Because if I believe in something that takes responsibility for moral behaviour' or virtue, then human beings can legitimately argue they can't be held responsible for either the good things or the bad things they do. Call it agency. And I refuse to concede the idea that human beings are not, at the very least, cognitively responsible for their behaviour If you drink and run over a kid, it's all on you... from taking a drink to getting behind the wheel. It ain't God's will that there's a dead kid as a result.

Put another way, if you've heard of the 'trolley problem', we can use that as an example too. In the trolley problem, people have to chose between saving one life or several, but with the condition that they must actively do something to intervene. In one example, it's throwing a switch that sends the trolley down another track that a person is standing on. In another, it's throwing a person over a bridge to slow and stop the trolley from crashing. To me the issue with this problem isn't the excuses people use to justify their actions - which is usually what interests the social scientists; it's that people love an intermeidary to relieve them of responsibility. And the more that intermediary is indifferent (like a machine) or has it's own processes unique to itself (like the switch that throws the train onto another track), the easier it becomes for people to assign responsibility. Basically, if you give people an out, they'll take it. This God thing is that 'out'. Humans should be more acccepting of their crimes against one another and more proud of their charity.The universe does not give a shit about bipedal mammals on planet earth. Only we can provide reasons for being and virtue.