Your second point — that without a theistic belief, one cannont have a philosophically consistent system of morals — is one that I don’t have the knowledge to definitively argue either way. That said, my sense is that there are people out there who have no belief in a deity whatsoever who still strive to do the right thing. They’re likely uncommon. I mean, really, it takes a great deal of emotional health to genuinely do right without the fear of retribution as a driver. But just because it’s uncommon doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

For me, I find that my choices to do right or not mean much more to me now than they ever did during my (legalistic) youth, because they’re genuinely *my* choices — not actions I take out of fear. Perhaps my belief in God drives that, but I went through a period of rebelling before I realized that I could do right simply because it’s right — and not have it be someone else’s choices for me. I’m rambling…hope that makes sense.

But I challenge anyone to have a system of morals that is philosophically consistent that does not have a theistic (a belief in God) underpinning. How can one believe in an absolute moral consensus if their belief is that there are no absolutes? I agree with you that the absolutes do not have to line up with Pat Robertson and his posse, but they at least have to have something that they are pinned to. Otherwise, everyone makes up their own moral agenda.

And that’s how we get Darfur and the days in New Orleans following Katrina…lawlessness.