Those are good points (and well articulated - I especially like the above one because you introduce fear of one's internal reaction). But I don't think the fear aspect is necessary for those internal reactions. Sure, fear plays a role in how we relate to authority, be it other people or a god. But for ourselves, in our own personal standards, these things can transcend fear-inducement and become a conviction. I don't fear my conscience's reaction to "if I stole this". My conscience is that which tells me not to steal. (stealing is a bad example, IMO, since there are occasions where stealing is justifiable)
Fear is part of a spectrum of emotions that influence one's sense of morality. It doesn't tell the whole story. Not even close. Why do people risk their lives to save others'?
Some religions are like that. Some aren't. I was raised Jewish (of the Reformed variety), and we were often encouraged to question what we were taught. But even in the more dogmatic traditions, each follower must choose at every junction to accept or reject the principles preached to them. Individuals can choose to pass off their moral decisions onto whatever religion they ascribe to, but they're still making an individual choice to do so. I don't know if you can say they're 'virtuous' without some sort of qualification, but I agree that they are as legitimate as any religion-based morality.
I think fear is the background for many things in our psyche. Your point is well taken though, it is not the end-all for human behavior, surely I am aware of that. Obviously there are different circumstances in which people act out of a sense of duty, some personalities just seem to be more compassionate for the fellow man. I find it fascinating that neuroscience research done on monkeys (and later confirmed to be the leading theory in human brains) shows that empathy is an emotion that is actually perceived through mirror neurons, so in essence we learn from a young age to feel what other people feel by observation. Our brains can actually project an accurate model of what another person is experiencing.
Very cool stuff. We can empathize with others' emotions because we are experiencing those same emotions ourselves.
I heard this report on NPR yesterday and thought it would be appropos here. Didn't want to start another thread: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104291534 Here's the first couple of paragraph's: "According to polls, there's a 50-50 chance you have had at least one spiritual experience — an overpowering feeling that you've touched God, or another dimension of reality. So, have you ever wondered whether those encounters actually happened — or whether they were all in your head? Scientists say the answer might be both."
I catch grief in here occasionally for painting with too broad a brush when it comes to religions and religious people. It's often justified. I'm not lamenting all the morality espoused in christian doctrine. I do, however, feel that MadMax, rhester, et. al. are the exception.
Rocket River: I am an agnostic. Do you lump me in with the atheists you consider "arrogant?" Because the only I am sure of is that I'm not sure of anything.
Agree, as an atheist. People at the core want hope and want to cope. I think (going against atheism) if people want to get on their hands and knees and pray to a higher power to help that, they should be allowed to do it. Cant have a bunch of sociopathic asshats out there projecting their hollow lack of being onto people. Thats not right either. Still need a little bit of guilt out there to eat into the collective conscience of society. The point is to cope with life. Choose a way you want to do it. Register it so we all know. Register your darned sexual orientation while you're at it...And you live YOUR life without encroaching too much onto others. It may still sound individualistic but even individuals within religion sometimes interpret things how they see fit. If religions can together get rid of the whole dominate or wipeout the non-believers thing, it can ideally be almost as symbiotic as vegetarians and meat eaters co-existing.
Also, regarding Max and rhester as "the exception..." From what I know of Max, he is as close to an ideal "Christian" as I know. As a Christian though, I'm sure he'd take issue with being called anything but imperfect. In the ways in which he seems to me to be a true Christian, I would absolutely regard him to be the exception. With all the rules Christianity implies (or seems to), I think it is extremely difficult to follow the one of not judging those who don't follow them to the letter. Max seems awfully good at that. Rhester is nearly the same to me, except for his absurd belief that homosexuality can (or, worse, should) be cured.
