Does absolute morality require a supernatural explanation?

[RCTjunkie]

Mr Khan said:

RCTjunkie said:

Mr Khan said:

 Babies understand fairness

This indicates that we likely have an innate concept of justice, a priori, which does not immediately disprove the idea of God (could lend credence to the concept of the Holy Spirit, that we have been given access to God's capacity for goodness, etc etc), but it does show that humans have a notion of justice without anyone having to explain anything to them, or threaten them with jail, inferior reincarnation, or eternal hellfire.

 

Only 2/3rds of the babies shared their toys and showed a concept of fairness, and amongst those there were babies that only offered their least favorite toy. That's not a universal, absolute sense of morality. It just shows that morality is varied amongst others as they choose and also to what degree. Even if there is a correlation, having such doesn't give enough justification to dub those that act on them any morally superior than those who don't from an evolutionary standpoint, specifically in cases where going against established morality would benefit yourself greatly.

 

Well nobody's going to have an absolut sense of morality inherently, certainly, but neither does it need to be supernaturally explained. What the study shows is that the babies have a rudimentary sense of justice, something that, with our rational minds, we can sort out into something more comprehensive and absolute, but that this germ of goodness comes from us (which again, may indirectly be of divine origin) and doesn't need to be transmitted through any sort of scripture, prophet, or messiah.

How can we trust our minds to be able to rationally come up with what the "absolute" morals (justice, fairness, etc) are when it is derived from nature being morally neutral and evolving so much over time? Is it from what the majority believes is fair and moral?  It seems odd to say that no one has an absolute sense of morality but claim that absolute moral laws exists. We as humans can try to decide what our morals are and how we live as humans for the most fairness and well-being of everyone, but it cannot be claimed based on that there's an absolute morality and code of conduct that everyone agrees is right or wrong. A natural explanation of the universe involves so much evolution of creatures and survival of the fittest that it can only lead to "morality" being whatever is most adaptable for survival, which really isn't morals or objectively good.