A Moral Dilemma

[stu]

1. God=Nature, that was an ancient concept. Perhaps since existence of humans. Not new at all!
2. Basically all the major religions (organised institutions) nowadays are actually quite young relatively, comparing to our human history.

I didn't say it was new.
I said it generally isn't read that way. Which it isn't.
Earliest beliefs are considered to have been monotheistic. Much later giving way to many Gods, eventually returning to the one God idea again for mainstream contemporary religions, putting the imaginary God concept as creator above everything including Nature.
God=Nature is not the way a vast majority of religious belief has ever gone as far as I'm aware.

3. imo, morality is an orderly system among the individuals within a (sub)set of humans. They define their morals for common goodness. That, the expectations of goodness, hence laws and legal systems, can be dynamically changed according to their experience along their time line/span. New laws replace old laws.

I don't know what you mean by "(sub)set".
Broadly speaking I think we agree, what is moral and morality itself are those standards which promote well being and do least harm possible and least necessary to people and things. In my view, standards encapsulated into law by a free and democratic society openly voting its lawmakers into and out of office, is a moral procedure which allows morality to evolve to the highest definition.

Morality does not belong to, nor is it the preserve of any "(sub)set" of humans. That would be less than moral. Perhaps you don't mean that.
It's true the majority in any free society put what they consider to be moral standards into effect, so I suppose that leaves a subset that might not agree but who in the long run might be found to be right.

However Relative morality quite rightly (and therefore morally), does rationally render reliance on "(sub)set" God as less than moral to say the least, whether or not God=Nature.

However you've dropped any mention of God as a "(sub)set" being required or necessary, which was my point. If that's what you're saying then I agree with you that far.

I think we can still also agree morality is relative and cannot be the idealistically absolute some like to claim it is.

 

[OddTrader]

Moral judgement:

The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith.[1][2][3] It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), and Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments

Overview

Broadly speaking, Smith followed the views of his mentor, Francis Hutcheson of the University of Glasgow, who divided moral philosophy into four parts: Ethics and Virtue; Private rights and Natural liberty; Familial rights (called Economics); and State and Individual rights (called Politics).

Hutcheson had abandoned the psychological view of moral philosophy, claiming that motives were too fickle to be used as a basis for a philosophical system. Instead, he hypothesised a dedicated "sixth sense" to explain morality. This idea, to be taken up by David Hume (see Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature), claimed that man is pleased by utility.

 

[stu]

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith considers morals to be a matter of emotion.
Eminent philosophers of the time successfully argued that was not so, particularly Thomas Reid in his ..Principles of Common Sense., which determines how morals are rather - ascertained.

 

[OddTrader]

Rationality vs {Moral and Emotion}:

The moral issues of the Iraq war remain

Date
July 7, 2016

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-moral-issues-of-the-iraq-war-remain-20160707-gq0nf2.html

Former British prime minister Tony Blair responds to the Chilcot report: "I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you may ever know."

... ...

"I will be with you, whatever," Blair wrote to Bush.

 

[OddTrader]

Cosmologist Paul Davies proposes theory that building blocks of life may not be chemicals but information
July 10 2016

http://www.theage.com.au/technology...hemicals-but-information-20160707-gq0ok4.html

The Reverend Dr Stephen Ames thinks he might have an idea. He is a canon at St Paul's Cathedral in Melbourne, and a lecturer at Melbourne Uni who holds dual doctorates in physics and the history and philosophy of science.

"I do think of the universe as being structured towards an end, and part of that end is that it is knowable through empirical inquiry," he said.

In other words, the laws of physics are what they are – but studying them, in time, over generations of scholarship, will lead to the understanding that in a fundamental way the universe was kick-started by what Ames terms a "powerful agent" – or, in more traditional terms, God.