Morality therefore, cannot be dependent upon religion, since it can be understood, studied and evaluated outside of religion and separate from it in either case.
It is not clear whether the Nicomachean Ethics has a consistent view of the relation between the activity of contemplation and the other activities of a virtuous life see Hare, God and Morality, chapter 1, and Sarah Broadie, Ethics with Aristotle, chapter 7.
And deeply religious people often wonder how atheists can have any morality at all. Paul argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,  however, an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological and theoretical problems undermine any findings or conclusions taken from Paul's research.
This makes the current climate more hospitable to religious language than it was for most of the twentieth century. Their explanations of natural phenomena make no reference to values or purposes. In the first place, it is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the Scriptures.
We are by our nature social creatures who want and need the company of other people. Mention should be made of some movements that are not philosophical in a professional sense, but are important in understanding the relation between morality and religion.
This does not mean that he intended to reduce Biblical faith to morality, though some scholars have taken him this way. As in Plato, the well-being of the city takes precedence over the individual, and this, too, is justified theologically.
Here the penalty for murder is said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid by her husband. He thought he could provide a scientific calculus of pleasures, where the unit that stays constant is the minimum state of sensibility that can be distinguished from indifference.
In After Virtue he is still influenced by a Hegelian historicism, and holds that the only way to settle rival knowledge claims is to see how successfully each can account for the shape taken by its rivals.
These standards that we learn from reason apply also to God, so that we can use them to judge what God is and is not commanding us to do.