Can anyone give me a example of how religous moral is superior to secular morality

[Whateverist]

Christian morality is not based on a system or set of rules. Instead it is based on loyalty to and trust in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Fair enough and no doubt that is a vast improvement over mere rule following. However, wouldn't a relationship with a living person whose respect you desire to be worthy of be as good or better?

[bennyboy]

Still not fully getting your view on the issue. Are you saying that one criteria for superiority of a morality is how strong of an emotive impulse it can generate? With, ofcourse, the added qualification that not all strong emotive impulses are necessarily from morality - as is the case with many religious people?

No, the reverse. I think that someone with a world view that is connected to deep emotions is likely to manifest that world view in actual behaviors, rather than lip service. And I think that the most emotional world views are usual founded in religious ideas.

The most highly moral people I've met have either had deep religious convictions, or a fascination with moral figures from ancient philosophy (like Socrates). But in the latter case, I'd say the world view approaches a religious one.

[genkaus]

Christian morality is not based on a system or set of rules. Instead it is based on loyalty to and trust in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Fair enough and no doubt that is a vast improvement over mere rule following. However, wouldn't a relationship with a living person whose respect you desire to be worthy of be as good or better?

I thought the picture suggested that Chad was being facetious.

---

No, the reverse. I think that someone with a world view that is connected to deep emotions is likely to manifest that world view in actual behaviors, rather than lip service. And I think that the most emotional world views are usual founded in religious ideas.

The most highly moral people I've met have either had deep religious convictions, or a fascination with moral figures from ancient philosophy (like Socrates). But in the latter case, I'd say the world view approaches a religious one.

I see. So, rather than comparing the relative superiority of religious and secular moralities, your argument is that rather than the source it is the depth of emotional connection to that morality that matters.

If that's the case, here's my counter. Its not a question of your worldview being a religious one - or even approaching one. In case of most of humanity, their worldview is unconsciously formed. They do not have explicitly held views regarding the human nature or the nature of morality and absorb the ideas floating about in their community. This results in a fluid and changing worldview - often as a matter of convenience. Now, they do have a deep emotional connection to this worldview - you find that out when this implicit view is explicitly challenged, but as long as it remains implicit, their moral behavior isn't that much affected by it. Even is their behavior contradicts their worldview, they do not feel a great deal of guilt or shame in it because they are not aware of any explicit contradiction. The absence of depth of emotional connection here is incidental.

However, if they are cognitively aware of their worldview - which is often the result of committing to a religion or philosophy - then they would be aware when and where their behavior contradicts their deeply held moral beliefs. Here, it is not just fascination with moral figures from ancient philosophy - you see similar "emotional depth" with people associated with all sorts of philosophies. You have your liberals, anarchists, environmentalists, feminists and so on. All of them display what you'd call "religious dedication to their morality" - but the reason is not that their philosophy is a form of religion, the reason is that they know and understand what they believe in. Which is why they are much more aware of any contradiction to their beliefs that a layman and therefore their moral behavior is much more frequent.

[Whateverist]

Fair enough and no doubt that is a vast improvement over mere rule following. However, wouldn't a relationship with a living person whose respect you desire to be worthy of be as good or better?

I thought the picture suggested that Chad was being facetious.

Oh, I hope you're right. Hadn't thought of that.

[Minimalist]

I doubt it. Xtians are proud of being dogs.

[bennyboy]

However, if they are cognitively aware of their worldview - which is often the result of committing to a religion or philosophy - then they would be aware when and where their behavior contradicts their deeply held moral beliefs. Here, it is not just fascination with moral figures from ancient philosophy - you see similar "emotional depth" with people associated with all sorts of philosophies. You have your liberals, anarchists, environmentalists, feminists and so on. All of them display what you'd call "religious dedication to their morality" - but the reason is not that their philosophy is a form of religion, the reason is that they know and understand what they believe in. Which is why they are much more aware of any contradiction to their beliefs that a layman and therefore their moral behavior is much more frequent.

Okay, this is right. I accept the argument that members of those groups can potentially have the same very high level of emotional volition that leads either to high moralism or to extremism. I'd say the most emotional among each group share a certain quality-- that their ideology is expanded in importance beyand what is normal (or possily even sane) for others. That that extreme quality of morality, the willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good, is not exclusively religious.

But I'd also say two more things:
-The level of delusion probably associated with a religion isn't a detriment to moral action.
-The level of delusion of other kinds of idealists approaches religious zeal, and is as dangerous (or just annoying) for similar reasons. In a sense, you could say that Wymyn, or liberty, or animal rights, or whatever, serve as a symbolic replacement for a God: they are an unassailable truth which must be conformed to no matter what other damage this might cause.

[Lemonvariable72]

Christian morality is not based on a system or set of rules. Instead it is based on loyalty to and trust in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Wonna sell me your daughter for 50 shekels then?

[Whateverist]

Christian morality is not based on a system or set of rules. Instead it is based on loyalty to and trust in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Wonna sell me your daughter for 50 shekels then?

Chad may be a kind of Christian but he isn't a total literalist/fundamentalist and he hasn't stopped thinking. He wouldn't be subject to most of this sort of twaddle.

[genkaus]

Okay, this is right. I accept the argument that members of those groups can potentially have the same very high level of emotional volition that leads either to high moralism or to extremism. I'd say the most emotional among each group share a certain quality-- that their ideology is expanded in importance beyand what is normal (or possily even sane) for others. That that extreme quality of morality, the willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good, is not exclusively religious.

You are missing my point. My argument was based on the position "correlation does not imply causation". You have the following facts:
A. People explicitly associated with a particular belief system or ideology display a deep emotional connection to the ideology.
B. People explicitly associated with a particular belief system or ideology often behave in ways consistent with that ideology.
From these facts, you've concluded that A causes B. And that, I believe, is an invalid conclusion.

Here's my explanation for these facts. People can accept a particular morality at two different levels - morality accepted at an abstract level and morality to live by. Giving a personal example - if you were to ask my extended family if there is anything wrong with inter-caste or inter-faith or inter-racial marriage, they'd respond that there isn't. But if I do bring a someone from a different caste/faith/race to marry, they'd object - most vehemently. At an abstract level, they accept one morality but they live by another.

Now, I'm arguing that everybody has that "deep emotional connection" to the morality they live by. If that morality is challenged, you would end up seeing the same level of emotional response from normal people that you see from extremists. That is the kind of response seen in riots and lynch mobs - the people there are your "normal" ones who are moved to that emotional response when their deeply held moral convictions are directly and incontrovertibly challenged. Unfortunately, for most of these people, the morality they live by is not informed by the study of theology or philosophy, it is absorbed culturally. They subconsciously absorb these moral tenets from the way they grow up or the way those around them act and most of the time, they are not cognitively aware of the morality they live by. If you ask them about the principles governing their actions, they'd pay lip-service to the morality they conceptually accept - not explain the morality they actually follow. As a result of this cognitive dissonance, they are not always aware of it when a particular action (theirs or someone else's) is contradictory to the morality they live by. This absence of awareness results in both absence of frequent expression of emotional connection and absence of consistent moral behavior. They would display emotional behavior with respect to their morality - but the morality they conceptually accept is not the one they have the emotional connection to and the morality they actually accept is not the one they are explicitly aware of. Similarly, their actions, which are informed by the morality they actually accept would be often inconsistent with the morality they claim to accept.

This dissonance is lesser in the people explicitly associated with a belief system or ideology. For them, in most cases, the morality they conceptually accept is the morality they live by. Which is why their actions are consistently more moral. Which is why they are more aware of it when their or others' actions contradict their actually accepted morality - leading to the appearance of a deeper emotional bond. Contrary to what you said, their ideology has not expanded to a level of importance beyond what is normal - it is just better integrated with principles governing their life. Judging this greater integration as insane would be an invalid conclusion. A greater coherency of beliefs (conscious and subconscious) is, in fact, a sign of rationality. Further, this extreme quality of morality would result in greater willingness to self-sacrifice only if self-sacrificial behavior is a part of their accepted (and actual) moral belief system. While that is a feature of many prevalent moralities, it isn't universal.

In conclusion,
A. Deep emotional connection to moral beliefs is not what leads to higher level of moralism - they're both the consequence of conceptually accepting and living by the same morality.
B. They are not expanding the importance of their ideology beyond the sane levels - they are, in fact, integrating it better with the principles they're going to live by. And that is something you'd expect from a rational person.

But I'd also say two more things:
-The level of delusion probably associated with a religion isn't a detriment to moral action.
-The level of delusion of other kinds of idealists approaches religious zeal, and is as dangerous (or just annoying) for similar reasons. In a sense, you could say that Wymyn, or liberty, or animal rights, or whatever, serve as a symbolic replacement for a God: they are an unassailable truth which must be conformed to no matter what other damage this might cause.

I disagree. Just because someone subscribes to a belief system with the same degree of zeal associated with religious beliefs does not mean their beliefs are a delusion. Neither is your argument that only delusional idealism can approach religious zeal correct. Just because a person strongly holds to an ideology and integrates it with various aspects of his life does not mean that that ideology serves as a symbolic replacement for god.

[MindForgedManacle]

Christian morality is not based on a system or set of rules. Instead it is based on loyalty to and trust in the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Er, Hebrew Bible? Jesus' instructions to follow the Commandments, especially loving thy neighbor and God?