Question

Hello Rabbi,
I’ve read your books, and I agree and tend to understand that good and evil (or any “value,” really) have no meaning if they do not come from God. That is, values can be values only if they are a real “something,” if they truly exist; and since in a natural, materialist world there are no values, only nature, then if values exist they must come from God.
My question is about the proof for God from morality. If we assume that there is such a thing as morality, then we need to ask where it comes from. But why should we assume that there is such a thing? True, it is unpleasant for me to think that good and evil are just social conventions that societies assign meaning to, and that there is no such thing as an act that is truly good or evil, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept that they do exist.
Why not assume, for example, that morality is an evolutionary development of life in a community, in a tribe, where you need to behave well toward others or else the group will not survive (or you’ll be expelled from the group). That even fits with the natural order in which at first we lived as hunter-gatherers and afterward as farmers and in larger societies of more people…
 
I got the impression that you—and I assume this comes from Kant—think that there really is a proof from morality for the existence of God. I’d be happy to understand this better.