...or they could just be postulating that it's not necessary to believe in a supernatural deity in order to live a fulfilled, productive and creative life.

Aristocrat:
<Nietzsche is not Cartesian. While you are right that modern science reverts back to a form of Platonism by placing down maxims as if they existed independently of the mind, Nietzsche's position is that the mind is not at all separate from the body and therefore all "maxims" are complete human creations. Hence, 'truths' can better be described as something closer to "art" than science. Any "maxim" laid down will be a manifestation of the prejudices, psychological, physiological, biological, and cultural character of its creator>

Nietzsche is hardly the last word and in any case falls into the same trap as Hume, denying the validity of the very a priori reason he deploys in denouncing it; he is Cartesian, though he's in denial. Hume lionised empiricism in the act of transcending it; there is no empiricism without a priorism.
I'm tempted to agree that all maxims are nothing more than human creations, but let's not be hasty. We arrive at this conclusion because we have no hard evidence that maxims are anything but human inventions, and yet some of our verities are absolutely intuitive--the elegance of physics, the preciousness of innocence, or the sublime beauty of the blue planet. It's virtually axiomatic that these things should be protected. Are these feelings merely culturally constructed? I don't believe they are, they're too deeply and spontaneously felt. The absence of the human capacity for such feelings bespeaks psychosis rather than enlightenment. To deny the validity of these feelings, in themselves, is likely the real cultural construct, because they're universal. Just because the thing in itself is beyond our ability to rationalise, it is not necessarily a human construct--that's hubris.
But let's look at materialism on its own truth claims; what justifies the preconception that "some" materialist view "must" be "true"? If I acknowledge the problematics of Cartesian dualism, that's hardly a substantiation of materialism. Yet we have Dawkins dogmatically insisting on a materialist view, with religious conviction! And yet if he's correct, and Kagan is correct in his moral minimilism, why are they not pursuing modest ethics rather than grandiose science?

Squeers' last post has touched on a couple of ideas that we should consider at length. To perceive an object, action, relationship etc. as "elegant", "precious" or "sublimely beautiful" at such depth in the psyche can be powerfully compelling: these experiences are for many of us the source of moral imperatives upon which we base our lives.

I suggest that a common response to such experiences is to be thankful. (In older language we might say we consider ourselves to be "blessed".) Gratitude is basically a psycho-spiritual position one assumes and implies a relationship with an "other" -- i.e. with the source of whatever is elegant/precious/beautiful. I believe this position is experienced by all or most humans, but for many, most of the time, the experience is only admitted into consciousness fleetingly.

When we retain the gratitude in consciousness and reflect on its significance, the question arises of the nature of the "other". That's where much of the contemporary debate arises. Perhaps a lot of the anger and confusion would be avoided if we refrained from relying so much on words to "answer" the question or to communicate what we believe to be "the answer". Some powerful alternatives are music, visual arts, gardening and our everyday behaviour towards people and the natural world.

Sadly, Crabsy, these matters seem perennially beyond us to fathom, which is why I prefer the here and now. The objective and the subjective are the heads and tails of the matter. It strikes me that I'm the only poster here to take a by-partisan position, not preferring either side but critical of both. Bully for me, but it all falls on deaf ears.

In his book "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins rails against a God that one does not recognise. It is almost as though he constructed a punchbag that he enjoys kicking about.

Theologians, in particular Wilberforce, (the Bishop of Oxford) challenged Darwinism that he did not know anything about. Now, Richard Dawkins and some other "scientists" are challenging theological arguments that they know nothing about.

Describing theists as creationist is incorrect.

It is an incrontrovertible fact that beleif systems prevailed in human societies since the year dot. It exists among Amazonian tribes who were not exposed to any Western influence. The tribes that have a strong beleif system (reflecting their own tradition), - happen to prosper. Those that do not have a strong beleif system happen to languish.

It is wrong to claim that any of the historical belief systems have been due to coercion. It was more of a an inbuilt and tacit acceptance of the need for a system of values, - a system of "moral" rules.

What is the source of the moral authority?

People have almost intuitively understood that the source of moral authority can not be in the control of any human being, - even if they happen to be a group of eminent scientists.

How do you describe this source of moral authority?

That is probably best referred to as an eternal quest.

Squeers,

I don't believe the feelings to which you referred are merely culturally constructed. They go deeper and are intrinsically linked to our condition as conscious beings reliant on our environment for material, emotional and intellectual succor. We instinctively recognise patterns and behaviours in our world even if they are only absorbed subliminally.

Istvan,

Morality is culturally constructed, whether it's ascribed to "God" or not. It's a matter of faith and belief whether one accepts that "the word" was transmitted to man from a supernatural entity - or merely devised by the messenger.

I found this by Craig on Creation. It displays the depth of his scholarly vigor - and his ability to construct his elaborate hypothesis.
http://www.lewissociety.org/creation.php