When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Angrboda]

No, it does not.  The notion of fairness creates an imperative to treat identical members consistently.  That's a question of identity, not of inherent value.  Do we have reason to believe that all humans share the identity of human independent of ideas that we should?  Yes, we do.  So it's not circular.  

It absolutely is circular because human beings are not naturally equal. There are all kinds of metrics by which people vary not the least of which are sex, intelligence, age, health, stature, and attractiveness. Any one or more of those natural inequalities could (and has been) used to deny the dignity due to every human being. And if you think that is obvious then you are at odds with the overwhelming judgment of cultures over history for thousands of years. I would suggest that the only reason it is 'obvious' is because Judeo-Christian values, developed over 2000 years, are so embedded in Western culture that even secular people in those societies take them for granted.

As a social species, we have evolved mechanisms for identifying those like us. We identify the commonalities and ignore the differences because we evolved to do so. When is the last time you experienced sexual attraction for a duck? Even when our recognition of similarity was corrupted by cultural mechanisms, humans still bred inter-racially, showing that they recognized the identity of species biologically, even if culture might have told them something different. And this idea that we get these ideas from Judeo-Christianity has been debunked so many times it's not funny. I know I've personally debunked it with you in the past, so you have no excuse. We owe as much of our cultural heritage to the Greeks and others. Even if we take our cue from Christianity, that is nothing but an accidental fact, for people as far afield as China ruled amongst themselves on a similar basis, so the idea that it is specific to your culture, and not something that transcends culture is just crap.

We look at the commonalities when positing identity, not differences. Thus height and intelligence don't form a basis of identification because they vary. I never said it was 'obvious' that humans are a part of a common species. Any evolved mechanism can be mediated by learned behaviors. Even when not so mediated, epistemological concerns remain. And now we're looking at a further evolution when we sympathize with the suffering that a cow or chicken experiences when mistreated in commercial farming operations. Did we learn that from Judeo-Christianity as well? No, as a matter of fact, Judeo-Christianity teaches the exact opposite. And I need not remind you that Judeo-Christianity acknowledged and accepted the dehumanization of slaves. Against no one else were you allowed to beat a person without consequences so long as they didn't die. That indignity was reserved for slaves. The point is that we recognize certain things as fundamental and a relevant basis toward equal treatment of differing particulars. We can reason to that conclusion on the basis of evolved mechanisms like empathy and patterning, as well as practical means like social and sexual egagement. Thus we might include chickens and cows, but we wouldn't exclude someone for being different in height.

So, no, it isn't circular.

And I notice you ignored my question about the disanalogy between beliefs like morals, numbers, and the existence of human equality and that of the existence of God. That's still valid in lieu of an objection.