I guess I'm fuzzy on the distinction between the things you say, and the positions you "really" have. Obviously, you've made lots of different claims throughout the discussion, but it sounds like you're saying most of those don't count/can't be questioned. That doesn't seem particularly fair or reasonable, especially when said after the fact.
I'm not sure the distinction is even possible; most positions are made up of other positions. You don't think holy books are folklore as an axiom, you think they're folklore because you've taken other positions about how to weigh evidence that they fall short of. So those positions are, in fact, part of this one. Which is why they came up in the process of discussing it.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to other claims I've made and holy books make demonstrably false claims about matters of fact so they discredit themselves. As to rationality and morality I'm still not sure what you're getting at by process vs goal but let me say a few short things on the matter.
Just because something may be instinctual doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose, the fight or flight response being a good example. Many see the underpinnings of morality as instinctual or hardwired, as part of our nature, but it serves the purpose of keeping our social units intact. The basic laws that all societies and tribes have had from the beginning as well as kindness or altruism maintain the group and prevent it's disintegration. In fact, we see this in the first of all social units the family: Parents treat their children fairly, with kindness, prohibit certain behaviors, protect them from harm, including each other, etc. Certain conduct can thus be understood as good or bad, right or wrong, because they are necessarily so, required to ensure the welfare and viability of the the group, ourselves.
Some who argue divine morality accept a biological view on a basic level but feel it can't explain everything, but this is answered by pointing out that not everything we believe or do is adaptive--although it may have its roots in that--but emerge from psychology, culture, contemplation etc. A short and very good piece on this can be found in
Paul Bloom's (Yale psychology professor who did
morality in babies studies) reply to Francis Collins' (physical chemist, medical geneticist, former head of the Human Genome Project) view that morality is evidence of the divine.
That at least the bulk of morality can be placed in a evolutionary context is supported by what we would deem
moral behavior in other social species and would seem to pose a problem for divine theory. The observation that morality doesn't appear entirely universal or fixed seems to be a problem as well. There are, and have been, differing moral views on sexual conduct for instance and practices such as slavery which were once widely accepted are now condemned. One would think that if a god implanted our sense of morality it wouldn't differ or be subject to change. Additionally, I wonder that if a divine moral sense is so very important why is psychopathy and other brain malformation allowed that prevents or renders it impotent.
Closed Thread
Look, besides my view that holy books are folklore, or expressions of what is thought to be, should be, etc., I don't really have a position. Indeed, I've already said science itself may just be good at measuring the illusion.
