Originally Posted by moth
This leads me to ask whether or not Bob has seriously considered the anthropocentric fallacy? We value certain moral directions because specific social structures helped us survive, so of course to us it seems like our history is teleological.
Exactly! I haven't heard Bob address this criticism (but I'm only on page 230).
Another way to put it is that Bob's argument for the existence of God (which admittedly he doesn't really endorse) seems circular. Bob sees that the vast course of social evolution has led to ever improving formulations of morality, but only because his notion of "improvement" is itself the product of that evolution. If genocide and rapine had turned out to be effective strategies then Satanists could see their faith affirmed.