More on M and M

I have a great deal of respect for people who focus their spiritual energies on the physical and emotional needs of others and who strive to make the world a better place for all. Yet, I am firmly convinced of two things: 1] Religion -- that is to say, a belief in deity -- is not a requirement for living a moral life; and 2] The negative consequences of belief are at least as great as its positive ones.

People with no religious beliefs are capable of living irreproachable lives of personal piety or public service and religion sometimes inspires the most reprehensible behavior in individuals or groups. One set of beliefs doesn’t follow logically from or exclude the other. Morality and metaphysics inhabit separate spheres of the human brain and can comfortably reside in the same head with no ill effects.

For me it’s all a question of natural temperament and perhaps early upbringing and childhood role models. For every person whose moral character is improved or strengthened by their association with a religion, a second exists whose natural tendencies toward kindness and tolerance are warped and corrupted by sectarian doctrine.

Wickedness should be defined by behavior, not by metaphysical belief. A person’s true nature can be assessed by the assumptions upon which they habitually act, not upon the doctrines they openly espouse. It isn't that talk is cheap, merely that it is an insufficient gage of human conduct and therefor should not be afforded a prime role in the formation of public policy.

The Ten Commandments and all such stories of divine law-giving are a myth, albeit a useful and well-intentioned myth. Religion is a form of social control, but it is an imperfect policeman. The  rules for both personal and private conduct should be based upon a careful consideration of human interactions and their effect upon the world and not upon divine edict.