| I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and making a coherent and thoughtful reply. > to the point where we react viscerally to even the suggestion that someone who doesn't share tribal value X can still be a good person. I'm not arguing that anyone is a good person. The New Testament teaches that there are exactly zero good people apart from Jesus. It's not that I or other religious people are 'good'. However, Abrahamic faiths have enough in common that a shared government where the religious privileges of each group are protected is theoretically possible. I don't see that as a possibility with atheists, agnostics, or polytheistic. Most first world nations are operating under the idea that we can all get along but the reality is that we cannot because our worldviews are diametrically opposed in several areas. > What defines good is our shared picture of empathy, consent, maximizing joy, minimizing suffering, reciprocity, etc. Basic golden rule stuff that's built into most of us and within reach of all of us. First, I do not agree that this is built into most of us. That's one of the core tenets of Christianity (Orthodox Judaism as well...but I'm not as well versed there) and I think this is obvious. It seems you and I disagree here, but I think the evidence, especially looking back at various civilizations proves that mankind does not generally follow 'the golden rule'. Second, most of the values you've listed are not our shared values but are simple utilitarianism. I certainly do not regard 'consent' as a shared value. Consent is the framework that replaced the marital framework after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Certainly, the idea of consent existed before that, but using it as a legal framework is a relatively modern development. I also don't place value of minimizing suffering. People occasionally need to suffer. Using suffering reduction as a framework for moral action would lead to the destruction of the rich so that their wealth can be liquidated and redistributed in the form of food and housing. This is a 'for the greater good' type of thinking, and while I can see why someone might choose to subscribe to such an ideal, it certainly isn't part of how I define morality or good. In summary: Abrahamic faiths have more in common with each other, despite their disagreements than they do with any primarily materialist position including atheism and utilitarianism. |