and Quran; showing only that any such god has abandoned us to our own devices anyway.
Using a god to justify social laws and norms was useful when everyone believed in deities, and the principle ones of those rules are intended rightly to protect people from each other: though shalt not murder, etc. Unless, in the minds of some, it is supposedly right to murder or even be simply a domestic bully in the name of that deity, and sadly, very often simply how to defer to it.
However, we no longer need invented deities and ancient books by unknown people as props, and it as well to remember that enough religions have been invented, followed for ages and eventually abandoned by humanity, to indicate the fallacy and arrogance of claiming any one religion to be somehow "True" in itself. It only a belief and "true" only for its own believers. Something can genuinely be true only if demonstrably so. Gods are not so provable: the Judaeo - Christian - Muslim God is no more true to those of other faiths, than are the soap-opera pantheons of Classical Greece and Rome.
Mankind invented genuine, valuable rules such as Though Shalt not murder, steal, etc., for social protection, but we no longer need the artifice of a deity to see that such rules make sense. They teach humanity to the believer and atheist alike; and that is what matters. A notion of divine intervention in making those laws was useful and meaningful to a Late Bronze Age tribal people all believing in one god and one way to worship it; but it is no longer needed, nor even really meaningful to a 21C society consisting of people of all manner of religious beliefs and none.
I completely agree with your view, Clurt.
The knowledge we are gaining in psychology shows that different ethics can work well in different cultural contexts. But as we evolve socially and technologically we need to adapt. The research findings of psychology, sociology and ethical think tanks can be very helpful in fine-tuning which laws promote the greatest well-being for all.
Once "Thou shalt not kill" referred only to not killing others in one's tribe: at that time killing one's wife, slave or child was permissible. Now we extend it to mean all humans (although we still exclude enemies during war and self-defence against attackers.) Some even extend it to include all animals.
Now we need ethical guidelines for internet, effects of human activity on earth's ecosystems, in vitro fertilisation, stem cell therapy, and euthanasia.
The ethics for the fields you mention in your last paragraph must be among the most difficult humanity has ever had to assess, partly because some are so new we've no real past experience, or are mired in a bog of commercial and political self-interests.
However, the need to establish those guidelines is understood and many involved in the relevant scientific and political areas are trying to do something about it.
So nice to discover something about your views. :)
