Actually, as Haidt’s book bring’s out, “What the boss wants” has normally been accepted as a moral consideration in most cultures. If you don’t believe me ask yourself what reception you would receive if you were to propose the abolition of the Constitution of the United States.

No. He was saying that some revelation is given to everyone.

The problem is that if you actually were to examine your beliefs, sooner or later you’d come to a point where you’re just taking something on faith.

Even the authors at First Things disagree with that conception of faith.

And what you’re taking on faith is arbitrary.

Well… not so much.

Atheists are only comfortable as long as they are not very self-aware.

Many theists have a defective awareness of what atheists actually believe.

There is, however, a problem, pointed out over 50 years ago by Miss Anscombe, “In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot even be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology. For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a “virtue.” This part of the subject-matter of ethics, is however, completely closed to us until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is – a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis – and how it relates to the actions in which it is instanced: a matter which I think Aristotle did not succeed in really making clear. For this we certainly need an account at least of what a human action is at all, and how its description as “doing such-and-such” is affected by its motive and by the intention or intentions in it; and for this an account of such concepts is required.”

We are still waiting.

The problem is that if you actually were to examine your beliefs, sooner or later you’d come to a point where you’re just taking something on faith.

And what you’re taking on faith is arbitrary.

It’s the arbitrary part that is the problem.

Atheists are only comfortable as long as they are not very self-aware.

I don’t believe morality comes through divine revelation. Isn’t it a fundamental Christian belief that a knowledge of what is right and wrong is available to all without divine revelation? Isn’t this what St. Paul is saying in Romans?

There is an old story I heard decades ago that I will no doubt garble, since I have never been able to track it down. It is about a rabbi and an atheist who got together every day, day after day, and argued about the existence of God. One day the rabbi’s wife exploded in exasperation and shouted at them, “Enough! What is the point? You get together every day and argue endlessly! Neither one of you is going to convince the other. What a waste of time!” But both of them turned on her and told her how wrong she was. Because there was one thing on which they were both in firm agreement: the importance of the question.

He sees religion as an outsider. At one point, he refers to it as an ‘exoskeleton’ in that it produces salutary effects on society despite its metaphysic, not because of it.

He lacks a philosopher’s ability to see the fundamentals of things and hence, he admittedly addresses morality solely on descriptive terms (merely describing what people are doing and affirming) and avoids the work of normative judgments.

He feels an obligation to bring every hypothesis, not only before the judgment seat of empiricism but also of evolutionary function. This he does a bit slavishly.

He is a blessing in that he is a liberal (or liberally moderate) writer who is capable of regarding conservatives as something other than either evil or stupid. His work is useful in bridging opposing minds, which is its main goal.