"Not at all. As far as memory serves, contemporary moral philosophers will usually use non-religious reasoning in their arguments."

That has nothing to do with my argument. Anyone - even a 'contemporary moral philosopher' - can construct an internally consistent argument. Just as theologians can and do construct arguments that are logically sound and consistent, as long as one accepts the underlying premises. But neither can be verified empirically.

I do believe there is a biological basis to conscience, compassion, empathy, etc. There are biological bases and evolutionary advantages to aggressive behavior as well. There may well be an evolutionary advantage to religious faith, for that matter. But specific points of religious faith and matters of conscience remain empirically unverifiable.

So where does truth reside?