Here is a paper you might find interesting from a brilliant philosopher at the University of Oxford I admire (he even has great arguments for agnosticism and considers a cosmic designer as one of many possible explanations for the apparent fine tuning of the universe though he certainly isn't Christian). As far as credentials, he has a "Ph.D in economics from the London School of economics, a B.A. in philosophy, mathematics, mathematical logic, and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg and master's degrees in philosophy and physics, and computational neuroscience from Stockholm University and King's College London, respectively. During his time at Stockholm University, he researched the relationship between language and reality by studying the analytic philosopher W.V. Quine.[13] In 2000, he was awarded a PhD in philosophy from the London School of Economics. He held a teaching position at Yale University (2000–2002), and he was a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford (2002–2005)." He has also been listed as one of Foreign Policy's Top 100 world thinkers. In other words, he's a polymath, which is rare these days.
Basically he argues that if the universe is infinite, it creates major problems for many modern ethical theories because any finite affect we can have means nothing in the context of infinite good or bad in an infinite universe, resulting in a form of paralysis. Ethics are hard, so it's no surprise really, that they have been bound to divine command historically, even if naturalism is true.

I do agree with a lot of what you have said here. My main beef with talking with atheists about morality is that, without justification, they determine that one ought not hold prosocial behavior as a means to an end instead of an end in and of itself.

If naturalism is true, one can determine the following statement to be the founding principle of their moral framework: ¨My main goal is to improve my own personal well being (however this may be defined) and I will act in a way that obtains this objective¨. Yes, because we live in societies, most of the time this person will have to act in a prosocial manner since this will accomplish their goal, but this is not always the case. It is certainly less the case in less developed societies or at different times in the past.

And yet, this is a conclusion that is very hard for naturalists to accept.

Luc, if God is part of nature, then He is not God. God is the creator of nature, and stands outside of it. To say otherwise is to use a different definition of "God" than the Catholic definition (which is what is under discussion here).

Science examines propositions which can be proven or disproven; religion examines propositions which can neither be proven nor disproven. While certain scientific propositions may support religious ones and vice versa, to say that one can disprove the other is to mistake the proper domains of science and religion. Religion has nothing at all to say about how the sun works; science has nothing to say about the reason that the sun was created in the first place.

It is actually a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic faith that one can come to a knowledge of the existence of God by examination of the natural universe. Yes, it's THAT important to us.

We're beginning to connect William.
It would be difficult for the Vatican to monitor me. It presumes I have some knowledge of what Christian teaching means. The rest is subsidiarity - not a dictatorship.

Yes. Pope Francis is forcing many to think more deeply and to examine their own hearts. After all, Catholic belief says we answer for our own sins -not the sins of others - unless we have caused them to sin.
As regards Total Reality, striving to grasp it (or a tiny part of it) can be beneficial to the mind. Isn't that what science achieves? To a Catholic (as you can see from such articles as Fr Spitzer's) such advances reveal the hitherto unknown wonders of Creation. To an atheist such ideas are superfluous.

But Total Reality includes our departure from this one through death. Atheism is not very satisfying on this, for it essentially says,"When you're dead - that's it."
This includes not only the atheist but all his loved ones.
That is what is held out to people. Continuance as temporarily disassociated atoms or molecules fails to inspire most.

It is possible to do science at the same time as being assured that, we are not so much grasping Total Reality, as resting in its embrace. When one lacks such a faith there is always a striving to grasp more. Only by doing so can the atheist feel secure. But, Total Reality is so big, endless busyness must result - or exhaustion.

Total Reality is quite difficult to grasp William. You may have noticed this. Because of our very own nature it appears to come at random at us. We are rather like the people in the Cave equipped only with flashlight with narrow beams. First we pick out this - and then that.

I agree, the human mind will never come close to grasping total reality, and as human knowledge increases, reality seems to get bigger with each passing day (new technologies, new branches of science, philosophy, economics, art). We all end up being biased, and confirmation bias (which you alluding to) can be very powerful. Our own minds are all we have to work with to figure things out, and we all do the best we can. Most of the time, we just trust our parents and accept their belief system without much thought, this provides for cultural continuity but can also be problematic when cultures "collide", so to speak. Diem's tribal paranoia (only trusting Catholics) is very human, but it would have been nice if the Vatican had said something to him, that would have gone a long way. Perhaps Pope Francis would have, he seems more than willing to criticize his own organization, which is quite positive in my view. Self criticism is the most important, and most difficult of all types of criticism.

Ehrman may be wrong.

Multiple, independently-authored accounts? Josephus and Tacitus are just about all there is for non-Biblical sources and there is a good argument that the areas mentioning Jesus were interpolations.
And your familiar with the connections? Both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, with Matthew copying up to 65% and Luke 40%. And how could you determine they are independent when the authors are unknown?