"But the fact that there is demonstrable evolutionary benefit to morality, which serves in “solidifying social bonds, enhancing trust, minimizing resource depletion, and reducing the odds of infection, illness, and death, among other benefits,” means there’s a perfectly reasonable non-religious reason for morality to exist as well."
But...if evolution is part of God's Creation, then it is intended by Him. Therefore there is no such thing as a "non-religious reason" in a broad sense. I would agree that the scientific method requires an approach that is 'functionally atheistic', but this does not mean that there is no God or that He doesn't make use of evolution.
"That last line hit me, because of course, I spent 40 years believing in “one true religion,” so “one true morality” derived from that religion never seemed objectionable."
But...a "true morality" derived from evolution per Henderson is not objectionable at all. It makes sense, just as Chomsky's genetically based universal language makes sense. The fact that there are variations are merely due to culture and (dare we admit) revelation. I think this view is entirely compatible with "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" - it isn't just that morality must be centered on human need (as in crafted), but it must be centered on humans ontologically.
"But the fact that there is demonstrable evolutionary benefit to morality, which serves in “solidifying social bonds, enhancing trust, minimizing resource depletion, and reducing the odds of infection, illness, and death, among other benefits,” means there’s a perfectly reasonable non-religious reason for morality to exist as well."
But...if evolution is part of God's Creation, then it is intended by Him. Therefore there is no such thing as a "non-religious reason" in a broad sense. I would agree that the scientific method requires an approach that is 'functionally atheistic', but this does not mean that there is no God or that He doesn't make use of evolution.
"That last line hit me, because of course, I spent 40 years believing in “one true religion,” so “one true morality” derived from that religion never seemed objectionable."
But...a "true morality" derived from evolution per Henderson is not objectionable at all. It makes sense, just as Chomsky's genetically based universal language makes sense. The fact that there are variations are merely due to culture and (dare we admit) revelation. I think this view is entirely compatible with "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" - it isn't just that morality must be centered on human need (as in crafted), but it must be centered on humans ontologically.