|Image from SignGenerator.org|
I make no apology for saying this: your opinion1 on this issue doesn’t matter, nor do the opinions of the authors of any of these studies cited here. Neither does mine, but there is something that does. With so many complexities and differences of opinion on the issue, it should become clear that the answer is not to be found among humans—at least not yet. Where, then, is the answer? Ironically, many have come to the conclusion that the issue is not simple enough even to come to a conclusion. If there were no God, and there were no revelation about Him, it would be reasonable to come to the same conclusion—if reason could even be said to exist.To read the rest, click on "Which Came First: Knowledge of God or Morality? (Or Both?)". It's the right thing to do.
The issue of morality is tied up in many concepts, which doesn’t help make the issue any more comprehensible. Often the idea is presented more as the evolution of religion or the evolution of a concept of God (as if it’s fully out of the picture to acknowledge even the possibility of one that’s revealed Himself at all to us)—or even of altruism and social graces, cooperation, society, supernatural phenomena, generosity, and so on. Admittedly, covering all of these topics merit separate considerations, but there is a common thread that will be discussed in this paper.
Inseparable from the consideration of these concepts are the assumptions of the investigator—perhaps more so than any other consideration of humanity. Acknowledging supernatural things and a concept of right and wrong is beyond us scientifically, but we can look at the brain, behavior of individuals, and events today and, to an extent, in the past. Evolutionary scientists also look at animals, because they assume that some rudiments of moral behavior are inherited, since we are just evolved animals.