Prophetic Fallacy

Empirical evidence that is inspired through reference of the contemporary material or culture, cannot claim to be omniscient or objective, as external empiricism in such a prejudiced form is not sufficient evidence to be deemed holy or let alone rational from an observational standpoint. The proclaimed objectivity in God's commandments should not be constrained to the prophets' contemporary culture. The belief in what is moral, sinful or holy are only labeled through its alignment with its culture which is subjected to change over time. Because it is aligned with the cultural consensus at the time, the individual may resonate with it while believing it is something supernatural that validates truth in the catechism, when truly it is only because their conceptualization of accepted morality precedes its translated discovery. Biblical morality cannot objectively lead to fulfillment in all people and to claim it does is ignorant to the subjectivity of human nature. The only possible conceptualization of an ‘objective’ morality is evolutionary morality. Empathy, pity, and regret are founded in the psyche through parenting and continuously reinforced through the societal structures within the individual's environment. However both these and evolutionary morality fall short when a soul is raised in conditions that forbid these transformations. Because of this, God's commandments cannot be objectively holy nor should they continue to be considered as righteous due to the fluctuation of morality. A personal alignment of resonation with a certain ethical system cannot constitute grounds for religious validity of the divine let alone its objectivity. The reason Christian commandments such as “Love thy neighbor” cross its teachings multi-culturally is due to the society’s culture, the development it fosters, and the biological moral evolution that supports it.

This is not to critique religion's role in society, for I believe faith if executed correctly can perhaps have more benefits to the individual rather than absolute rationality. However, claiming objectivity when it remains overshadowed by a supernatural force and imposing it over the subjectivity of human experience turns into mass delusion. Religion can serve as a guiding light for many people, however for some it can metamorphose into hate and simply believing due to the risk of ostracization; leading to a fragmenting of their identity. Due to these former points I believe a greater sense of personal fulfillment can sprout in introspection from within. However I think there is a difference between completely stripping oneself of societal morality and reconstructing its principles so that it is in line with the most valuable. If one were to completely dissect themselves of even evolutionary moral belief then they are subjecting themselves to internal discourse and cognitive dissonance. Only when one can identify the causation to root ethical behaviors can they realize its futility and alchemize them. The reconstruction of such beliefs when done with precision leads to a better alignment with who they are rather than continuously following the irrational prejudice of others.