[meowface]

I agree with your post; just not the theistic spin on it. I think you got the symptoms right but the cause wrong. Not because I'm anti-theistic, but because I just don't think it's the binding fabric holding society together and which society becomes lost without, even if it may have cynically and pragmatically served such a purpose in more chaotic times of the past.

I believe in social norms for the inherent sake of the norms, rather than due to doctrine. I jettison no norms - only doctrine. Philosophical systems are orthogonal to theological ones. If there exist implicit beneficial norms associated with Christianity, as you say, then I posit their implicitness implies they can be disentangled from theistic ideology and the case can (and perhaps should) be made for them outside of such systems.

[froasty]

The overwhelming majority of the population is not grey tribe. Yes, abstracting fundamental social functions onto universal, non-ideological bases is a Good Idea in theory, but the reality is the majority of people don't learn Esperanto or participate in the Cult of the Supreme Being. There are very real switching costs that often exceed the supposed advantages sought out and the end result often pales in comparison to the original, both in substance and meaning, and fails accordingly.

If you think another attempt would be successful, that you, or another cadre of well-intentioned reformers, can successfully inoculate a society with an abstracted ethical code that mandates returning evil with good, embracing the martyring of oneself for truth, total pacifism, etc. on a purely logical basis, by all means go ahead and give it your best shot. Until then, I'm going to loudly proclaim that Chesterton's fence should be returned to its field.