Does religion expose the shortcomings of empathy based moral systems

[henryp]

No.

We all create theories, conscious or unconscious, about what reality is, how it works, and what the underlying picture really is.  Moral systems -- all moral systems -- are layered on top of these theories and interpreted through them.  Just as the meaning of a mathematical theorem depends upon the definition of its terms, and a sentence depends upon the meaning of individual words, so too, moral theories depend upon metaphysical and naturalistic assumptions.  Our morals are built out of these underlying theoretical assumptions.  A world that contains a God who is an embodiment of the good is going to inspire a different set of morals than a world which contains no god.  It is the underlying worldviews which are constraining the nature of the resultant moral systems; not any defect in sourcing morals to empathy.  My empathy is always going to be framed by what I view as the truth about the world, whether that truth is religious or not.  So no, religion doesn't expose any such shortcomings, or, if it does, it exposes them as being shortcomings which all moral systems share, namely a dependence upon the physical and metaphysical views of the holder for the ultimate content of those moral systems.

But the idea of the world that contains God is a product of a world that doesn't contain God.   When I talk about religion, I'm talking about its existence as an example of what humans look like in a godless world.  As an atheist, I look at religion and think "Clearly, empathy isn't some inherent trait we can rely on, as religion happened, and everybody jumped on board that and started murdering each other."  That is what morality in a godless world often looks like.

Our morals are built out of underlying theoretical assumptions.  But our underlying theoretical assumptions are built out of something more base.  Our very nature pushed us to create religion, and for billions to frequently allow this nonsensical idea that satisfied some impulses to override our empathy, and act out in a pretty non-empathetic manner.

I think the flaw, is that the empathy based morality is built on a deck of cards.  It's not the root of our morality.  It's more the midway point.  A conclusion that can be reached if the stars align in a particular manner, and one that can be lost just as quickly should the stars shift, so to speak.  It seems flimsy, no?  Many people think of empathy as the bedrock of their morality, and I think it's clear that's not the case.  And human history, in particular the atrocities committed in the name of religion, which often are passed off as God's problem, when they are actually our problem, show how vulnerable empathy appears to be.