[dbetteridge]

To answer your first question (apologies should have done so in the first reply)

It isn't worse, objectively the end result is favourable even if the "driver" for it is not (to me).

I accept your counter point that at a macro level society requires a set of checks and reinforcement to bias individuals towards social good behaviour, community enforcement is obviously one and religion can be another.

But I would argue that while the state legal framework is secular it encodes some moral principles that society has agreed on such as murder, theft, harming other physically or otherwise etc.

I also hold no issue with others holding beliefs that shape their morality, I just reject the argument that people without a god cannot have innate morality or a secular morality (a common refrain).

[thin_carapace]

part of me already knew you believed that, not sure why i had to push back. its a valid point that secular society does to a degree encode morality. i believe the morals encoded by religion were formed from trial by fire and are probably more likely to result in continued human existence as opposed to whatever anybody came up with in the last N years, but im sure we shall find out shortly just how well different schools of morality work out on that front. i dont think the common refrain is accurate, however it does point to the truth i alluded to (that a significant non-majority of humans will always behave deleteriously to those around them unless forced to behave differently). i do have an issue with holding beliefs that shape morality, however this is a seperate discussion and bringing up examples like 1 religion accounting for 95% of blasphemy related executions in the past 50 years is just going to get me muted, even with the intentions to demonstrate examples of beliefs shaping morality in ways i dont agree with personally.

[dbetteridge]

I appreciate the measured discussion on what can be a thorny subject.

So extended clarification on the "belief shaping morality" point.

I hold no issue with it, until one person's belief driven morality impinges on another persons own autonomy, you're free to act on your own life and person based on your beliefs but using that belief system as a weapon to cause others harm or reduce their autonomy as a person is where I draw the line.

[thin_carapace]

likewise. the vast majority of the time, broaching this topic is apparently an invitation to be lambasted from all sides, thank you for treating me respectfully. the next positions i see proceeding your point are either (widely) the paradox of tolerance, or (narrowly) analysing specific behavioural patterns and their wider impact on the community. im fairly certain we will agree on the former and could probably discuss at length various instantiations of the latter (eg. partner count is correlated with divorce rate, why should i be happy that everybody is encouraged to fuck everybody in the west when all i want is 1 wife and 1 family, being respectful of autonomy is nice but everybody fucking everybody actively goes against my autonomy so personally i dont feel particularly universally respectful regardless as to whether this belief was spurred religiously or secularly). however discussing various instantiations could go on forever so it is understood if the infinite loop is optimized out, preferably it could be factorized differently than 'paradox of tolerance' but i dont have the formula